White House trade and manufacturing policy advisor Peter Navarro appears on Fox News to discuss the status of the U.S-China trade negotiations and the reason for a USTR delay on some product tariffs.
Peter Navarro confirms what we noted from the office of USTR Robert Lighthizer yesterday. On December 15th “the tariffs will go on.” While the statement flies over the head of Stuart Varney, Navarro confirms the “next step” process that Lighthizer implied.
.
More below
The U.S. stock market continues reacting to an unusual dynamic. 50% of all companies manufacturing in China are U.S. owned multinational corporations. Those companies don’t want tariffs to succeed in disrupting their supply chain. As a consequence those Wall St. Corps also don’t want lower U.S. Fed interest rates designed to combat China’s currency devaluation.
Normally Wall St. would like lower rates (cheap money), but in this dynamic the U.S. multinationals are against it. Wall Street is schizophrenic. Domestic U.S. companies benefit from the lower rates; however, now, lower rates are adverse to the interests of the multinational companies.
It was Albert Einstein who aptly stated:
“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”
The same basic principle applies to those who are trying to understand and evaluate current economic activity yet failing to disengage themselves from their historic economic frames of reference.
Minds who are framed around thirty years of financial/monetary political policy; intended to influence the U.S. economy and created by vested interests who were building out the legislative priorities based on Wall Streets’ best interests; will struggle to understand the new landscape which is entirely formulated to benefit Main Street.
There are two economic engines: Wall Street and Main Street.
The two economic engines are divergent and detached. Time (30+ years), along with monetary focus only on Wall Street interests (multinationals), pushed those two economic engines further apart. The same monetary policies which worked in the immediate past will not work in the immediate future.
We are now in the economic spacebetween both engines. The traditional cause and effect (Fed) is now uncoupled. The administrators of the economy are perplexed; this is unfamiliar terrain.
The exact same areas of the country which have gone through three decades of economic contraction are now seeing economic expansion and revitalization. The Fed policy which influences Wall Street was not, and is not, domestic centric. The fed policy was corporate driven monetary policy and globalist in influence.
Until the two economies gain parity in value – any fed activity, taken as a consequence to their familiar traditional measurements (interest rates etc.), will have minimal to negligible impact on Main Street.
Early on Tuesday United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer announced the modification of “next step” tariffs on Chinese products. [See Here] “Products in this group include, for example, cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, and certain items of footwear and clothing.”
President Trump responded to the delay/modification when questioned in New Jersey. President Trump noted a “very productive” phone call between Lighthizer and Vice-Premier Liu He of China:
[Transcript Segment] – […] Q Why did you make the decision on the tariffs, to delay the implementation of the tariffs?
THE PRESIDENT: Only to help, I think, a lot of different groups of people. And we had a very good talk yesterday with China — a very, very productive call. I think they want to do something. I think they’d like to do something dramatic. I was not sure whether or not they wanted to wait until a Democrat has a chance to get in. Hopefully that’s not going to happen because the economy would go to hell in a handbasket very fast.
But they really would like to make a deal. The call itself was very productive. I’m not sure if it was the tariffs or the call, but the call was very productive. Again, they’ve said this many times; they’ve said they’re going to buy farm products. So far, they’ve disappointed me with the truth. They haven’t been truthful, or, let’s say, they’ve certainly delayed the decision. But it’s their intention to buy a lot of farm product.
And we did — we had a very good call with China. I mean, they would really like to do — as you know, they have a problem in Hong Kong, but they would like very much to do something.
Q Would you consider moving the tariffs, even? Delaying them even further, past December 15?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we’re doing this for Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers, which, so far, they’ve had virtually none. The only impact has been that we’ve collected almost $60 billion from China — compliments of China. But just in case they might have an impact on people, what we’ve done is we’ve delayed it so that they won’t be relevant for the Christmas shopping season.
Q Mr. President, are you more optimistic now that there’s a chance of getting a deal between China on trade?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve always been optimistic. My only question is whether or not they were willing to wait and take the chance on winning the election and deal with somebody who’s weak and ineffective and doesn’t know what he’s doing or she’s doing, like they’ve had in the past.
This should have been done 25 years ago. It should have been done 10 years ago or 5 years ago. This should have been done a long time ago. This should have been done by Biden and Obama. China is taking out $500 billion a year, and much more than that, if you include the theft of intellectual property. What I’m doing now should have been done many years ago. (link)
At the 30,000 ft level, the decision to postpone and modify looks political from the perspective of timing. Additionally the use of the term “next step tariffs” by USTR Lighthizer implies a sense of inevitability to a pre-determined process of increasing tariffs.
It would appear that President Trump has made a move based on a statement by Liu He about China making good on a prior promise to purchase significant agricultural products. Whether or not Vice-Premier Liu He is being misled (or used) by Beijing’s strong-arm and duplicitous Commerce Minister Zhong Shan is yet to be determined.
Minister Zhong, who previously worked under Xi when the president was at the helm of Zhejiang province, is viewed as a hardliner who has strictly toed the party line. Zhong was moved into primary trade negotiation position when China reengaged with the U.S. team.
My hunch is President Trump has delayed the Sept. 1st tariffs to see if Liu He will deliver on the agriculture promise, or if Zhon Shan is manipulating a lie to gain breathing room. While the latter seems more likely; it would make sense for President Trump to see of a multi-billion Ag purchase will take place. The benefit to the U.S. would mean a pending farm subsidy wouldn’t be needed; and based on the timing of the phone contact and message from China, this scenario appears to be the most likely background.
