President Trump held a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the sidelines of the 2019 NATO Summit in the U.K. Against the backdrop of President Trump favoring increased tariffs against the EU to initiate a new trade deal based on reciprocity; and against the intransigence of Chancellor Merkel refusing to live up to the NATO Wales Accord and pay two percent of GDP for defense; there is some diplomatic tension.
We can sense a more determined tone from President Trumy as both he and Chancellor Merkel took questions from media. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. We had a very successful NATO meeting. I think it was one of the most successful. We’re just discussing that the best, certainly, that I’ve been — I’ve been to three of them now, and this was really something very special. There’s great spirit. A lot of people are putting up a lot of money. We have $130 billion more. And within three years, we’ll have $400 billion more put up by other countries. So that’s really something. And it was a great meeting.
We’re going to have, right now, a bilat with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. We have many things to discuss, including trade. We’re doing a lot of trade, and we have been doing a lot of trade. And we will have a successful meeting, I’m sure.
I just want to thank you very much. We had some good talks already. Thank you very much, Angela. Thank you.
CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As interpreted.) Well, yes, I would agree that we had a very successful meeting indeed on this occasion, the 70th anniversary of NATO. We discussed a number of strategies that are very important to secure the future of this Alliance. And it was a very constructive debate that we had, and this is why I’m also very satisfied with the meeting.
And now we shall talk about bilateral issues.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s right. Okay? Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
Q Could we talk — can we ask you about the Erdoğan meeting, sir?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah.
Q Did you discuss with —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We had a meeting with —
Q Did you discuss with him the NATO commitment that they protect —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I discussed with him everything. We discussed a lot. We had a meeting, unscheduled. But we’ve already put out a notice. It was a very good meeting, I think. We discussed Syria. We discussed the Kurds. We discussed numerous things. And we’re getting along very well.
The border, and the safe zone, is working out very well. I thought it would. And I give a lot of credit to Turkey for that. The ceasefire is holding very much so, and I think people are surprised. And maybe, someday, they’ll give me credit, but probably not. But that worked out well. They’ve been trying to do this for a hundred years. That border is a mess for a long time.
We pulled our soldiers out; we took over the oil. We have soldiers where the oil is. And that’s the way I like it. And they can police their own border, and that’s what they’re doing. They can use other countries if they want. If they want to spend the time and energy, they can do. But this is a border that’s been under siege for many, many decades, and it was time for us to leave, and we left. And it’s been holding very nicely. So we’re very happy. We talked about that.
Q And are they committed to protecting the NATO commitment to protect the Baltics and Poland?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, yeah, they’ve been very good. I think that, frankly, a lot of people pay great respect to Turkey for the work that they’ve done. And we had a number of mentions where they were mentioned specifically. No, they’ve been doing a good job, and they’ve been doing a good job also on the border and the safe zone. And they have held — I mean, obviously there were some skirmishes. That’s been around for a long time. But they’ve been — the ceasefire has held very, very well.
Q Mr. President, can you explain why your personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, would need to talk to the budget office?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I really don’t know. You’d have to ask him. Sounds like something that’s not so complicated, frankly. But you’d have to ask him. No big deal.
Q Mr. President, Germany has welcomed six more countries into INSTEX, making it nine countries now that are circumventing U.S. sanctions against Iran. Have you talked about that with the Chancellor and —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, but we will. I haven’t talked —
Q Yeah. What would you say to her?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m not going to say what I’m going to say, but we will be talking about it. We’ll be talking about a number of things. We’ll have a good meeting. Okay?
Q Mr. President, will you put sanctions on Nord Stream II? Will the U.S. put the sanctions on?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it again.
Q Will the U.S. put sanctions on Nord Stream II?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we haven’t really determined that yet. I do think it’s a problem, but it’s a problem that Germany is going to have to work out for themselves. And maybe for Germany it won’t be a problem. I hope it’s not, actually. But we’ll be talking about that, Nord Stream.
Q And, Mr. President, what did you respond to President Putin’s offer on a moratorium for medium-range missile systems, which he made in the end of October? President —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re talking to Russia about many things, including a cessation on nuclear and nuclear creation. It’s, in my opinion, the biggest problem the world has today. I think it’s bigger than any other problem the world has today. And we’re working very hard on it. And he wants to see something happen and so do I, and so does China.
Q Mr. President, do you talk about trade issues with Europe, as well? Car sanctions —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re going to be talking about everything, yeah. Trade is very important. Germany is a very big trading partner, but it’s been really the European Union. And we are — we’ve been discussing it for quite a while. It’s been a little tough for the United States. We’ve had a very bad imbalance for many, many years — for decades, actually. And we’re discussing that right now. So I think we’ll come — I think we’re going to come — I think we’ll come to a satisfactory conclusion.
CHANCELLOR MERKEL: One word.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.
CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As interpreted.) I think that the fact that there is a new commission in place and also in the leadership of a new President of the European Commission, that now we have a very good basis to resume our trade talks as well.
[INSERT: Germany knows the poop is about to hit the fan… /SD]
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Meetings have been set up and we’ll talk. And I believe that it will work out very well for everybody. And I think it should. We have some very tough barriers to — you know, they have — they’ve created barriers, as Angela knows very well, and making it very hard for the United States, really, to openly trade. And that can’t be done.
And so we’re going to be talking about that and other things. I think we will solve it. We do a lot of business, but they do much more business than us. And we’re going to make — we’re going to change it up. I’ve been saying this for the last six months, for the last year. And we’ve made progress, but we will make a lot of progress. And we just want fairness. We have to have fairness in trade not only with the EU, but with many other countries.
We’re talking to China, as you know. Those discussions are going very well, and we’ll see what happens. But we’re talking to China. We’re talking to others. We made a deal with South Korea. We made a deal with Japan. The Japan deal is a partial deal. It’s — the rest will come next year. But we’ve made already many deals.
We’re looking — the big is the USMCA with Canada, Mexico. And Nancy Pelosi has to get that approved. She has to put it out for a vote. She doesn’t have to talk to anybody. She doesn’t have to talk to any of her Democrats because they’ll approve it, and their constituents want it approved very badly. So that’s where we are.
