Big Win For President Trump !

As we expected the Supreme Court has granted the petition for a writ of certiorari and will hear cases related to attempts to gain President Trump financial records and tax filings.

The Supreme Court has issued a stay upon all lower court action and consolidated the cases into one writ.  The court will hear arguments in March and release a ruling later in the summer of 2020.

President Trump went to the Supreme Court after the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One seeking President Trump’s tax records. In his request to the court [Read Here] Trump asked SCOTUS to block the subpoenas on the ground they go beyond the committees’ powers.

Justice Ginsburg stayed the lower court decision and ordered the House of Representatives to file a response by Wednesday, December 11.  The cases and issues were then discussed at their private SCOTUS conference.  Today’s writ is the outcome.

The underlying House case has several defects.

Attorney Ristvan previously provided a good encapsulation of the problems for the House that explains why President Trump could likely win the case:

House Oversight is one of three committees that 26USC§6103(f) requires the IRS to turn over individual returns “upon request”.

They requested (PDJT taxes for 6 years 2013-2018) long before Pelosi announced her impeachment inquiry, way before the House vote on same, to which Pelosi said Sunday, (paraphrased) “We haven’t decided to impeach. We are only inquiring about it.”

The ‘upon request’ is not as absolute as it seems. The request must still be predicated on a legitimate legislative purpose. SCOTUS has held (I skip the rulings, since previously commented on here many months ago) that there are only two valid purposes, both constrained to legislative powers expressly granted by A1§8.

1. An inquiry into making, repealing, or amending an A1§8 law.
2. Oversight of executive administration of an existing law.

With respect to (1), a legitimate legislative purpose would be reviewing real estate tax law for possible changes. BUT then, the request should have come from Ways and Means (Neal) where tax laws originate. AND, it should have included requests for tax returns from other big real estate developers also. Singling out only PDJT is a fatal defect to this purpose.

With respect to (2), after Nixon/Agnew the tax code was amended to require a special IRS audit of annual POTUS and VPOTUS returns, with the results held in the National Archive. Reviewing those special audits by IRS would be a proper Oversight and Reform legislative purpose, BUT ONLY for 2017-2018 after PDJT was inaugurated. The earlier 4 years demanded are a fatal defect to this purpose.

Both these valid points were raised by President Trump and were already on their way to SCOTUS. Now the committee is trying to ‘cure’ these fatal request defects by claiming the returns are necessary for impeachment. This raises four new issues where PDJT can also win.

1. Impeachment is not a legislative purpose within A1§8.
2. Articles of Impeachment have historically been the the province of Judiciary, NOT Oversight.
3. The demand was made BEFORE the impeachment inquiry unofficially started and cannot be retrospectively cured.
4. No tax ‘high crimes of misdemeanors’ have even been alleged. Impeachment fishing expeditions are unconstitutional.

IMO this case has the potential to set a major constitutional precedent about POTUS harassment via political impeachment. The constitutional convention minutes and Federalist #65 both make it clear why ‘maladministration’ (the original third test after treason and bribery, and which WOULD allow for political impeachment) was replaced by ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’. The phrase was borrowed from prior British law, has a specific set of meanings, and DOES NOT allow political impeachment. (link)

The quest for President Trump’s financial records is essentially a legislative fishing expedition in an attempt to gain opposition research for their Democrat candidate in the 2020 election.

President Trump hosts a press availability prior to a bilateral meeting with President Abdo Benitez of Paraguay.  [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It’s great to have the President of Paraguay here. We’re doing a lot of work with Paraguay on terrorism, on drugs, on trade — a lot of different things. And we’ve had a great relationship. So, Mr. President, it’s an honor to have you. Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT ABDO BENÍTEZ: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It is a great honor for us to be here, for my country; I believe also for the region, Mr. President — for the one who stood firmly defending democracy in the region.