In essence President Trump appears to be looking to save U.S. money by avoiding a subsidy; and simultaneously benefit from the optic of the upcoming trade discussions with China in Washington DC in early September.
Pushing the full tariff decision to December 15th, puts a window of activity between now and the “next step” toward China.
Within that window President Trump will be traveling to Biarritz, France, (August 24th through 26th) for the G7 [U.S., U.K, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and Canada +EU weasels)] where it is now anticipated an interim U.S-U.K trade deal will be announced. [Maybe some unspoken five-eyes ‘spygate’ leverage for wheel grease]
Also within that window, the IG report on FISA abuse and ‘spygate’ (Sept?).
Also within that window, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison will be coming to the White House for an official state visit, and state dinner, in September. A key strategic trade ally, geopolitical foil against China, and ASEAN member. [Maybe more five-eyes ‘spygate’ wheel-greasing leverage]
Also within that window the Canadian election will take place on October 21st; which, depending on outcome, could radically change the time-frame for the USMCA ratification.
It still seems more likely than not that President Trump (Team USA) and Shinzo Abe (Team Japan) have hammered out the U.S-Japan trade agreement.
Most forget, but team USA and team Japan met for weeks of negotiations before Trump’s state visit to Japan, and the G20 in Osaka soon thereafter.
Everyone suspected a trade announcement, but curiously there was no mention. Instead, everyone immediately became distracted by President Trump’s visit to the DPRK and meeting with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ.
I suspect there was a purposeful intent (dual purpose) in the DPRK distraction; and I suspect the U.S-Japan trade announcement is being purposefully delayed based on the ongoing issues with China and the tentacles that extend globally and financially.
If my suspicions are accurate, President Trump is positioning the U.K. trade deal to be the ultimate leverage to force the EU into negotiations…. socialism is hit hard. Then, if/when the Canadian election concludes, the USMCA ratification will be a primary focus…. Then comes an announcement of the U.S. and Japan deal…. then comes the hammer on China (and/or possibly now including Hong Kong)…. and communism is hit hard.
With the foundation of the USMCA, UK and Japan providing the overwhelming financial momentum, both parasitic wealth-sucking book-ends: China and the EU, are hit in a sequence of trade actions (tariffs) that could radically alter the global supply chain.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani combines his first-hand-knowledge of the Metropolitian Correctional Center (MCC), along with his perspective of what processes and systems are in place, to give his perspective about the suspicious custodial death of Jeffrey Epstein.
Those who could not see this coming are those who just don’t pay attention to how President Trump operates the geopolitical influence of economics. This is Trumpian.
U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are walking their respective trade teams through a process to deliver a U.S-U.K trade deal on the day after a no-deal Brexit is scheduled to happen October 31st. An interim trade agreement that goes into effect November 1st 2019 is pure Donald Trump win/win deal-making.
President Trump supports the nationalistic position, purposes and intents of Brexit. PM Johnson has promised to deliver Brexit by the mandatory date of October 31st. One of the benefits, and also concerns amid the political left in the U.K, surrounds the economic impacts. President Trump and PM Johnson would counter all those concerns with the announcement of an agreement for an interim bilateral trade deal ahead of Brexit.
This strategic approach, a deal that delivers both the Brexit result and the economic stability to offset any Brexit downside concerns, was the original idea that President Trump proposed to Theresa May two years ago.
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain and the United States are discussing a partial trade accord that could take effect on Nov. 1, the day after Britain is due to leave the European Union, a senior Trump administration official said on Tuesday.
During a visit to London, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton discussed with British trade minister Liz Truss the possibility of the two countries’ leaders signing a road map declaration toward a trade deal.
That could take place at this month’s G7 summit meeting in France, the official said.
Bolton and British finance minister Sajid Javid discussed the possibility of a temporary trade agreement that covered all sectors. Such a deal could last for something like six months, the official told reporters.
Britain is due to leave the European Union on Oct. 31 and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he is prepared to take the country out of the bloc without a deal although he hopes to secure an orderly departure with an agreement.
The current impasse with the EU leaves Britain facing an exit without any formal transition period or legal agreement covering issues such as trade, data transfers and border policy, prompting some businesses to warn of damage to their operations.
During a two-day visit, Bolton told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that President Donald Trump wanted to see a successful British exit from the European Union on Oct. 31 and that Washington would be ready to work fast on a U.S.-UK free trade agreement. (read more)
Aides to Trump and Johnson are laying the groundwork for an announcement on the issue when they meet on the sidelines of the G-7 summit in France in two weeks. Such a statement could outline a road map for negotiations and how the two countries envision their future trade ties, the official said.
The timing of it — during the G-7 and at their first meeting — would be intended to demonstrate a united front between the U.S. and the U.K as Trump and Johnson gather with European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron.
CTH could see the outline of what President Trump had in mind back in 2017. It’s a stunning maneuver, but also difficult to explain. Think of it like a U.K. version of the NAFTA fatal flaw where Britain is positioned like Mexico/Canada, and the U.S. is positioned like China. There would be massive, beyond stunning, economic up-side for Britain.
What Trump and Johnson could construct is a bilateral trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K that has genuine reciprocity and negligible trade barriers. Like a trade freeway between the U.K and the U.S, but only between the U.K. and U.S.