We have — we’ve made a lot of deals. And this is a deal, I think, that’s going to be — the EU is actually one of the more difficult deals we have because it’s gone on for a long time unchecked. But it’ll get there, I’m sure.
Q Did you see the video of Prime Minister Trudeau talking about you last night?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, he’s two-faced.
Q Do you think that Germany is too naïve concerning —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And, honestly, with Trudeau, he’s a nice guy. I find him to be a very nice guy. But, you know, the truth is that I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying 2 percent. And I guess he’s not very happy about it. I mean, you were there. A couple of you were there. And he’s not paying 2 percent, and he should be paying 2 percent. It’s Canada. They have money. And they should be paying 2 percent. So I called him out on that, and I’m sure he wasn’t happy about it, but that’s the way it is.
Look, I’m representing the U.S., and he should be paying more than he’s paying, and he understands that. So I can imagine — I can imagine he’s not that happy, but that’s the way it is.
Q Mr. President, where are you in terms of persuading other allies, in terms of allowing China to build 5G networks?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I’m not working very hard on that. But I do think it’s a security risk. It’s a security danger. And I spoke to Italy, and they look like they’re not going to go forward with that. We spoke to other countries. They’re not going to go forward. Everybody I’ve spoken to is not going forward. But how many countries can I speak to? Am I going to call up and speak to the whole world? It is a security risk, in my opinion, in our opinion. We’re building it and we’ve started. But we’re not using Huawei.
Q Will you tax Germany for not paying enough in terms of defense spending?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, Germany is a little bit under the limit, I will say that. But we’ll talk about that now. Okay?
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. I think what we’ll do is, just for purposes of this: We’ll be having a meeting with the 2 percent people, and we’re having another meeting with Denmark, and then we’ll probably go directly back to Washington.
Q Will you address Greenland during that Den- —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Because I can’t imagine — I can’t imagine — will we discuss Greenland? What do you think? (Inaudible). (Laughs.) Huh?
Q Do you still want to buy Greenland?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s a very — that’s a good — she must be in the real estate business. (Laughter.) That’s a very good question.
[INSERT: Note the Denmark bilat is “private”… /SD]
So, we’ll go directly back. I think we’ve done plenty of press conferences. Unless you’re demanding a press conference, we’ll do one, but I think we’ve answered plenty of questions.
And, again, let me just finish by saying we’ve had a tremendous two days. I think NATO is stronger than it’s ever been. A lot more money is being produced by a lot of countries, and they’re enthusiastic about it. And within three years, you’re going to be talking about four — committed to $400 billion more, and not by the United States; by other countries.
So, it’s been very successful today, and there’s great spirit. Okay? Thank you very much, everybody.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and not a supporter of President Trump, warned House lawmakers today against impeaching a President without merit. Mr. Turley said that to impeach Trump based on the current evidence “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”
[Opening Remarks Below]
.
[Transcript] Chairman Nadler, ranking member Collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.
It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most solemn and important constitutional functions bestowed on this House by the Framers of our Constitution: the impeachment of the President of the United States.
Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler, and other members of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the history and meaning of the constitutional impeachment standard as part of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. Some elements are strikingly similar.
The intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. It was an atmosphere that the Framers anticipated. Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic.
The stifling intolerance for opposing views is the same. As was the case two decades ago, it is a perilous environment for a legal scholar who wants to explore the technical and arcane issues normally involved in an academic examination of a legal standard ratified 234 years ago. In truth, the Clinton impeachment hearing proved to be an exception to the tenor of the overall public debate. The testimony from witnesses, ranging from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Laurence Tribe to Cass Sunstein, contained divergent views and disciplines. Yet the hearing remained respectful and substantive as we all grappled with this difficult matter.
I appear today in the hope that we can achieve that same objective of civil and meaningful discourse despite our goodfaith differences on the impeachment standard and its application to the conduct of President Donald J. Trump. I have spent decades writing about impeachment and presidential powers as an academic and as a legal commentator. My academic work reflects the bias of a Madisonian scholar. I tend to favor Congress in disputes with the Executive Branch and I have been critical of the sweeping claims of presidential power and privileges made by modern Administrations. My prior testimony mirrors my criticism of the expansion of executive powers and privileges.
In truth, I have not held much fondness for any president in my lifetime. Indeed, the last president whose executive philosophy I consistently admired was James Madison. In addition to my academic work, I am a practicing criminal defense lawyer.
Among my past cases, I represented the United States House of Representatives as lead counsel challenging payments made under the Affordable Care Act without congressional authorization. I also served as the last lead defense counsel in an impeachment trial in the Senate. With my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz, I argued the case on behalf of federal judge Thomas Porteous. (My opposing lead counsel for the House managers was Adam Schiff).
In addition to my testimony with other constitutional scholars at the Clinton impeachment hearings, I also represented former Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation over privilege disputes triggered by the investigation of Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I also served as lead counsel in a bill of attainder case, the sister of impeachment that will be discussed below.
I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.
To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment.
President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.
If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.
Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation.
Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.
The physics are simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy has not offered such a foundation and would easily collapse in a Senate trial.
Before I address these questions, I would like to make one last cautionary observation regarding the current political atmosphere. In his poem “The Happy Warrior,” William Wordsworth paid homage to Lord Horatio Nelson, a famous admiral and hero of the Napoleonic Wars. Wordsworth began by asking “Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he what every man in arms should wish to be?” The poem captured the deep public sentiment felt by Nelson’s passing and one reader sent Wordsworth a gushing letter proclaiming his love for the poem. Surprisingly, Wordsworth sent back an admonishing response. He told the reader “you are mistaken; your judgment is affected by your moral approval of the lines.” Wordsworth’s point was that it was not his poem that the reader loved, but its subject.
My point is only this: it is easy to fall in love with lines that appeal to one’s moral approval. In impeachments, one’s feeling about the subject can distort one’s judgment on the true meaning or quality of an argument. We have too many happy warriors in this impeachment on both sides. What we need are more objective noncombatants, members willing to set aside political passion in favor of constitutional circumspection.
Despite our differences of opinion, I believe that this esteemed panel can offer a foundation for such reasoned and civil discourse. If we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion. It is to that end that my testimony is offered today.