And the President of Paraguay here reaffirms our bilateral and our historic friendship.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT ABDO BENÍTEZ: Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Really tremendous. We look forward to the meeting.

I want to congratulate Boris Johnson on a terrific victory. I think that might be a harbinger for what’s to come in our country; it was last time. I’m sure people will be thrilled to hear that, but a lot of people will be, actually — a very big percentage of people. Because this was a tremendous victory last night, and it’s very interesting. The final votes are being tallied right now, but the numbers are tremendous. So I want to congratulate. He’s a friend of mine. It’s going to be a great thing for the United States also, because it means a lot of trade. A tremendous amount of trade. They want to do business with us so badly.

Under the European Union, it was very, very hard for them to do business with us. We just made our big deal, as you know, with Mexico, Canada. We have a tremendous trade deal that’s going through the House now. It’s going to be obviously approved. And it’s tremendous for our country. It’s really tremendous for the region, but it’s fantastic for the U.S.

We have — the China deal, as you know, it was just approved a little while ago. And it’s — to me, it’s not complicated, but that’s what I do. It’s a phenomenal deal. The tariffs will largely remain at 25 percent on $250 billion. And we’ll use them for future negotiations on the phase two deal, because China would like to see the tariffs off, and we — we’re okay with that. But they’ll be used as a negotiating table for the phase two deal, which they would like to start immediately, and that’s okay with me. We were going to wait until the after the election, but they’d like to start them sooner than that, and that’s okay. So we’ll start that negotiation soon.

This is a very large deal — the China deal. It covers tremendous manufacturing, farming — a lot of rules, regulations. A lot of things are covered. It’s a phase one deal, but a lot of big things are covered. And I say, affectionately: The farmers are going to have to go out and buy much larger tractors, because it means a lot of business — a tremendous amount of business.

And we’ve had a very big week. A lot of things have done. Space Force, as you know, was approved. That’s a tremendous — that’s another branch of the military. I mean, very few people have that in their legacy. And we have that, just like the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard. We have another branch of the military, to think of what that means. But very vital. It’s going to be — with time, it’s going to be certainly one of the most important branches.

We’ll have our own representative. It will have its own representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s a big deal — something that a lot of people thought couldn’t be done. But the Space Force will be a very important component of our defense and, frankly, our offense, and it’ll be very important for our country. So we’re very honored by that.

And we had many other things that we’ve done this week. This has been a wild week. And if you have any questions, please go ahead.

Q Mr. President, your reaction to the vote in the House Judiciary this morning?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I was actually, believe it or not, finishing up the final — I was doing the final touches on the China deal. And that’s going to be one of the great deals ever. And it’s going to ultimately lead to the opening of China, which is something that is incredible, because that’s a whole, big, untapped market of 1.5 billion people. And so I was actually doing the finals.

But I got to see enough of it, and certainly I spoke to my people. It’s a witch hunt. It’s a sham. It’s a hoax. Nothing was done wrong. Zero was done wrong. I think it’s a horrible thing to be using the tool of impeachment, which is supposed to be used in an emergency. And it would seem many, many, many years apart.

To be using this for a perfect phone call, where the President of that country said there was no pressure whatsoever — didn’t even know what we were talking about. It was perfect; the relationship is perfect. I’ve done much more for them than Obama did for them. It’s a scam. It’s something that shouldn’t be allowed. And it’s a very bad thing for our country.

And you’re trivializing impeachment. And I tell you what: Someday there’ll be a Democrat President and there’ll be a Republican House, and I suspect they’re going to remember it. Because when you do — when you use impeachment for absolutely nothing, other than to try and get political gain —

Now, with that being said, my poll numbers, as you know, have gone through the roof. Fundraising for the Republican Party has gone through the roof. We’re setting records. We’ve never — nobody has ever seen anything like it because the people are disgusted. The people are absolutely disgusted. Nobody has ever seen anything like this.