With the EU no longer able to influence trade agreements involving the U.K. European companies, and countries (Poland, Hungary etc.) could get tariff-free access to the U.S. market by operating out of Britain, or using transnational shipping through Britain.
Simultaneously, the U.S. could ship tariff free into the EU (to a receiving EU corporation, or EU subsidiary of a U.S. corporation) by exporting to Britain. The UK would be the hub for massive economic activity between North America and Europe.
If France (the EU) is charging Canada a high duty for imported Canadian cheese; Canada, through the USMCA pact could ship to a holding company in Britain who would then transfer product (duty free) to the receiving French company who is operating in the U.K, and distributing in France. [A French company in the U.K. would receive in the U.K without the French (EU) duty.]
Eventually all corporations in the EU, who wanted to do business with North America, would start operations in the U.K….. OR, the EU would have to drop it’s one-way tariff policy (ie. the Marshall plan is ended). Think about the leverage this creates.
Of course this process would completely change the trade dynamic in Europe; and completely change the trade dynamic between Europe and North America. So how would Trump and Johnson start? Answer: Establish an interim tripwire to measure success. Hence you get this phrase:
“[…] Such a deal could last for something like six months, the official told reporters.”…
Of course an interim deal… because the EU bloc will respond to it… so a reevaluation at six months, prior to any massive investment outlays, is exactly what a CEO would create.
Donald Trump isn’t a politician, he’s working through a plan for what he views (we agree) is bigger than any ideological aspects. “Economic Security is National Security.”
The economics of all things is the priority for President Trump…. step into that lane, or bring forth a policy directive that crosses into that economic lane, and you step into an administration agenda item completely controlled and directed by Donald Trump.
Every policy engagement from the big to the small goes through the prism of economics first and last. Essentially this is the foundation of the Trump doctrine. Brexit, Huawei, Iran, the larger EU, etc., all cross paths with President Trump’s primary focus, U.S. economic wealth, influence and security.
President Donald Trump does not leave anything to chance or misinterpretation…. He’s full bore economic Obsessive Compulsive! …And unapologetic about it.
President Trump has single-handily, and purposefully, stalled the global economy and is forcing massive amounts of wealth back into the United States. 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; and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshall plan of global trade and one-way tariffs.
Every minute element within this process, no matter how seemingly small, has President Trump’s full attention. He has assignments to many, but he relies upon none.
The situation in Hong Kong is a geopolitical dynamic that will likely become much more volatile in the next few weeks, months and/or years. One constant in an ever-changing universe is how the UniParty in DC will attempt to drag the U.S. into the issues.
First, Hong Kong is China. Whether a generation of people look back with regret to the time when Great Britain ceded the territory to Beijing is irrelevant. China has, and will have, full control over Hong Kong; and that’s the way it is. This will not be reversed.
Any effort for the people within Hong Kong to reverse the situation and escape the clutches of oppressive communism while retaining their liberty will only lead to massive bloodshed.
Unfortunately for Hong Kong, as President Trump decouples the U.S. economy from the duplicitous communist Chinese enterprise, Beijing will grasp more control over the heavily Western-influenced economic strata in/around Hong Kong.
Stand back and look at the bigger picture. President Trump has neutralized, essentially made irrelevant, Beijing’s use of their proxy province, North Korea. President Trump has embraced Kim Jong-un, not as much out of a position of warmth – but rather as a tactic to block China from weaponizing the DPRK as leverage during the U.S-China trade confrontation.
Beijing still uses their influence to shoot rockets, test missiles etc and president Trump ignores it now. Why? Because North Korea already has nuclear missiles; they’re the same nuclear missiles China has… and it is silly now to think China will remove their nuclear missiles to gain an economic benefit.
If U.S. policy isn’t trying to remove nuclear weapons from China, then why would U.S. policy try to remove nuclear weapons from the DPRK.? They’re the same nukes.
Losing their DPRK leverage, and understanding Beijing has no direct tools to defeat the U.S. in an direct economic confrontation, means China will look elsewhere. That’s where Hong Kong comes into play.
[Always remember, despite the U.S. tariffs on China, there are no tariffs on Hong Kong]
Do we feel sympathy watching a once free society slip into the grips of an oppressive and totalitarian system now ruled by a communist dictator for life in Chairman Xi Jinping? Sure we do. But they made these choices decades ago… now they have the consequences.
If Hong Kong tries to resist Beijing, they will be crushed. Hundreds more will be arrested and disappeared. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, will be killed. There is already a ongoing flight of wealth out of Hong Kong as the smart and wealthy position their assets overseas to survive the arrival of Beijing’s storm troopers.
The future for Hong Kong is dark. It is not going to end in anything resembling what exists today. Hong Kong will be Beijing 2.0, and will be entirely dominated by Chinese authoritarian rule. The difference in 2019 is the speed at which it is happening.
Things are speeding up now in direct proportion to the severity of the U.S. decoupling our economy from China. As the Chinese economy weakens, Beijing will get more desperate.
Many voices around President Trump will cry out for intervention. The UniParty will demand intervention and decry President Trump’s instinct to stay away from the self-made crisis.
It is not our issue; and engaging in Hong Kong only opens up another pathway for China to play the duplicitous leverage game…. Beijing will play the “we’ll spare, delay, or dilute the Hong Kong absorption, if you agree to our trade terms” game. [lies, lies, lies]
President Trump needs to engage with China and Hong Kong as one nation, under one rule, with one motive and intent. Trying to win a Chinese trade conflict while parsing the economy of China from the economy of Hong Kong, is like trying to parse the nukes in China from the nukes in North Korea.