Divining the intent of the Framers often borders on necromancy, with about the same level of reliability. Fortunately, there are some questions that were answered directly by the Framers during the Constitutional and Ratification Conventions. Any proper constitutional interpretation begins with the text of the Constitution. Indeed, such interpretations ideally end with the text when there is clarity as to a constitutional standard or procedure. Five provisions are material to impeachment cases, and therefore structure our analysis:
Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. U.S. Const. art. I, cl. 8.
Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 6.
Article I, Section 3: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to the Law. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 7.
Article II, Section 2: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. U.S. Const., art. II, 2, cl. 1.
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, 4.
For the purposes of this hearing, it is Article II, Section 4 that is the focus of our attention and, specifically, the meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
It is telling that the actual constitutional standard is contained in Article II (defining executive powers and obligations) rather than Article I (defining legislative powers and obligations). The location of that standard in Article II serves as a critical check on service as a president, qualifying the considerable powers bestowed upon the Chief Executive with the express limitations of that office.
It is in this sense an executive, not legislative, standard set by the Framers. For presidents, it is essential that this condition be clear and consistent so that they are not subject to the whim of shifting majorities in Congress. That was a stated concern of the Framers and led to the adoption of the current standard and, equally probative, the express rejection of other standards. (continue reading via pdf)
President Trump was asked Wednesday to remark on disparaging comments made about him by Justin from Canada during the diplomatic reception at No. 10 Downing Street on Tuesday evening.
President Trump responded: “Well, he’s two-faced;… and honestly he’s a nice guy, I find him to be a very nice guy, but the truth is I called him out on the fact that he’s not paying two percent and I guess he was not very happy about it.”
At 10:00am ET the House Judiciary Committee will hold an “impeachment groundwork” hearing with a panel of left-wing resistance academics scheduled to help democrats justify their urgent partisan efforts to remove President Trump from office.
HJC Chairman Jerry Nadler will be aided by contracted Lawfare attorney Norm Eisen for the effort. Chairman Nadler promised his peers he will be very aggressive toward any opposition questioning that seeks to undermine the predetermined enterprise. The academic panel is scheduled to begin testifying to Mr. Eisen at 10:00am ET
President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump attend day two of the 70th Anniversary NATO Summit in London, England. The U.K. is five hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Time.
Day two includes: a general session for all members of the NATO alliance; a luncheon by President Trump to thank those NATO members fulfilling their two-percent pledge to their own security; bilat meetings with Angela Merkel, Mette Frederiksen and Giuseppe Conte; a press conference, and then departure.
♦3:25am ET / 8:25am Local – THE PRESIDENT departs Winfield House Landing Zone en route to the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦3:40am ET / 8:40am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦3:50am ET / 8:50am Local – THE PRESIDENT departs the Grove Landing Zone en route to The Grove, London, UK
♦3:55am ET / 8:55am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at The Grove, London, UK
♦4:20am ET / 9:20am Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in an Official Welcome with the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Jens Stoltenberg, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Boris Johnson, London, UK
♦5:00am ET / 10:00am Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization Plenary Session, London, UK
♦7:30am ET / 12:30pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral meeting with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Angela Merkel, London, UK
♦8:15am ET / 1:15pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a working lunch with the NATO two-percent club, London, UK
♦9:00am ET / 2:00pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral pull-aside with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, London, UK
♦9:45am ET / 2:45pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral pull-aside with the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic, Giuseppe Conte, London, UK
♦10:30am ET / 3:30pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a press conference, London, UK
~ NATO Summit Concludes ~
♦11:20am ET / 4:20pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart The Grove en route to the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦11:25am ET / 4:25pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at the Grove Landing Zone, London, UK
♦11:35am ET / 4:35pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart the Grove Landing Zone en route to London Stansted, London, UK
♦11:55am ET / 4:55pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at London Stansted Airport, London, UK
♦12:05pm ET / 5:05pm Local – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart London, UK, en route to Washington, D.C., London, UK
♦8:20pm ET – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Joint Base Andrews, Joint Base Andrews
♦8:30pm ET – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Joint Base Andrews en route to the White House, Joint Base Andrews
♦8:40pm ET – THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive at the White House, South Lawn, Washington DC
The Democrat Progressives led by Pelosi and her donners have not got the end game of their battle with Trump in their sights. Their Joker Adam Schiff has now produced a 300 page document, The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report that has been sent to the House Judiciary committee to start the process of impeaching Trump. There is no chance that Nadler will not turn that Schiff report in to articles of impeachment that will be voted on with around 224 votes +/- of support and sent to the Senate before the end of the year.
What is in the first paragraph, above, is of no surprise to most of those following this process. However, the prevailing view that the Senate will not find Trump guilty on all counts is false. I say this will some degree of certainty as I have been following what is going on politically since the end of the Bush administration. In particular in 2010 when the Tea party movement started and was immediately attacked by the progressive wings of both parties it became obvious that something was not right.
Over the next 6 years there appeared to be coordination between the two parties to stop any populist movement in the country. When Trump decided to run for president, both political parties made an effort to prevent him from winning the 2016 election. But it was a halfhearted movement as they saw Hillary wining was a sure thing. This view was based on two factors number one she was needed to completed the Obama goal of neutering the US and number two all the power brokers and the media were for her so how could she loose she was a Clinton?
She may have been a Clinton but she was not Bill and worse she was so full of herself that she wouldn’t even listen to his advice; which was very sound. The result was that she probably ran the most inept campaign for president ever; and thereby lost. With that all hell broke loose and it’s not over.
Now which switch gears and look at the Senate and the Republicans? The Republicans also have Progressives and their leader is Mitch McConnell. Now republican progressives are somewhat different then the Democrat progressives but the differences are not large. For example the McConnell faction is for open borders, Climate Change and government run Health Care. McConnell engineered the McCain vote that blocked the repeal of Obama Care and was all for the Immigration reform that was eventual stopped in 2014 with the defeat of Republican Eric Cantor in the House, by the Tea Party.