And I watched yesterday — I got to see quite a bit of it yesterday — and I watched these Democrats on the committee make fools out of themselves. Absolute fools out of themselves. And I also saw them quoting, all the time, incorrectly. They kept saying “me.” It wasn’t about me, it was about us. The word was “us.” So, they would — kept saying “me” instead “us.” “Can you do ‘us’ a favor?” “Our country,” comma, “our country.” Then it talked about seeing the Attorney General of the United States.

For these people to say “me” — they would say “me.” “You said, ‘Do me a favor.’” No, it didn’t say that. It said, “Do us a favor — our country.” Talking about the past election. Talking about corruption.

The other thing nobody remembers and nobody likes to talk about — and I talk about it all the time — is why isn’t Germany, why isn’t France, why aren’t other European countries paying? Because we’re paying. The suckers. You know, for years, we’ve been the suckers. But we’re not the suckers anymore. Big difference.

But why isn’t Germany paying big money? They’re the ones — I mean, they have a much bigger benefit than we do because Ukraine is really a stoppage between Russia and parts of Europe — the major part of Europe. Why aren’t European countries paying? Why isn’t France paying a lot of money? Why is it always the United States? We’re 7,000 miles away. Why is it always the suckers that pay? So we’ve changed that, but nobody brings that up.

I think that the whole impeachment thing — “hoax,” I guess you could call it, because it is a hoax. And Nancy Pelosi and knows it. By the way, they duped her yesterday. She was on an interview, and she said, “We’ve been working on this for two and a half years.” So she’s — she was working on it, in other words, two years before we ever spoke to Ukraine. She said, “We’ve been working on impeachment for two and a half years.” And the reporter was shocked when they got this answer, because it showed she’s a liar.

So it’s — it’s a very sad thing for our country, but it seems to be very good for me, politically. And again, those people — because I watched some of the dishonest, fake media — they’re saying, “Well, the polls have remained the same.” No, the polls have not remained the same. I think you understand that, John. The polls have gone through the roof for Trump. Because peop- — especially with independent voters, and especially in swing states. I could show you numbers that nobody has ever seen numbers like this before.

So the impeachment is a hoax. It’s a sham. It started a long time ago, probably before I came down the escalator with the future First Lady. It started a long time ago.

And when you look at the IG report and you look at these horrible FBI people talking about, “We got to get him out,” “insurance policies” — you know, the insurance policy is just in cases she loses — meaning, Crooked Hillary, who’s crooked as a three-dollar bill. “Just in case Crooked Hillary loses, we’ve got an insurance policy.” But we’ve been going through the insurance policy now for three years, and it’s a disgrace.

Thank you very much everybody. Thank you.

Q (Inaudible.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Say it?

Q Can you say how much China will be buying? Will they hit $50 billion?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think they’ll hit $50 billion in agriculture.

Q Can you say —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, much more than 50 [billion], because it’s also manufacturing and other. But I think, in agriculture, they will hit $50 billion. Yes.

Q Next year? Or when? What’s the timeline for that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Pretty soon. They’ve already stepped it up. My deal with them was two months ago. We had it in pretty good form. I said, “Do me a favor: Start buying agriculture.” And they started. If you look — I mean, they’re already buying. Even before the deal is signed, they’re buying.

Q Are you going to speak about Venezuela, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’re with the people of Venezuela 100 percent. It’s so important to us, and we’re going to be discussing Venezuela today. It’ll be a big subject.

Okay?

Q Mr. President, do you prefer a short process in the Senate or a more extended process?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I have heard Lindsey Graham, who’s terrific, and I heard his statement, and I like that. And I could also — I can do — I’ll do whatever I want.

Look, there is — we did nothing wrong. So I’ll do long or short. I’ve heard Mitch. I’ve heard Lindsey. I think they are very much on agreement on some concept. I’ll do whatever they want to do. It doesn’t matter.

I wouldn’t mind a long process because I’d like to see the whistleblower, who’s a fraud — the whistleblower wrote a false report, and I really blew it up when I released the transcript of the call.