Hong Kong is lost. Hong Kong belongs to China. Thousands of Hong Kongers will be killed or disappeared into camps as Beijing absorbs the region. The U.S. cannot continue to engage globally in an effort to protect nations from the consequences of their own decisions.
If Great Britain wants to send an armada of battle ships to warn Beijing against aggression with Hong Kong, then we should support. Wait… wha? Oh, Great Britain no longer has a Navy because the high-minded EU collective wanted to hold hands and sing ‘we-are-the-world’ instead of planning to defend its interests for the past twenty years…. I digress.
Hong Kong is not our issue.
The CIA will try to make it our issue. The State Department will try to make it our issue. The UniParty in DC will try to make it our issue. John Bolton will try to make it our issue. Activists in Hong Kong will try to make it our issue. All of the far-left globalists will try to make it our issue…. Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney will try to make it our issue; but it’s not our issue.
We pray for peace and send our prayers, but we cannot succeed in the larger economic confrontation with cunning China if we attempt to ignore the direct connective tissue between Beijing and Hong Kong.
Instead, start applying the Chinese tariffs on Hong Kong as soon as Beijing tanks arrive.
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. Earlier today President Trump delivered remarks and held and impromptu press conference from the airport in Morristown, NJ, prior to departing for Pennsylvania. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: The stock market continues to do very well. We have very, very strong numbers. We have a lot of artificial numbers from other countries because they’re all devaluing their currencies. They’re really doing things that aren’t very good for their countries, in my opinion. But, short term, it’s very good for their countries. Long term, possibly not.
And we’re not following suit. We have a Fed that decides not to cut interest rates, which is a very bad thing. Because, right now, we have to follow suit; we should be following suit. But we have a very powerful country, a very strong economic and military country. We’ve never been better. The stock market is way up today for various reasons, including tariffs.
I just see where we’ve collected close to $59 billion in tariffs so far. And, in my opinion, the consumer has not paid for it because of the devaluation by China. They devalued and they pumped a lot of money into their system. So, it’s really been an amazing — it’s been an amazing period of time.
Yeah.
Q Why did you make the decision on the tariffs, to delay the implementation of the tariffs?
THE PRESIDENT: Only to help, I think, a lot of different groups of people. And we had a very good talk yesterday with China — a very, very productive call. I think they want to do something. I think they’d like to do something dramatic. I was not sure whether or not they wanted to wait until a Democrat has a chance to get in. Hopefully that’s not going to happen because the economy would go to hell in a handbasket very fast.
But they really would like to make a deal. The call itself was very productive. I’m not sure if it was the tariffs or the call, but the call was very productive. Again, they’ve said this many times; they’ve said they’re going to buy farm products. So far, they’ve disappointed me with the truth. They haven’t been truthful, or, let’s say, they’ve certainly delayed the decision. But it’s their intention to buy a lot of farm product.
And we did — we had a very good call with China. I mean, they would really like to do — as you know, they have a problem in Hong Kong, but they would like very much to do something.
Q Would you consider moving the tariffs, even? Delaying them even further, past December 15?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we’re doing this for Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers, which, so far, they’ve had virtually none. The only impact has been that we’ve collected almost $60 billion from China — compliments of China. But just in case they might have an impact on people, what we’ve done is we’ve delayed it so that they won’t be relevant for the Christmas shopping season.
Q Mr. President, can you please explain your decision to retweet that comment about Jeffrey Epstein and the —
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, he’s a very highly respected, conservative pundit. He’s a big Trump fan. That was a retweet. That wasn’t from me; that was from him. But he’s a man who has half a million followers. A lot of followers. And he’s respected.
And, as you know, Bill Barr wants to do an entire investigation of the whole Epstein matter, what happened. He’s been going on for a long — that’s been going on for a long time, the whole Epstein episode. And I know it’s under investigation by Attorney General Barr, and I’m sure he’s going to be handling it.
The retweet, which is what it was — it was a retweet — was from somebody that’s a very respected, conservative pundit. So I think that was fine.
Yeah.
Q But is it appropriate for you to be spreading that kind of conspiracy theory? I presume you don’t know that that’s true.
THE PRESIDENT: No, basically what we’re saying is we want an investigation. I want a full investigation, and that’s what I absolutely am demanding. That’s what our Attorney General — our great Attorney General — is doing. He’s doing a full investigation.
Q Are you concerned about what you’re seeing in Hong Kong? Do you want China to exercise restraint?
THE PRESIDENT: The Hong Kong thing is a very tough situation. Very tough. We’ll see what happens. But I’m sure it’ll work out. I hope it works out for everybody, including China, by the way. I hope it works out for everybody.
Q Have you seen the gathering of military troops, apparently close to protestors? And there’s worries about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, it’s a very tricky situation. I think it’ll work out. And I hope it works out for liberty. I hope it works out for everybody, including China. I hope it works out peacefully. I hope nobody gets hurts. I hope nobody gets killed.
Q Mr. President, are you more optimistic now that there’s a chance of getting a deal between China on trade?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve always been optimistic. My only question is whether or not they were willing to wait and take the chance on winning the election and deal with somebody who’s weak and ineffective and doesn’t know what he’s doing or she’s doing, like they’ve had in the past.