McConnell was also instrumental in getting Progressive Republicans into the Senate by running anti Tea Party ads and/or supping the Democrat candidate i.e. Doug Jones in Alabama. Then we have Mitt Romney in Utah and now Kelly Loeffler in Georgia just to site a few examples. Some of the rest are: John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Joni Ernst, Todd Young, John Thune, Mike Lee, Cory Gardner, Mike Crapo, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, Susan Collins, Jerry Moran, Rob Portman, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Roger Wicker, Lisa Murkowski. And the biggest snake of them all Lindsey Graham.
McConnell has more than enough Trump haters in is collation such that he could convict Trump if the Senate gets the Articles of Impeachment. I suspect that McConnell with try to blackmail Trump to either back off on the border issue and the trade issues which the Republican money suppliers to not want. How open, in the public, this gets is a question and I hope Trump tells McConnell to stuff it.
For purposes of clarity the previously mentioned Republicans and most of the Democrats are in league with the bureaucrats and together with the State Department, the CIA the DNI the FBI and the NSA make up the Deep State.
The enemies of the people are legion but we have the numbers and so it should be made very clear in the next few weeks that if anything is done to remove Trump or make Trumps second term ineffective, by a close impeachment vote in the Senate, that in November of 2020 We will vote for Trump but no other Republican. I will vote Libertarian and if they impeach Trump he should run as a libertarian.
That would split the power for if we put in the House and Senate enough people that no one at a majority then we would have real power.
After a series of bilateral discussions and NATO meetings President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump attended two diplomatic receptions in honor of the 70th anniversary of the NATO alliance.
President Trump and First Lady Melania arrive at Buckingham Palace for a reception hosted by Queen Elizabeth II:
More background video from Buckingham Palace reception:
.
After leaving Buckingham Palace the President and First Lady attended a second diplomatic reception at No. 10 Downing Street hosted by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The republican leadership from the U.S. House of Representatives held a press conference today as a rebuttal to the democrat impeachment inquiry report. House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins joined GOP leadership to discuss the significant issues with the impeachment process. WATCH:
.
Everything We The People ever needed to know about media bias is completely visible at the end of the press conference. Few DC media attended. Apparently the republican rebuttal message is antithetical to the DC media objective.
Seconds after the presser concluded we witness the lack of media interest….
In the second bilateral NATO meeting of the day, U.S. President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hold a joint press availability.
Unfortunately for U.S-Canada relations, at the conclusion of their bilat Trudeau went to a NATO reception at No. 10 Downing Street and was caught on mic disparaging President Trump with French President Emmanuel Macron. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much, everybody. A question was asked just a little while ago about supporting the people protesting in Iran and are going through a very tough period. And we do support them totally and have supported them from the beginning.
The question was asked: “Do we support them” — I thought — “financially?” And we haven’t supported them. I don’t know that we’ve ever been actually asked to support them, financially. And I — you know, if somebody asked, maybe we would. But we support them very, very seriously. The people that are protesting in Iran, they’re looking for their freedom, and we are fully in support of them.
So I wanted to — just in case anybody had any questions. We haven’t been asked to support them, financially, which I assume that’s what the question was. But just to make sure everybody understood it.
It’s an honor to be with a friend of mine who just had a great election victory. Congratulations.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: Thank you, Donald.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And done a very good job. And we actually have a very good relationship and a good relationship, in terms of our countries.
We’re working on the USMCA. We’re trying to get Nancy Pelosi to put it up for a vote. You know, if it gets put up for a vote, it passes. But, so far, she hasn’t decided to do that. It’s up to her. It’s actually — a single individual has the — the Speaker of the House — it’s that person’s decision, and she’s the Speaker of the House.
And it’s a great deal for Mexico and for Canada and for the United States. And it’s a lot of jobs for everybody, and it replaces a deal that’s really a lousy deal, a bad deal, for — I can tell you — I can’t refer to you, but I would say, for the United States, that the deal that we have right now is terrible — NAFTA. Terrible. Been a terrible deal for the United States.
So we look forward to being able to vote on — take the vote on USMCA. It’s been there for a long time. And at some point, perhaps the President of Mexico — we have a wonderful man there, you know. He really is. He’s been a wonderful man. They’ll get tired and the Prime Minister will get tired and he’ll say, “Look, let’s forget this deal.” And I could understand it if you did. It’s been sitting in Congress now for six or seven months. And it’s a great deal for everybody.
So, hopefully, they can get it done and get it done fast. And it’s one of the few transactions, I think, where all three countries benefit, really, as a unit against the world, if you look at it. It really is a unit against the world. And that’s the way we looked at it right from the beginning. So we hope that’s the case.
Again, congratulations. We’re going to be talking about a number of subjects, including additional trade to that, and the military and the military presence. And it’s great being at NATO. We had some real success, I think, and some very successful talks having to do with NATO.
As you know, a lot of the countries have stepped up and they’re putting in at least 130 [billion] — probably the exact number is $131 billion — more. And that’s great. And they have commitments for $400 billion. So it really has become a force.
And as we’ve discussed in the past, there’s going to be great flexibility shown now with NATO. We can go to other parts of the world, not just one focus; it’s a lot of focuses. And we need a lot of focuses. We need a lot of focus.
We’ll be looking at other forms of terror. We’ll be looking at other countries. We’ll be looking at countries that are aggressive, and not just one particular part of this world.
So, I think NATO has become a very big factor over the last two or three years. You’ve been involved. I’ve been involved. And a lot of good things have happened. And it’s great to have you here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Congratulations.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: Thank you. It’s a real pleasure to be sitting down with President Trump. The relationship between Canada and the United States is incredibly strong. I don’t think it’s ever been stronger.
Our work together on the USMCA, as we move forward towards ratification, has been really tremendous. It’s been — it’s been a great process working with — between your team and our team, working with the Mexicans, as well.
We know that we’re here for NATO — the 70th anniversary, extremely important. The American strength in ensuring that people are stepping up, in terms of their military investments, is certainly something we’ve recognized in Canada. We’re increasing our defense investments by 70 percent over these 10 years because we know that making sure that everyone is there to step up and deliver is really important.