And then Schiff gets up and he — and I blew him up, too — because he went up in front of Congress and he made a statement about what I said that was totally false. And then a long time after he made it, when he got caught, he said, “Oh, well, that was parody. Parody.”

No, Schiff is a crooked — he’s a corrupt politician and a disgrace. And because of the fact he’s in Congress, he’s got immunity, so you can’t do anything. But he went up there — you know that — he made a totally false statement. The whistleblower wrote a totally false statement. So it’s a fraud.

Then I say, “Where is the informer?” — the one that informed the whistleblower? He had an informer. He disappeared. You know why he disappeared? Because I released the transcript. Had I not released that transcript, we would have had an informer; we would have had another whistleblower.

By the way, where is the second whistleblower? Remember that? “We have a second whistleblower. We have breaking news.”

Look, not all of it, but much of the media is corrupt. These are bad people. They’re sick people and they’re corrupt.

And we’re fighting the Democrats and we’re fighting a lot of the corrupt media. But I ask the corrupt media: Where’s the second whistleblower?

Now, had I not had a transcript — I’m lucky we had this transcript, which, by the way, has now been verified by the Lieutenant Colonel — Lieutenant Colonel, okay? He’s another beauty.

So where is — where is all of this stuff that was going to happen? Once I released it — and I released it quick but — quickly. But once I released it, all of a sudden the second whistleblower disappeared. The first whistleblower, who was all set to testify, he — all of a sudden, he becomes this saint-like figure that they don’t need him anymore. The one that everybody wanted to see, including Schiff, was the whistleblower. Once I released the text of what happened — the transcript — that was the end. Everybody disappeared.

So now there’s no informer. There’s no second whistleblower. Everybody has gone. And, by the way, a guy like Sondland — nobody ever says it — he said very strongly that I said, “I want nothing” and “no quid pro quo.” Nobody says that. That’s what he said. He said it in Congress. Nobody ever says that.

So, look, we’re dealing with a lot of corrupt people. There was nothing done wrong. To use the power of impeachment on this nonsense is an embarrassment to this country. The President just said it. It’s an embarrassment to our country. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

END 11:56 A.M. EST

Last night President Trump congratulated Prime Minister Boris Johnson on his great win in the U.K. election, noting the possibilities for a big trade boost are “massive”:

Not accidentally, the geopolitical economic and trade planets have aligned splendidly.   The cornerstone USMCA agreement has bipartisan support and will ratify quickly in congress.  A “phase one” trade agreement with China is likely, and prior plans for a strategic trade deal with the U.K. have increased as a result of the U.K. election.

First rule in geopolitics, it’s always about the economics.  Second rule in geopolitics: refer to rule #1.    Understanding this basic truism is the key to understand how President Trump is able to be so effective.  There are trillions at stake, and many interests.

“Economic security is national security.” ~President Trump

All politics circles back to the underlying economics; whether it is an individual financial self-interest for a specific politician, or whether it is a larger financial interest for a group or even a nation.  Everything is always about the money; and that essential truth is why Donald Trump is so uniquely qualified, influential and stunningly effective.

Donald J Trump isn’t a politician at heart, he’s a businessman.  From that outlook he appears to be working through a plan for what he views (we agree) is bigger than politics.

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, China, North Korea the larger EU etc. all geopolitical issues cross paths with President Trump’s primary focus, U.S. economic wealth, influence and security.

President Trump doesn’t leave economic policy to chance. He’s full bore economic obsessive compulsive! …And unapologetic about it. President Trump has single-handily begun resetting the global economy and is bringing  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 (tariffs); and (d) dismantling the post WWII Marshal plan of industrial trade and one-way tariffs.

Every element within this process, no matter how small, has President Trump’s full attention. He has assignments to many, but he relies upon none.  In prior review of President Trump’s discussions with Boris Johnson there was a clear outline of a possibility.