This should have been done 25 years ago. It should have been done 10 years ago or 5 years ago. This should have been done a long time ago. This should have been done by Biden and Obama. China is taking out $500 billion a year, and much more than that, if you include the theft of intellectual property. What I’m doing now should have been done many years ago.
Q On another issue: Ken Cuccinelli today said, on NPR, that maybe there ought to be a different poem on the Statue of Liberty that says immigrants who come can stand up for themselves and take care of themselves. Do you think that should be changed?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t think it’s fair to have the American taxpayer — you know, it’s about “America First.” I don’t think it’s fair to have the American taxpayer paying for people to come into the United States.
So what we’ve done is institute what took place many, many years ago — at our founding, virtually. But we are just reinstituting it. And I think it’s long overdue.
I am tired of seeing our taxpayer paying for people to come into the country and immediately go onto welfare and various other things. So I think we’re doing it right.
Q Mr. President, you tweeted about a word that Chris Cuomo found racially offensive. Even Sean Hannity defended him. Is that appropriate for you to tweet about that?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that what Chris Cuomo did was horrible. His language was horrible. He looked like a total, out-of-control animal. He lost it. And, frankly, I don’t think anybody should defend him because he spews lies every night. So I don’t know why anybody would defend him. But Chris Cuomo was out of control. I watched it. I thought it was terrible.
So I don’t know who’s defending him. Maybe they didn’t see it. Maybe they haven’t gotten a full picture. But I think anybody that would have seen Chris Cuomo would have said that was a disgrace. You’ve never seen me do that.
Q But you wound up tweeting in response to it, saying that maybe he should be flagged by a “red flag” list. Doesn’t that sort of undermine the whole argument that’s going on right now and the push for that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Chris Cuomo was so out of control that I would not have wanted to see a weapon in his hand. I guess his fist is not a weapon or he would have done something. You know, he talked about it but he didn’t do anything.
But I think Chris Cuomo was very much out of control, actually.
Q Mr. President, Anthony Scaramucci today is calling on Republicans to challenge you in 2020, saying that you’ve “gone off the rails.” Do you have a response?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Anthony was a guy who worked for me, who really didn’t have a clue. He worked for 11 days. He made terrible statements and gestures and everything to people that worked in the office. I think you’ve heard Mercedes Schlapp talk about it in great detail.
Anthony didn’t support me at the beginning; he was with somebody else and then he went to somebody else. And he only supported me after it was a foregone conclusion that I was going to win.
I’m not a fan of Anthony. I haven’t been for a long time. I think Anthony is really somebody that’s very much out of control. And he doesn’t have what it takes. I mean, he really doesn’t.
He wanted to come back into the administration for the last five months, begging me to come back in. I said, “Anthony, I can’t take you in. I’m sorry.” He called so much. He’s a nervous, neurotic wreck. He called so much, and I said, “Anthony, I’m sorry. I can’t do that. I can’t take you in.” And I said, “You got to stop all these phone calls. Too many calls, Anthony.” And I wouldn’t take his call. And lo and behold, now he feels differently.
But Anthony is upset because he wanted certain things. The main thing he wanted was to come back into the administration. And as you remember better than I do, he was a disaster for the 11 days.
Q Mr. President, the factory you’re going to today is going to make plastics. You must be aware of all the reports that say the world is awash in plastic and the last thing it needs is more plastic. What’s your feeling on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have tremendous plastics coming over from Asia, from China, and various others. It’s not our plastic. It’s plastics that’s floating over in the ocean and the various oceans from other places.
No, plastics are fine, but you have to know what to do with them. But other countries are not taking care of their plastic use and they haven’t for a long time. And the plastic that we’re getting is floating across the ocean from other places, including China.
Q How is the progress going on background checks? Are you convinced that Mitch McConnell is going to put that up for a vote?
THE PRESIDENT: I am convinced that Mitch wants to do something. I’ve spoken to Mitch McConnell. He’s a good man. He wants to do something. He wants to do it, I think, very strongly. He wants to do background checks, and I do too, and I think a lot of Republicans do. I don’t know, frankly, that the Democrats will get us there.
But I spoke with Chris Murphy, Senator. We had a very good conversation. We’ll see what happens. But I believe that Mitch — and I can tell you, from my standpoint, I would like to see meaningful background checks. And I think something will happen.
Look, it’s very simple: There is nobody more pro-Second Amendment than Donald Trump, but I don’t want guns in the hands of a lunatic or a maniac. And I think if we do proper background checks, we can prevent that.
Q And back on the tweet question: Do you really think the Clintons are involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s death?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I know he was on his plane 27 times and he said he was on the plane 4 times. But when they checked the plane logs, Bill Clinton — who was a very good friend of Epstein — he was on the plane about 27 or 28 times. So why did he say “four times”?
And then the question you have to ask is: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? Because Epstein had an island that was not a good place, as I understand it. And I was never there. So you have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That’s the question. If you find that out, you’re going to know a lot.
President Trump travels to Pittsburgh, PA, today to tour the Shell cracker plant and deliver remarks on “America’s Energy Dominance and Manufacturing Revival.” The anticipated start time is 2:10pm EST. [Update – Video Added]
The GST Livestream is active now – all others will activate closer to speech time.