We have an enhanced forward battle group in Latvia. We’re leading the command mission in Baghdad. Canadians are a strong part of this Alliance, and we’ll continue to be.
But this is just a great opportunity for me to sit down with the President and talk about the many issues in which we align and we work together.
(Speaks in French.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That sounded very good. (Laughter.) Any questions, please?
Q Yeah. Mr. President, climate change is a top priority for the Prime Minister here, as well as for President Macron earlier. We’ve not heard you talk about it on this trip, and it doesn’t appear to be on your agenda. Are you thinking about that issue? And why is it not —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think about it all the time, Phil. And, honestly, climate change is very important to me. And, you know, I’ve done many environmental impact statements over my life. And I believe in — I believe very strongly in very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air. That’s a big part of climate change.
I also see what’s happening with our oceans, where certain countries are dumping unlimited loads of things in it. They float — they tend to float toward the United States. I see that happening, and nobody has ever seen anything like it, and it’s gotten worse.
But, no, it’s very important to me also. But I want clean air and clean water. That would be number one and number two. Very important.
Yes.
Q Are you concerned about rising sea levels at all, sir?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You know, I’m concerned about everything. But I’m also concerned about nuclear proliferation, which I think is a very important topic, and it’s a topic that we’re going to discuss today.
I’m — you know, the whole situation with nuclear, to me, is very, very important, as we’ve been discussing today at the various meetings that we’ve had. I think that’s something that has to be taken care of and it has to be dealt with very strongly.
Okay?
Q Mr. President, are you happy with Canadian defense spending as it is right now?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it?
Q Are you happy with Canadian defense spending as it is right now?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, they’re moving up, and they’re moving up substantially. And they’re starting to do very well, economically. And that has something to do with it. And, yeah, they’re getting up to a level that’s getting to be very acceptable. They have been under the 2 percent, obviously, but they’re moving up. We discuss it. I’m satisfied with it.
Q Do you plan to discuss Huawei, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me?
Q Do you plan to discuss Huawei?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ll discuss that. Yes, we’ll discuss that. We’ll be discussing that, yes.
Q What’s your message to the Prime Minister about Huawei and using it in the next generation of cell phone networks in Canada?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we find a security problem with it. And, you know — and Canada is going to make a decision at some point. But we find — I just speak for the United States, and we have ability to do a lot of things. We’ve actually advanced very far on 5G — much further than anyone really knows. Ajit Pai has headed it up, and he’s very good. And we have a lot of — a lot of action going on, with respect to 5G.
We’re not using Huawei. And we’re — we’re really — some of the — some of our great companies are getting much involved with 5G right now.
But, no, we find a tremendous security problem with respect to Huawei.
Q Mr. President, on the nuclear issue: Your comments a little earlier about Russia — the governments of Russia and China trying to come to the table on some sort of agreement on nuclear nonproliferation — your description of those conversations that you’ve had with those leaders doesn’t really mesh with what they’ve said publicly. I was hoping you might be able to elaborate when was the last time you —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Is not what they said publicly?
Q Yeah. Can you talk about when —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, look, we’ve had — we’ve had discussions and we’ve also had communications. And I can tell you, on behalf of both, they’d like to see something done with it.
Now, does that mean they’ll agree to do some- — I’m the one that terminated the agreement. And I terminated it because they were not living it — up to it. And we don’t want to be living up to an agreement and they don’t. And so it wasn’t fair. But it was also a very obsolete agreement. You know, it covered things that, frankly, didn’t matter anymore.
We are looking at doing a new agreement with Russia, and we’re looking at doing a new agreement with China. And maybe the three of us will do it together. And they do want to do it.
I can tell you that, with China, we were at a trade meeting, and the subject — I broached the subject, and they were very excited about it. No, they’d like to do it.
We may do it with Russia first and then go to China, or we may to it altogether. Or it may not happen. I mean, to be honest with you, maybe it won’t happen. But we are spending a lot of money on nuclear. And we have new nuclear and we have tremendous renovations of our older capability.
And I have to tell you, I see the kind of damage that we’re talking about and the kind of power that we have, and it’s a very — it would be a very sad day if we ever had to use it. It’s a very good thing if we could do something to stop making that, fixing that. We’ll see what happens.
Now, there are other countries. But, in terms of the world, we’re number one, by far. Russia is number two. And China would be number three. China is not — you know, China will be pretty even over a period of four or five years.
But it’s a tremendous expense for them and for us — for everybody. The destructive capability is really unacceptable.
So we’ll see if we can do something. I think Russia and I think China would like to do it very much.
Q President Trump, on NATO spending, you called member countries and the Allied countries in the past “delinquent” for not meeting the 2 percent standard. Where would you put Canada in that, as they’re not —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Slightly delinquent, I’d say — Canada. But they’ll be okay. I have confidence. Just slightly delinquent. But, no, some are major delinquent. Some are — some are way below 1 percent, and that’s unacceptable.
And then, if something happens, we’re supposed to protect them, and it’s not really fair. And it never has been fair. And they’re paying up — we are talking to Germany tomorrow. And they’re — they are starting to come along. They have to. They have to. Otherwise, if they don’t want to, I’ll have to do something with respect to trade.
Q So Canada is okay for now?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And with trade, I have all the cards. We’ve built a — we have built something in the last three years that’s been incredible. You’ve seen it. We’re up $21 trillion, and China is down about $32 trillion.
And as you know, for years, I’ve been hearing that it was “2019.” “In 2019, China’s going to become the largest economy.” Well, that didn’t happen. We’re much larger than China now, because we’ve gone up and they’ve gone down. And they’ve had their worst year in 56 or 57 years now. By far, they’ve had the worst year that they’ve had, that they know of. And — and we don’t want that, frankly. But what they were doing was wrong. And I think they’re going to stop it. And they want to — and they want to make a deal very badly.
Yes.
Q On that question, would you commit — if there’s a country that’s “delinquent,” as you put it, in paying for their defense spending, will you commit, as President of the United States, to defend them if they were attacked?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you know, I’m going to be discussing that today. And it’s a very interesting question, isn’t it? And, you know, it also depends on what your definition of “delinquent” is.
