Reconciling ‘Spygate’ With The ‘Soft Coup’ – Five Phases That Explain The Behavior…


There have been a great many questions surrounding the activity that took place in 2017 after President Trump took office and how politicians and officials coordinated an apparent ‘soft coup’ attempt to remove President Trump.

Questions around DAG Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, James Comey and the larger intelligence community (to include the Gang-of-Eight) surrounding the Trump administration. Many of those questions can be reconciled with a review of the predicate.

There are five phases in the evolution of ‘Spygate’ into the ‘Soft Coup’; to reconcile the latter, which extends to today, a full review provides the clarity.

♦ Phase One – December 2015 through April 2016:  The first phase leading into ‘Spygate’ is the period of time where opposition research of the republican candidate field was taking place.  It is in this period where Fusion-GPS hired CIA Open Source researcher Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ-NSD official Bruce Ohr, to do research.

In the background of this time period the FBI and NSA database was being exploited by unknown FBI contractors; it is highly suspected that Nellie Ohr and/or Fusion-GPS was one of those contracted agencies with access to the massive electronic and metadata files.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/349542716/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-72P5FzpI44KMOuOPZrt1

.

♦ Phase Two – April 18th through July 31st 2016: At the same time as NSA Director Mike Rogers discovered a significant and unauthorized uptick in FISA-702(16)(17) database queries, and subsequently blocked access (April 18th, 2016), candidate Donald Trump became the presumptive nominee for the presidential race.

It was within this period where Fusion-GPS was commissioned by Hillary Clinton to focus exclusively on candidate Trump.  Fusion held the prior search findings, and Fusion contracted Christopher Steele who later contacted the FBI through official channels. On July 31st, 2016, FBI counterintelligence operation Crossfire Hurricane became official.

An official investigation targeting the campaign of Donald Trump now held a legal, albeit sketchy and politically motivated, justification.  Under the auspices of investigating Russian involvement with George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort and General Michael Flynn, the FBI was now conducting full-blown surveillance on the political campaign of Donald Trump.  Crossfire Hurricane was the legal cover; ‘Spygate’ begins.

♦ Phase Three – August 1st through October 21st 2016.  With the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation in full swing, the Obama intelligence community, the CIA, was conducting facilitating operations throughout.  In August 2016 CIA Director John Brennan brought the covert intelligence congressional oversight team known as the Gang-of-Eight into the picture.

The CIA angle was explained by Director John Brennan under the open auspices of the CIA operation looking at possible Russian interference with the election.  However, Brennan’s activity was more importantly, and intentionally, a supplement to the FBI activity.  Brennan provided FBI Director James Comey with the two-page “EC” or electronic communication document that initiated Crossfire Hurricane in July.

Brennan’s role is critical.  Brennan kicked-off Crossfire Hurricane; Brennan’s intelligence product was included in President Obama’s daily briefing (PDB); and specifically by design, very importantly, Brennan was the ONLY intelligence official briefing congress:

Brennan Testimony: “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”

“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefedthe full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”

“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…

During this time-frame [Aug, Sept, Oct ’16]:  •Chris Steele was funneling the results of his collaborative work with Nellie Ohr into the FBI; •the FBI was conducting full surveillance upon the Trump campaign (CH/Spygate); •and Brennan was seeding the legal background, a plausible justification of sorts which might be needed later, with carefully worded briefings to the Gang-of-Eight.

Critical to note – the Go8 was not being briefed on Crossfire Hurricane/Spygate, which was the FBI operation to conduct internal political surveillance of the Trump campaign.  The Go8 only knew what Brennan was informing them.  Those Brennan briefings were more of a disingenuous overview of generalized Russian interference.  James Comey never briefed the Go8 on his FBI operation. [In March 2017 Comey would tell congress his decision not to inform them was due to “the sensitivity of the matter”.]