Ghislaine Maxwell was more than the alleged protector and procurer of young girls for Jeffrey Epstein as well as his girlfriend based upon allegations. However, she is also the daughter of Robert Maxwell who I believe was a member of “The Club.” Interestingly, Maxwell’s protege was also William Browder who loves to run around claiming he is the number one enemy of Putin. While the prosecutor wants to charge Ghislaine with conspiracy, nobody knows where she is. That alone in today’s world seems unbelievable. Use a credit card or turn on your phone and they have you. You need cash and a burner phone just to start. Then you need fake passports for you to book a ticket in your name and they will be there when you land waiting with open arms.
Epstein grew up in Brooklyn with no money to speak of and never finished college. She is Paris-born, Oxford-educated, a jet-setter who partied with princes and billionaires. They are reporting that Jeffrey Epstine hung himself with his bedsheet in isolation when guards were supposed to check on him every 30 minutes. The Los Angeles Times attributed any doubt to just conspiracy theories. But nobody asks the question: Why was Epstein in the hole?
You are thrown in that dungeon supposedly for disciplinary reasons. Epstein at best should have been there for a few days assuming there was no bed space in population. To be in isolation is rare since they need every bed in MCC and they will often send people to Brooklyn’s MCC when they need more space. Epstein had been in prison before so it would be no dramatic shock. To be thrown in the hole from day-one is typically on the phone call from the prosecutor. The MCC is controlled by the prosecutors when that is supposed to be illegal. But nobody will ever investigate that one. Having him in isolation without another cellmate allows for anything to happen without a witness. Who ordered to put Epstein in solitary confinement?
The fascinating connection her is Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell who I believe was a member of “The Club” deeply involved with Salomon Brothers and had dealings also with Goldman Sachs. You got it. The official report issued by Britain’s Department of Trade and Industrysaid investment bank Goldman Sachs Group, Inc had “substantial responsibility” for allowing Mr. Maxwell to manipulate the stock market prior to the collapse of his businesses reported the Wall Street Journal back in April 2001.
JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, which did business with Mr. Epstein, are scouring their books for clues. There also runs a conspiracy theory numbering the deaths of people associated with JPMorgan Chase, not just the Clintons. Questions still surround billionaire Les Wexner, the financier’s most prominent client prior to his first incarceration. Exactly how Mr. Epstein used Mr. Wexner’s wealth to finance his own fortune is not clear. In August 2019, following Epstein’s second incarceration, Wexner addressed the Wexner Foundation by letter, delivering a detailed account of his dealings with Epstein, stating that the former financial advisor had “misappropriated vast sums of money” from Wexner and from his family. Wexner retained services of criminal defense attorney Mary Jo White of Debevoise & Plimpton, who used to be the head prosecutor in Southern District of New York. Why does he need a criminal lawyer who was the head of the New York prosecutors?
Then there is the infamous Epstein’s so-called “little black book,”of 92 pages with names, emails, and phone numbers of people Epstein knew or wanted to know, but in any event, had detailed information about. The list goes on and on includes top people from the entire financial spectrum down the food chain from Goldman Sachs to just low-level billionaires (under $2 bil).
Aside from the fact that they could NEVER allow Epstine to be put on trial with all the connections he had, there is something else beyond the sex scandal. I have explained that there is what I have called “The Club” where a number of players ban together informally to manipulate a particular market. One member will typically take the lead and take the publicity if need be. There were some hedge fund players but mostly bankers and a few big punters.
I also believe one of those in “The Club” was Robert Maxwell (1923-1991), the flamboyant billionaire British publisher, who allegedly drowned after falling off his yacht in the Canary Islands near the northwest coast of Africa. Maxwell’s last words in communication were on November 5, 1991.
Robert Maxwell is Ghislaine Maxwell’s father. The scandal unfolding was the manipulation of the US Treasury auctions back then. Note the date for the Salomon Brothers scandal manipulating the U.S. Treasury Auctions broke August 18, 1991. It was this event that I believe changed the direction of Goldman Sachs. After that scandal where the government was going to shut down Salomon Brothers who was the biggest bond dealer in the USA for manipulating markets, all of a sudden, people from Goldman Sachs started taking posts in government.
Robert Rubin began his career as an attorney at the firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in New York City which represents many banks in NYC. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1966 as an associate in the risk arbitrage department and became a general partner in 1971. Rubin then joined the management committee in 1980 along with Jon Corzine of MF Global fame. Robert Rubin then became Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Operating Officer from 1987 to 1990. Rubin then served as Co-Chairman and Co-Senior Partner along with Stephen Friedman from 1990 to 1992.
This trading atmosphere of “big swinging dicks” had not learned its lesson from the 1987 Crash. This was the culture instilled by PhiBro from the commodity side of the world. Trader Paul Mozer, who had a 12-year career at the firm coming from Morgan Stanley, allegedly submitted illegal bids for U.S. treasury securities in August of 1990, attempting to corner the market by purchasing more than the 35% share allowed per individual transaction. Yet, what he eventually plead guilty to was based on only two transactions in the five-year notes on February 21, 1991 for $6 billion, which was $2 billion more than the bank was allowed to buy. The plea did not match the events.
Other Salomon employees would later tell the NY Times they were shocked:
“This was not driven by personal gain, if this is true. There’s a game here. And it was a desire to win the game.”
Mozer’s supervisor, John Meriwether who later became a founder and a consultant for Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund which collapsed in 1998 forcing the Federal reserve to then bail out a hedge fund. Fed bailout of his hedge fund which had a position of nearly $100 billion. Meriwether, at the time in Salomon, claimed to have chastised Mozer for the manipulation when it came to his attention, but he did not fire Mozer raising serious questions about the trading culture overall inside Salomon Brothers.