For instance, if you have a country that’s paying only 1 percent — and you have some that are paying less than 1 percent, and they shouldn’t be — you have some that are paying less than 1 percent, and they’re wealthy countries, on top of everything. Now we go to a new year, and they don’t pay. And now we go to yet another year, and they don’t play. Well, now, I ask you: Do they have to pay for the back years? Okay?
Now, so why is it that they owe us for this year, but every time a new year comes out, they don’t have to pay? It’s wrong. It’s not right.
So, I mean, you have — I could say that you could go back 25 years. I won’t do that with Canada, of course. But, no, but you could go back — you can go back, you know, right from the beginning, where they were short of whatever goal it was at the time. It’s 2 percent now. Two percent is very low. It should be 4 percent. Two percent is very low. But you have some that are well short of that. But they were short of it last year, the year before, the year before, the year before, right? So they’re short all these years. Well, in theory, you don’t just say, “That’s okay. You don’t have to have ever pay.” I mean, they really owe all that money from the past. That’s the way I look at it.
If Germany, as an example, is paying 1 percent and they’re supposed to be paying 2 percent — you’re talking about billions of dollars — well, that means that last year, the year before, the year before — all of those years, they would owe us money.
You’re talking about — really, you’re talking about trillions of dollars. Nobody has ever brought that up. They just keep talking about the present. So if they’re short one year, and then you go into the new year, they never talk about the year that they didn’t pay. But they actually, in theory, owe us that money. It’s not fair. It’s not fair.
Q Mr. President, just regarding China. When you met the Prime Minister in June, you talked about being — or trying to help with the two prisoners that are Canadians, that are in China.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah.
Q Have you made any —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I have. And I think we’ve made progress. And I had mentioned that to President Xi, as you know, because it was a big subject at the time. And I just hope they’re be treated well. But I put in a very, very strong word for those two prisoners.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: There’s still more to do.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Now, I haven’t spoken to him recently, to be honest with you. I don’t think he likes me so much anymore, but that’s okay.
Q So, Mr. President, Canada does not meet the 2 percent standard. Should it have a plan to meet the 2 percent standard?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’ll put them on a payment plan, you know? We’ll put Canada on a payment plan, right? I’m sure the Prime Minister would love that.
What are you at? What — what is your number?
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: The number we talk about is a 70 percent increase over these past years, including — and for the coming years — including significant investments in our fighter jets, significant investments in our naval fleets. We are increasing significantly our defense spending from previous governments that cut it.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay, where are you now, in terms of your number?
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: We’re at 1.35
AIDE: (Inaudible.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: 1.3.
AIDE: 1.4
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: 1.4. And we’re continuing to move forward.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They’ll get there. They’re getting there. They’ve — they’ve — they know it’s important to do that. And their economy is doing well. They’ll get there quickly, I think.
And look, it’s to their benefit.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: And the President knows well, as well, that Canada has been there for every NATO deployment. We have consistently stepped up, sent our troops into harm’s way. We’re leading in Iraq. We’re leading in NATO — in Latvia. We continue to step up, like — like most of our Allies. There are some countries that, even though they might reach the 2 percent, don’t step up nearly as much. And I think it’s important to look at what is actually being done.
And the United States and all NATO Allies know that Canada is a solid, reliable partner. We’ll continue to defend NATO and defend our interests.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: And we do have tremendous coordination with radar, with all of the different things that, you know — technologically, we have tremendous coordination between Canada and the United States. So, that’s good.
Yes.
Q Mr. President, to turn back to impeachment, you met with Clinton advisor Mark Penn last month. What did you learn from that meeting? And what advice are you getting on impeachment?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We are winning so big. We had our biggest fundraising month ever. We’ve had — last quarter was unbelievable. I have my best poll numbers that I’ve ever had.
The impeachment hoax is going nowhere. The Republican Party has never been so unified as it is right now. I have never seen anything like it.
You know, I used to tell you — I said: The one thing — the Republicans are better politicians, they have better policies. But the Democrats do stick together.
The Democrats like open borders. They like sanctuary cities. They like a lot of things that are not good. But they do stick together. Well, the Republican Party, on this whole impeachment hoax has been like glue, because they know it’s a hoax. It’s a way of hurting the Republican Party — beyond me. It’s a way of trying to hurt the Republican Party and a lot of great people.
And the — the people aren’t standing for it. And a lot of these Democrats went back over the weekend and over the last week and a half — you know, they talk about how — how much of an emergency everything is and then they go away for two weeks. They went back to their districts and they are getting hammered in their districts. I mean, I see what’s going on, especially the Trump districts where I won by a lot. I have districts where I won by a lot. You people know it better than anybody.
And we had a lot of great elections recently. We had the two big victories in North Carolina, I told you before. We had — in Kentucky, we won everything other than the governorship. And the governor I brought up almost 19 points. He won by just — he lost by just a few votes. And Louisiana was a long shot. It was less than 1 percent. He came up 12 or 14 points — a lot.
We’ve — and we won everything else. And we won everything else — and, by the way, in Mississippi, we won the governorship. Very close race. And it was tied going in two days before. I went up, we made a speech. We had a rally, and he won by a lot. And we have a wonderful governor in Mississippi, and everybody else won. So, other than the two races. But they both — both candidates went up a lot.
We have never had the spirit that we’ve had. I really believe — I think I can honestly say I don’t think we’ve ever had the spirit that we have right now in the Republican Party. And the impeachment hoax is what’s done it. So, that’s the way it is.
But you people — you know what? Honestly, I think you people know that better than I do. Please.
Q Mr. President, the Dow is down more than 400 points right now, in part over the comments you made earlier in this room about the China trade deal extending past 2020.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s okay. Well, it’s up — let me tell you, we took it up — it was about at 16,000 or 15,000, and now it’s almost at 30,000. It’s going to be at 30,000.
No, I have to tell you, if it’s not going to be a good deal, I’m not signing a deal. It’s peanuts compared to what — we have picked up record numbers in our stock markets. So, that’s okay. I mean, that’s the way I feel. I have to make the right deal. I’m not going to make a deal that’s not going to be great for our country. And it can’t be an even deal. If it’s an even deal, it’s no good, because China — other Presidents and leaders of our country have really let us down because they let China get away with — get away with something that should have never been allowed to happen. Billions and billions of dollars a year were lost in dealing with China, by — by foolish people, or by people that didn’t care or by people that didn’t know how.