Toward the end of October things took on a new sense of urgency.  All of the aggregate intelligence exploitation, FISA-702 database extraction, and ongoing campaign surveillance being conducted was seriously fraught with legal peril.  On October 21st, 2016, the FBI urgently applied for, and received, a FISA Title One surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page.

That FISC approved warrant made all of the prior FBI surveillance on the Trump campaign completely legal.  In essence the FISA court approved all prior FBI conduct.  Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer approved the warrant.  Sally Yates and James Comey were the application signatories.

A Title-One FISA warrant authorizes any and all surveillance methods; and establishes legal authority for retroactive review of all files and records associated with Carter Page; and anyone he comes into contact with; and anyone those contacts come into contact with.

In essence Title-One authority permits all electronic and physical surveillance, wiretaps, phone and electronic records, database extraction etc. The warrant is retroactive.  All of the previous actions against the Trump campaign were now authorized and legal.  A Title-One FISA Court warrant is the highest level of surveillance authority any court can grant.

♦ Phase Four – October 21st, 2016, through January 20th, 2017:  The FBI received their FISC surveillance authority two weeks before the November 8th presidential election.

If Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election all of this would disappear; none of this would ever surface; and the entire operation would just evaporate into the ether of invisible DC history.  But Hillary didn’t win.  She lost.  Now, all downstream official action takes an entirely more urgent and important shift.

Shortly after Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer authorized the FISA warrant, NSA Director Mike Rogers went to the FISC and informed the same judge of the FISA-702(16)(17) abuses that took place in the 2016 presidential election cycle.

Judge Collyer issues an explosive opinion lambasting the FBI for their allowed abuse of the system. The DOJ head of the National Security Division, John Carlin, resigned from his position.

Ten days after the election NSA Director Mike Rogers also travelled to Trump Towerwithout informing his boss ODNI James Clapper.

There has been a great deal of speculation as to what Rogers told President-elect Trump during that meeting.  It’s likely Director Rogers informed Trump about some of what he knew surrounding the unauthorized surveillance activity and FISA(702) exploitation. However, intelligence is highly compartmented; it’s also virtually guaranteed Rogers had no idea what the FBI did, or was doing, with the material and the larger ‘Spygate’ operation.

After Hillary lost the election, CIA Director John Brennan and ODNI James Clapper quickly put together an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) about Russian interference in the 2016 election. When the report was pushed into the media bloodstream NSA Director Mike Rogers did not hold the same level of confidence in the assessment.

[…]  A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. (link)

Again, it is super important to remember congressional oversight has no idea about the FBI operation (CH/Spygate) during the election.  Congressional oversight, the ‘Gang-of-Eight’, only knows what John Brennan has briefed them about; there have been no Go8 briefings by FBI Director James Comey.

After the 2016 election the Go8 members also changed. Senator Dianne Feinstein abdicated her SSCI Vice-Chair position to Senator Mark Warner, and with the retirement of Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer now became minority leader.

On January 5th, 2017, President Obama held an Oval Office meeting with VP Joe Biden, James Comey (FBI), Michael Rogers (NSA), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Sally Yates (DOJ) and Susan Rice.   At the conclusion of the briefing, President Obama asks Sally Yates and James Comey to remain.  Together with Susan Rice, this is where the “by the book” comment comes into play. As recounted by Rice:

“President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

The background context here is important. The outgoing Obama white house team knows what has taken place throughout.  Obama’s PDB’s have included information about the Trump campaign officials who were under active surveillance.  As the Trump transition team enters into office the FBI surveillance is still ongoing. The counterintelligence operation against the incoming administration, and every participating member, remains in full swing.

The day after Obama’s oval office meeting, when President-elect Trump is briefed on the Steele Dossier, ODNI James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey cannot brief the target within their investigation on the granular material they used to gain the FISA warrant against the candidate who is now the President-elect.

Their target was Trump.

Trump is now the President-elect.