Shortly before the Salomon Brothers scandal erupted, Paul W. Mozer must have been aware that the Treasury knew about the trade and there would be ramifications. Before the announcement by Salomon Brothers on August 9th, 1991, Mozer then sold about $1.7 million worth of Salomon stock, which was about 46,000 shares, confirmed by the firm. The government froze the funds for it smelled like insider trading in the real sense.
Within less than two years from the Salomon Brothers manipulation, Robert Rubin took a position in the Clinton Administration. I believe following the Salomon Brothers scandal, Goldman Sachs began to make large political donations. From January 25, 1993, to January 10, 1995, Rubin served in the White House as Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In that capacity, he directed the National Economic Council, which Bill Clinton created after winning the presidency. Robert Rubinthen became the 70th United States Secretary of the Treasury on January 11, 1995, until he managed to get Glass Stegall repealed. He left the Treasury on July 2, 1999. He was of course followed by Hank Paulson from Goldman Sachs taking the post also of Secretary of the Treasury.
There was the Robert Maxwell (1923–1991) scandal that he had stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from his own companies’ pension funds to save the companies from bankruptcy. However, behind the scenes, there may have been trading losses with “The Club” and again if there had been a trial concerning the missing $700 million+, then all other parties are exposed. A swim in the Atlantic would certainly prevent that from happening.
Maxwell’s investment bankers included Salomon Brothers, confirmed by the NY Times. Eventually, the pension funds were replenished with monies from investment banks Shearson Lehman andGoldman Sachs, as well as the British government. There were complaints before Maxwell died about dealings between his other public company, Maxwell Communications Corp, and Wall Street bankers Goldman Sachs according to The Guardian.
It was 1991 when William Browder went to work for British billionaire Robert Maxwell as his “investment manager”. The BBC called Maxwell “the biggest fraud in British history”. Just how deep into the investment decisions of Maxwell did Browder participate as an investment manager. Interestingly, after Maxwell died, Bill Browder went to work for the notorious Salomon Brothers. Browder was put in charge of the Russian proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.
Salomon Brothers’ historical dependence on proprietary trading and the type of atmosphere of “big swinging dicks” had on bond arbitrage which almost destroyed the firm, thanks to Warren Buffettwho stepped in to run the firm and himself getting involved in the silver manipulation (see Bonfire of the Vanities movie). If Salomon had not been sold in 1997 with the merger of Travelers Group(which owned retail brokerage, Smith Barney), no doubt Salomon Brothers would have collapsed in the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management debacle created by one of their own – John Meriwether.
William Browder left Salomon Brothers and joined with Edmond Safra (1932–1999) founding Hermitage Capital Management in 1996 for the purpose of investing initial seed capital of $25 million in Russia during the period of the mass privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union. Beny Steinmetz, who is an Israeli businessman, with investments in diamond and precious metals mining among other things, was allegedly another of the original investors in Hermitage Capital Management. This was the firm Safra through Dov Schlein solicited me to invest $10 billion.
I believe Safra lost $1 billion in Russia during the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management crisis over Russian bonds and investments which was why he put his bank, Republic National Bank, up for sale to HSBC in 1999. Following the Russian financial crisis of 1998, Browder remained committed to Hermitage’s original mission of investing in Russia, despite significant outflows from the fund. Hermitage became a prominent shareholder in the Russian oil and gas. It was in 1999 when VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation (Russian: ВСМПО-АВИСМА) is the world’s largest titanium producer, filed a RICO lawsuit against Browder and other Avisma investors including Kenneth Dart, alleging they illegally siphoned company assets into offshore accounts and then transferred the funds to U.S. accounts at Barclays. Browder and his co-defendants settled with Avisma in 2000; they sold their Avisma shares as part of the confidential settlement agreement. VSMPO-AVISMA also operated facilities in Ukraine, England, Switzerland, Germany, and the United States. The company produced titanium, aluminum, magnesium and steel alloys and it does a great deal of business with aerospace companies around the world, such as Boeing and Airbus.
In March 2013, HSBC, a bank that serves as the trustee and manager of Hermitage Capital Management, announced that it would end the fund’s operations in Russia. The decision was taken amid two legal cases against Browder: a libel court case in London and a trial in absentia for tax evasion in Moscow. In June 2018, HSBC reached a settlement with the Russian government to pay a £17 million fine to Russian authorities for its part in alleged tax avoidance.
When I met Edmund Safra in Washington, DC at an IMF dinner he put on, he asked me why I was always fighting the trend. I commented that it was a dangerous club to join. I said I do know how to swim, obviously referring to Maxwell. Safra just smiled. Maxwell was presumed to have fallen overboard from his luxury yacht off the Canary Islands, and his body was subsequently found floating in the Atlantic Ocean. He was identified only by his family. The Spanish declined to take a dental impression and his fingerprints on file in London were too old. This prompted speculation that he was still alive, but that did not seem plausible. Maxwell was buried on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem with great official participation. His cause of death was declared to be an accidental drowning.