We rebuilt China. And I give China great credit. And I don’t even blame China because our people should have done what they did. But what they’ve done is — we’ve lost $150 billion, then $200 billion, then $400 billion to China. They rebuilt China with the money that they took out of the United States. And that’s where they were and that’s where it is. And now we’re taking in billions of dollars in tariffs. And, by the way, they’re eating it. You know, remember, you used to tell me how it will cost us — they’re eating that money because they don’t want to lose their supply chains. And I don’t want them to lose their supply chains, but if it happens, it happens.
And that’s where it is. They want to make a deal, but I like the deal that we have, and the deal that we have could get even better. And I could do it all by myself. So we’ll see what happens. We’re at a critical stage.
They’ve called us today and they’ve called us yesterday. We’re having ongoing discussions. And we’ll see what happens.
But if the stock market goes up or down — I don’t watch the stock market. I watch jobs. Jobs are what I watch. I watch making the proper deal.
We’ve been taken advantage of, the United States, by China for so many years at numbers that if you were doing this, you wouldn’t have believed it. I came in, I looked at numbers for — I mean, ever since the founding of the China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization, the WTO, the numbers are astronomical that we’ve given to China, because of Presidents that didn’t know, didn’t care, or weren’t smart. So that’s over.
As to whether or not we make a deal: They want to make a deal. We’ll see what happens.
Q Mr. President, a point of clarification on your answer earlier where you talked about the “delinquent” countries and whether you would commit to defending them if they were attacked. In your answer, does that signal that you’re wavering about Article 5 of the NATO Charter?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It doesn’t signal anything.
Q Is that something you’re contemplating?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s just that when a country is delinquent — they don’t pay — and then something happens — now, usually, we look at it as a group, and I think I have to look at it as a group, Phil. So I would look at it as a group. But I think it’s very unfair when a country doesn’t pay. So, most likely, I’d do something with respect to trade. But that’s one of the things we’ll be discussing today.
I have to look at it as a group. You can’t say, “Well, gee, this country sitting right in the middle is delinquent” — they’re not paid — and something happens to that country. I think it’s an unlikely circumstance, but I would do something having to do with trade much more so than what you’re suggesting.
Q Back to impeachment — back to impeachment for a second. Is it your belief now that there will be a Senate trial, sir?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have no idea. I think they’re making a mistake if they do that, but that’s okay. If they do it, they do it. I think it’s a disgrace. I think the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
If you look at impeachment — and the word “impeachment” — here, there was nothing wrong. Nothing done wrong. It was a perfect conversation with a very nice gentleman, the President of Ukraine. The conversation was perfect. It was two conversations; they were both perfect. They were transcribed. They were both perfect. And this is what you’re going to impeach the President of the United States on?
The Republicans have never been stronger, never been more unified. The Democrats have gone crazy.
And you know what? They have to be careful, because when the shoe is on the other foot, and some day — hopefully in a very long, distant future — you’ll have a Democrat President and you’ll have a Republican House, and they’ll do the same thing, because somebody picked an orange out of a refrigerator and you don’t like it, so let’s go and impeach him.
It’s no good. That’s not the way our country is supposed to be run.
Q Mr. President, have you selected a new site for the G7 Summit next year?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We really have. And I think it’s been more or less announced. We’re going to do it at Camp David. And we’ll be doing some very special things at Camp David. It’s nearby. It’s close. We’re going to give very good access to the press. You’ll have great access.
And we’ll have a little bit of a Washington, I think, deliverance. We’re going to have — but it will be Camp David, which is a place that people like.
Q (Inaudible) that your decision to leave Syria and leave the Kurds will affect NATO Allies (inaudible) —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, not only have we not left the Kurds, we’re working with the Kurds. We have a very good relationship with the Kurds. And we’ve taken the oil. I’ve taken the oil. We should have done it in other locations, frankly, where we were. I can name four of them right now. But we’ve taken the oil. And that oil is what — what they lived off of. And that was going to be taken away from them, but now our great soldiers are right around the oil. We’re — we’ve got the oil.
But if we didn’t have it, they wouldn’t be able to survive. The Kurds wouldn’t be able to survive.
Q In the impeachment inquiry, you’ve maintained, in a number of these sessions today, that you’ve done nothing wrong in your conduct with Ukraine. Why won’t you permit the Secretary of State or the Acting White House Chief of Staff to testify on your behalf?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I would. I’d like them to testify. But these are very unfair hearings. And this gives these unfair, witch-hunt hearings — as an example, I just heard today, they get three constitutional lawyers — it’s all nonsense; they’re just wasting their time — and we get one. Okay, now nobody has to know anything about constitutional law, but they get three and we get one. Uh, that’s not sounding too good. But that’s the way it is.
For the hearings, we don’t get a lawyer. We don’t get any witnesses. We want Biden. We want the son, Hunter. Where is Hunter? We want the son. We want Schiff. We want to interview these people. Well, they said, “No, you can’t do it. We can’t do it.”
So when it’s fair — and it will be fair in the Senate. I would love to have Mike Pompeo. I’d love to have Mick. I’d love to have Rick Perry and many other people testify. But I don’t want them to testify when this is a total fix. You know what a fix is? This is a fix.
Just think of it: Tomorrow — I don’t think anybody is going to watch — I’m not going to watch, but I’m going to be doing this; it’s much more exciting. But you know what? Tomorrow — think of it — they get three constitutional lawyers and we get one. That’s not even smart, because it’s not going to matter. And they take three and they give us one. Who ever heard of anything like that?
No, but I want them to testify, but I want them to testify in the Senate where they’ll get a fair trial.
Q What do we want to learn from the Adam Schiff testimony?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: From which?
Q From Adam Schiff.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I learn nothing from Adam Schiff. I think he’s a maniac.
Q What would you — what would you want to learn if he testifies?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. I think he grew up with a complex, for lots of reasons that are obvious. I think he’s a very sick man and he lies. Adam Schiff made up my conversation with the President of Ukraine. And one of the reasons people keep talking about it is that’s what they saw.