That’s why Comey only briefed Trump on the salacious material… the ‘pee tapes’ and ‘Russian hookers’ nonsense was not part of the FISA application.  The material that was part of the FISA application; the material that outlined candidate Trump as a target; was not shared with the President-elect because it would have amounted to Trump discovering the factual origin of an ongoing counterintelligence operation against him.

Simultaneous to this transition taking place, all the Trump officials within his team were still under an active FISA Title-One surveillance warrant. This surveillance also included the capture of all of their transition email accounts, the content was later given -without transition team approval- to Robert Mueller by the GAO.  The legal authority for that controversial event was inside the FISA Title-One surveillance warrant.

The FISA warrant was reauthorized on January 12th, 2017, about a week before the inauguration of Trump with DAG Sally Yates and James Comey again approving.

♦ Phase Five – January 20th, 2017, through today:  Here’s where the current background of multiple issues and questions begins to make sense.

Remember, as the Trump administration takes office, congressional oversight (Go8) still has no idea what is taking place within the ongoing counterintelligence operation against President Trump and all those around him.  Crossfire Hurricane, aka ‘Spygate’, is mostly invisible in the background.

The need to put factual teeth behind a fraudulently created investigative predicate means the FBI needs to start getting serious about the investigative targets.  Thus in January, for the first time since CH/Spygate began, the FBI reaches out to question George Papadopoulos.  Additionally, on January 24th, 2017, investigators question another origination target, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Evidence of CH/Spygate surfaces in the actions against appointed National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos; however, despite President Trump and FBI Director James Comey twice being together (January 27th and Feb 14th), only the small group within the FBI and DOJ-NSD are aware of the operation as incoming Trump intelligence officials replace outgoing Obama intelligence officials.

All of that changes mid-March 2017.

Around March 14th, 2017, amid the Flynn fiasco, multiple swirling contradictions, massive intelligence leaks to the media and Trump administration officials beginning inquiries about what the heck is going on…. FBI Director James Comey how has to brief congressional oversight.  This is the first time the 2017 Gang-of-Eight is officially informed about the counterintelligence operation known as Crossfire Hurricane.

This necessary shift toward oversight briefing leads to the Senate Intelligence Committee receiving a March 17th copy of the FISA application.  Go8 members Richard Burr and Mark Warner receive the original October 21st, 2016, FISA application and the first renewal.

A few days later, March 20th, 2017, James Comey testifies to congress and tries to explain why oversight was not informed of the operation since it began in July 2016. [Note, if Clinton had won the election no-one would ever have needed to be informed] WATCH:

.

Now, it’s unknown to what extent FBI Director Comey explained the level of FBI investigation into candidate and President-elect Trump; it’s also unknown whether or not Comey gave the Go8 all of the details to include the origination of Crossfire Hurricane and the FISA Title-One surveillance warrant authority received by the investigative unit in October 2016; the distribution date of the FISC copy, March 17th, would indicate that he did..

However, immediately after this public testimony on March 20th, HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, a Go8 member who would have been part of the briefing, gets information about the Trump campaign officials and transition team officials under surveillance and being unmasked.  Watch and listen carefully:

.

Presumably if FBI Director James Comey was fulsome with his briefing Devin Nunes would not have been surprised; OR, it could be the surprise was not about the investigation itself per se’, but rather that Obama political officials would be part of the pipeline of information about an ongoing covert counterintelligence operation against a political campaign.  The latter seems to be the most likely cause of alarm and concern.

After Nunes’ March 22nd, 2017, Press announcement, and the subsequent democrat/media outrage therein, House Speaker Paul Ryan somewhat removes Devin Nunes from his committee responsibilities as they pertain to oversight on the Trump-centric investigative matters, and Nunes is placed under an ethics investigation.