In the details of a Brexit trade agreement with the EU it appears the EU can, likely would, punish the UK for having more favorable trade agreements with other nations.  Meaning if the UK gives better deals to others than it does the EU, the EU will increase tariffs against the UK and use non-trade barriers to restrict access to the EU market for UK products.

But that’s the limit of what the EU will be able to do….

Meaning, the EU cannot stop the UK from entering a trade deal with North America (think USMCA); and there’s a very visible likelihood President Trump is constructing a U.S-U.K trade agreement with that in mind.

Meaning the U.K. could have preferential access to North America; and USMCA countries (Mexico, U.S. and Canada) will in turn have preferential trade treatment with the U.K.

This is important.  The EU will not be able to influence the U.S-U.K. trade agreement beyond imposing tariffs and restrictions on Britain as punishment.  This is where the importance of Donald Trump comes in.

Trump can, I would say: likely will, give preferential treatment to exports from the U.K., so long as PM Boris Johnson is reciprocal toward the U.S.

Simultaneously, President Trump can hit the EU much harder than the EU can hit Great Britain.  If, say, the EU hits the UK with a 25% tariff as punishment for a better trade deal with the U.S. on any individual segment, Trump can hit the EU with a 25% tariff back on the EU.

The EU needs access to the $20 Trillion U.S. market much more than the EU needs access to the newly freed U.K. market.  It takes building a level of trust, but President Trump and PM Johnson can work together to leverage this trade situation to both of their benefits.

The EU will want to keep selling their stuff into the U.K. (less important); but the EU *has to* keep selling their stuff into the U.S. (very important) in order to survive.

Trump and Johnson can work on a U.S-U.K. trade superhighway.   Our research already sees this construct in the discussions.  Simultaneously, Trump can pummel the EU with tariffs.

[Keep in mind the U.S. won a WTO ruling for $7.5 billion a year in countervailing duties the EU cannot legally try and counteract (Boeing case); and USTR Lighthizer has calculated a $2.4 billion countervailing duty against France for their internet tax scheme]

Combine the $7.5 billion WTO ruling against the EU (writ large), with the $2.4 billion duty against France, and overlay the potential for President Trump to hammer additional duties against the EU for adverse trade action within the Brexit customs authority, and what we see is an EU that can threaten action, but has limited recourse (just like China).

As inferred recently by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, President Trump is not adverse to triggering more tariffs against the EU.  Arguably he is looking for any economic excuse to do so.  Brexit provides just that excuse.

Once the U.K exits the European Union, President Trump can provide trade incentives for EU products that come from the U.K. – that do not come from the EU itself.   No U.S. tariffs on Great Britain, while Trump, Ross and Lighthizer put heavy tariffs on the EU.

The result of this process would push EU manufacturers and suppliers into the U.K. as a trade hub for access to North America, specifically the United States.  EU companies wanting to avoid the U.S. tariffs against the EU could distribute their products through operations within the U.K.

As described this trade network provides PM Boris Johnson with the ability to pick and choose the EU entities that he would permit to operate in the U.K.  In essence, this provides Prime Minister Boris Johnson with leverage against the EU for “other issues” of importance.

It’s all about the economics.

Without money to finance a big government ideology, everything stops.

All of the above stated, this is another reason why Nancy Pelosi and the ideological leftists were trying to stall the USMCA. The North American Trade agreement is the trade fulcrum for a massive global economic reset that impacts Asia and Europe.

The corporate multinational profit schemes that exploit China/Asia, and the political ideology behind the socialists/leftists that align with the EU (ie. “share the wealth”), are both weakened by a North American trade alliance, USMCA, that establishes the best return on international investment in North America.

At the center of this realignment is “America First“. A reestablished economic leverage that can reward allies and punish adversaries.  Globalism becomes a thing of the past and is replaced by economic nationalism; an international tide to lift all boats – peacefully.

“Economic security is national security”…