Maxwell’s death triggered the collapse of his publishing empire as banks called in loans. Why would they call in loans on a major company unless they knew something was not right? Maxwell’s sons briefly struggled to keep the business together but failed as news emerged that Maxwell had stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from his own companies’ pension funds. That was not to support a lifestyle, that was punting money. The Maxwell companies applied for bankruptcy protection in 1992 with debts of £400 million – $717 million in U.K.-based company pension fund assets are missing from his empire. The DOL joins the probe to see that U.S. affiliates’ $300 million in pension assets are safe. Those funds, I believe, were used as part of the “club” and were lost. Had Maxwell survived and been charged, he may have given up everyone else in the “club” which would never be allowed. In 1995, his two sons,Kevin and Ian, along with two other former directors, went on trial for conspiracy to defraud but were unanimously acquitted by a twelve-man jury in 1996.
Eventually, the pension funds were replenished with money from investment banks Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs, as well as the British government. This replenishment was limited and also supported by a surplus in the printers’ fund, which was taken by the government in part payment of £100 million required to support the workers’ state pensions. The rest of the £100 million was waived. Maxwell’s theft of pension funds was therefore partly repaid from public funds. The result was that in general pensioners received about 50% of their company pension entitlement.
Former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker appears on Fox News with Lou Dobbs to discuss immigration judges and a unionization ruling. However, when the discussion turned to Jeffrey Epstein, even AAG Whitaker said common sense tells us something about this is “fishy”.
.
Apparently the Bureau of prisons moved Epstein from suicide watch to a room with bunk beds and sheets. Then his cellmate was removed. Then the guards stopped watching him. Then he hung himself with the bed sheets… Alone in the room with the bunk beds… when no-one was watching, and no-one noticed.
Oh yeah, and the FBI went to search his rapey islandtoday. 35 days AFTER he was arrested. Three days AFTER the sealed records of his activity was unsealed; and two days AFTER his suicide. What were they waiting for?…
A U.S. District Judge has rejected the DOJ and FBI motion to block the release of the Archey Declarations (descriptions of Comey memos). [Background Here]
In a strongly worded ruling (full pdf below) released moments ago, Federal Judge James Boasberg blasted the DOJ and FBI for attempting to change their filings, claim national security “sources and methods”, and block his prior court ruling – which instructed the DOJ to release the “Archey Declarations”. The judge is obviously angry:
It must strike readers as erroneous “with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.”…
[Backstory for those unfamilar] In the background of what was The Mueller Investigation, there was a FOIA case where the FBI was fighting to stop the release of the Comey memos. Within that courtroom fight Mueller’s lead FBI agent David Archey wrote a series of declarations to the court describing the content of the memos and arguing why they should be kept classified.
The FOIA fight shifted; and the plaintiff, CNN, argued for public release of the content of the FBI agent’s descriptions, now known as the “Archey Declarations”.
After a lengthy back-and-forth legal contest, on June 7th Judge James E Boasberg agreed to allow the FBI to keep the Comey memo content hidden, but instructed the DOJ/FBI to release the content of the Archey Declarations. On August 2nd the DOJ/FBI changed their position and claimed national security, “sources and methods” would be compromised by the release of the Archey Declarations.
Today Judge Boasberg completely rejected their argument:
OK, so what does this mean? Well, assuming the DOJ and FBI don’t try to appeal to a higher court…. it means we will get to see the Archey Declarations unredacted. It also means pressure on the inspector general to release the IG report on James Comey.
The issue at hand is tangentially related to the current Inspector General carve-out report, through the aspect of the Comey Memos. We are currently anticipating a report from the OIG related to former FBI Director James Comey, his writing of the memos, and the leaking of some of those memos to the media via his friend Daniel Richman. {LINK}
No-one knows the number of memos that James Comey has written. [We may get that answer in the IG report.] There are nine memos written by James Comey surrounding contact and conversations with President-elect and then President Trump (2016/2017).
However, based on the court declarations by Mueller’s former lead FBI investigator David Archey, it sounds like there are many more memos than anyone currently understands; including memos about the investigation of candidate Trump, that were written during the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation 2016 and 2017, that describe investigative details, sources, operations and code-names of intelligence assets used in the investigation.
The Comey memos are not just about his contact with Donald Trump as a candidate, president-elect or president. The media keeps downplaying the memos as a few notes taken by the former FBI director, but all of the background information suggest assembled writing is something more akin to a personal diary.
My strongly researched suspicion is that James Comey kept detailed private notes of what was happening during the operation(s) against Donald Trump and his campaign team, both during the campaign and after the election when President Trump took office. Just take a look at how David Archey described the content and you can see those notes, now called memos, were in addition to FD 302 reports being filed by FBI officials.
Why James Comey would keep detailed notes beyond what was being officially recorded in the FBI 302 reports is likely a question to be answered within the pending inspector general report. There’s a lot of sketchy non-transparent stuff going on amid all of this….
This is an example of redacted information in the Archey Declarations that Judge Boasberg had ruled must be released with the redactions removed. This what the DOJ and FBI are working to stop from being released to the public:
The United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, is fighting this court ordered release. The DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division is Jody Hunt. That name might be familiar to you because Jody Hunt was Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff.
We previously anticipated Jody Hunt being involved with this current case; the DOJ and FBI attempt to block release of the memos and declarations. However, we have recently been informed that Jody Hunt was recused from the case by DOJ lawyers during the time when the Mueller investigation was ongoing.
According to the latest information we can gather, DOJ Asst. Attorney James Burnham replaced Jody Hunt for all oversight issues in this court battle.
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
Senator John Cornyn
Centinel2012 