In hindsight, and knowing the Comey Go8 briefing likely outlined Trump as a potential target within the FBI counterintelligence operation, Speaker Ryan’s action against Devin Nunes now makes more sense.  In essence, from Ryan’s perspective Nunes might be compromising the FBI’s investigation by communicating with the White House about information from the FBI shared to the Gang-of-Eight.  Even giving the impression that such communication might have occurred was enough for Ryan to act.

Then we move on to April 2017, when the FISA surveillance warrant was again reauthorized; and the FBI counterintelligence operation is continuing; this surveillance now includes almost the entire Trump administration.

By this time Sally Yates has been fired over her refusal to defend Trump’s travel ban.  Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente and James Comey sign the second extension; everyone is keeping notes about every encounter with the President, yet President Trump doesn’t know he’s the ‘Soft Coup‘ target.

May 9th, 2017, President Trump fires the insufferably political FBI Director James Comey. Now Andrew McCabe, the lead initiator of the FBI Crossfire Hurricane operation, is Acting FBI Director.

In McCabe’s 2019 media tour he claims he was going bananas because his target was firing his team, yet McCabe appeared in front of congress on May 11th, 2017 and said President Trump firing James Comey two days earlier did not amount to any interference:

♦Senator Rubio: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you–without going to the specifics of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Director McCabe. As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.  (link)

In 2019 both Andrew McCabe and DAG Rod Rosenstein have admitted to conversations about the best way to proceed after Comey was fired.  Eventually a decision was reached to initiate a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, to take over the entire probe.

Consider from their small group perspective in May 2017; knowing what actions had been undertaken from December 2015 through all phases of the investigative purposing; Andrew McCabe, FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and all team members would want to pass any investigative torch to a very tight and ideologically aligned crew.

If McCabe, Baker et al had to pass the baton, there would be an element of risk involved if the totality of all 2016 background information surfaced.  They would need an insider with a perfect set of specific tools to continue the operation and also avoid risk.  That person was Robert Mueller; and they leveraged maximum influence over DAG Rosenstein toward that end.

Now think about Robert Mueller being contacted by Rosenstein, briefed on the task at hand, and generally given a background overview of what was needed.  For Mueller this endeavor to investigate a sitting president would have all kinds of possibilities for going sideways and backfiring.  In addition, Mueller would be watching the news and he knows this entire crew before the phone call is even answered.

It stands to reason the only person Mueller wouldn’t know in this entire story is the target President Donald Trump.  That explains Rosenstein introducing Mueller to Trump on May 16th, 2017, and then a day later announcing Mueller’s appointment as special counsel.

The first priority Mueller would hold, after a briefing from McCabe, Comey, Baker and all the FBI team; and considering the claims and evidence used to obtain the legal warrants to conduct surveillance etc; would be to prioritize investigating whether POTUS was factually a Russian asset.

A few weeks later, June 2017, DAG Rosenstein and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe signed the third -and final- FISA warrant reauthorization.

Shortly after Mueller begins the urgent review of POTUS as a Russian asset, in late June and July 2017, Robert Mueller is also forced to confront a paper trail of unavoidable evidence pointing to the extreme political bias (Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe) within the previous FBI investigative unit.  Mueller would have to be an idiot not to see the outline of what had taken place throughout 2016 all the way to his appointment.

As a result of the pre-Mueller moves by the FBI (McCabe) and DOJ (Yates), the FBI investigative unit already has Michael Flynn inside their investigative control system.  Mueller now moves to throw a bag over George Papadopoulos.

In July 2017 Mueller’s team executes the $10,000 sting operation using CIA asset Charles Tawil, and they arrest Papadopoulos under extremely suspicious and sketchy circumstances.  Papadopoulos is now shut down; any subsequent risk is under control. Again, the purposeful intent is to provide the originating CH/Spygate fraud with more necessary predicate authenticity.

By August 2nd, 2017, Robert Mueller has ensnared Flynn (lobbying & lying), Manafort (lobbying & taxes), and Papadopoulos (presumably lying).  Three of the originating four CH/Spygate targets as outlined to the FISA court.  The only one they didn’t capture, or perhaps some would say they didn’t try to capture because defense discovery would be problematic, is Carter Page.