We have a perfectly beautiful, three-to-four-page transcription, and then, in the other case, a two-page transcription of the conversation. But a lot of people didn’t read that. How many people call you — a friend of mine called up — a top person in New York called up, great friend of mine, very successful: “Gee, I didn’t like what was said.” I said, “Oh, where did you see it? Did you read it?” “No, I didn’t read it. I heard Adam Schiff give it.” I said, “Well, that’s not what was said.” And I sent him a copy of what was said. He said, “This is like — this is great. This isn’t what he said.”
This guy is sick. He made up the conversation. He lied. If he didn’t do that in the halls of Congress, he’d be thrown into jail. But he did it in the halls of Congress, and he’s given immunity. This is a sick person. He’s a liar.
And, by the way, Nancy Pelosi knew he was lying and she went on a show — Stephanopoulos — and she said he told the truth. So she was lying too.
These people are deranged.
Okay, anybody else?
Q Mr. Prime Minister, the President has suggested that Canada might pull out of USMCA if the U.S. Congress doesn’t ratify a deal. Have you ever made that suggestion directly to the President?
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: We’ve had lots of great conversations about how we’re going to keep moving forward to benefit workers in all three of our countries and we are very confident that we’re going to be able to get there. I know Ambassador Lighthizer and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland and the Mexican negotiators are engaged very closely on this issue. We’ve very, very hopeful that we’re going to have good news — news, soon.
Q (Speaks in French.) (No translation provided.)
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: (Speaks in French.) (No translation provided.)
Q Mr. Prime Minister, is it your plan to have discussions about Turkey and its role in NATO with your meeting with the President?
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: I think there’s a range of discussions that we’re going to have during this meeting. I look forward to having an opportunity to chat with the President —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That will come up in the meeting. Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: — on a range of things. But including — including the various challenges and reflections we have to have on how we move forward as NATO and how we make sure that we’re responding to the real challenges the world sees right now.
Q And do you have any plan to talk about the extradition of Meng Wanzhou?
PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU: We will absolutely be bringing up — bringing up the issue of China and the detained Canadians.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay? Thank you very much, everybody.
Here’s the video of Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron disparaging U.S. President Donald Trump during a NATO diplomatic reception at No. 10 Downing St. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Ezra Levant
✔@ezralevant
Just like at the G7 meeting last year, Justin Trudeau was meek and obedient to Donald Trump when they were face to face. But the moment Trump left the room Trudeau bad-mouthed him. Here he is doing the same in London, mocking Canada’s greatest NATO ally.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appeared on CNBC earlier today to discuss the status of U.S-China trade discussions, the latest issues with tariffs on French goods, and the bigger picture issues within the EU that we previously discussed.
Ross highlights the additional tariffs on China scheduled for December 15th are currently still planned to take effect unless something substantial changes in the position of China. Additionally, and interestingly on the French and EU tariffs, Secretary Ross reminds the financial pundits of the $7.5 billion WTO authorized award against the EU that would be in addition to the $2.4 billion in tariffs now scheduled for French products.
.
Pay attention to what Ross says in that interview; the administration is being remarkably open and consistent. Given the adversarial position exhibited by French President Emmanuel Macron today; and against the backdrop of continual EU intransigence on trade reciprocity; I suspect once the USMCA is passed we are going to see a *severe* shift in tone within the U.S. trade position toward both China and the EU.
Germany will be hit hard on their export auto sector, and France will be hit hard on exported luxury goods. Then, depending on the outcome of Brexit and the unpredictable stupidity of U.K. political leadership, the U.K. could gain trade position – or the U.K. could join the group of designated EU losers who *will* see years of economic contraction.
The U.S. economy is strong; all the fundamentals are solid. However, the multinationals on Wall Street -invested overseas- are more exposed. There is nothing that China and the EU can do to stop the de-globalization process; and efforts to stimulate their economy, more quantitative easing (pumping money) while the global supply chains are being shifted, are futile… they need “structural reform.” The multinationals are holding cash, waiting to see how it plays out.
The more a nations’ economy is dependent on exports, the more exposure they have to the inherent downsides of de-globalization. U.S. companies that are invested in these nations will naturally see diminishing returns on investment over time; some rapidly. President Trump’s trade policy is controlling the speed of that investment contraction.
The exposure of the multinationals keeps the stock market twitchy, yet the Main Street USA economy is thriving.
China’s economy is dependent on selling products to the U.S. in order to receive dollars. China takes those dollars and then purchases industrial goods from Europe. If China gets less dollars they purchase less from Europe. In essence both China and the EU are dependent on receiving dollars from a maintained trade imbalance. President Trump has begun resetting that imbalance… that is the current status of the global economic flux.
So what is the “structural reform”? This is where the EU needs to accept their economic model will no longer work if the global economy is changed.
Specifically:
♦The EU has benefited from their one-way tariff system against U.S. industrial goods. They have also used non-tariff barriers to keep their position. Now they need to change their perspective and embrace reciprocity in new trade agreements; or else Trump will use the strength of the U.S. market to pummel them with tariffs.
♦The EU has used their one-sided tariff and trade system as a key part of their overly generous social and worker benefits. If they don’t change the level of social payments and begin to ‘structurally’ change their social benefits, again they will suffer when the one-sided financial benefits are removed. They won’t be able to afford their social system without the one-sided trade benefit.
♦The EU has over-regulated their industrial base and attached themselves to burdensome regulatory standards; specifically worsened by their Paris climate treaty and changes within their energy programs. The compliance standards in combination with the increased costs and less global income is a perfect storm for contracting economic growth.
These are the types of EU reforms that are needed in an era where President Trump has purposefully stalled the process of globalization and is resetting global supply chains. The Trump policies that bring massive amounts of wealth back into the United States has created the dynamic where the EU must adapt or contract.
In essence Titan Trump is engaged in a process of: (a) repatriating wealth (trade policy); (b) blocking exfiltration (main street policy); (c) creating new and modern economic alliances based on reciprocity (bilateral deals); and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshal plan of global trade and one-way tariffs (de-globalization).
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 