On August 2nd, 2017, with the aforementioned Trump-Trio in various stages of legal limbo, Robert Mueller requests an updated “scope memo” from Rod Rosenstein:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/375478974/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-4DaehSp6U38EiB8eNVXS

.

By outlining, in a specific mandate to Mueller, that the office of the president was currently the subject of an ongoing counterintelligence investigation, the special counsel would be authorized to block any congressional oversight requests for documents, material or evidence that would interfere in their investigation.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s scope memo created a impenetrable firewall through which information could not be shared until Robert Mueller’s probe was complete.

The picture here is pretty clear:

So long as Team Obama can reasonably keep claiming the originating 2016 surveillance upon the Trump campaign was an outcome of a valid counterintelligence investigative probe; which is the underpinning of their need to perpetuate the Russian election conspiracy narrative; and so long as all Obama officials who were engaged within the process keep up the story that validates the fraudulent purpose; then it is likely all players will escape legal accountability for the unlawful weaponization of the intelligence apparatus to target political opposition.

In essence, “by the book” will have been successful.

This background reality is likely what new Attorney General William Barr has been absorbing over the past several days.

RBG Look-alike Interviews Alan Dershowitz About Pending Mueller Report…


Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz joins Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s doppelganger to discuss the Mueller investigation and why he says Donald Trump’s emergency declaration for a border wall could be a “mistake.”

Alan Dershowitz discusses Andrew McCabe’s 60 Minuets interview where he talks about the James Comey firing.


Published on Feb 18, 2019

AP Previews Andrew Weissmann’s Special Counsel Report as Pitched by Pelosi Committee Chairs…


Many people are wondering what type of report Andrew Weissmann could possibly write for his special counsel boss Robert Mueller – to present to the DOJ after two years of insufferable political investigations.  Well, the Associated Press has provided an answerthat likely hits as close to accurate as anyone could presume.

In their anticipatory outline the AP reporters take half-truths, blend them with innuendo and leap-jumping suspicion, and top it all off with manipulated narrative engineering.

The AP declares: Yes, despite Weissmann and Mueller’s inability to technically prove Russian collusion and/or conspiracy; they’ve basically proven it exists.  Impeach !!

READ HERE

North Korea Chairman Kim Jong-un Takes Train from Pyongyang to Hanoi Vietnam…


Multiple media outlets are reporting that North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un has departed Pyongyang en route to Hanoi Vietnam by train.  It’s approximately a two day train ride for the journey.  The summit with President Trump is scheduled for February 27th and 28th.

SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea on Sunday confirmed for the first time that its leader Kim Jong Un will hold a second summit with U.S. President Donald Trump, days ahead of the high-stakes nuclear meeting set to take place in Vietnam’s capital of Hanoi.

Kim left Pyongyang by train on Saturday afternoon for the Feb. 27-28 summit accompanied by senior North Korean officials, North Korea’s official KCNA news agency said.

The delegation with Kim includes top North Korean officials who took part in last year’s expanded summit talks between Kim and Trump in Singapore, including top envoy to the U.S. Kim Yong Chol, vice chairman of the central committee of North Korea’s Workers’ Party Ri Su Yong, and foreign minister Ri Yong Ho.

The North Korean leader’s sister Kim Yo Jong, who was also seen aiding him in Singapore, is traveling with Kim as well.

Other senior North Korean officials, such as his de facto chief of staff Kim Chang Son and Kim Hyok Chol, negotiations counterpart to U.S. envoy Stephen Biegun, were already in Hanoi to prepare for the summit.  (read more)

Paul Manafort Sentencing Memo Released (full pdf below)….


Special Counsel Robert Mueller has released the sentencing memo for Paul Manafort (full pdf below).  Opposition to President Trump had hoped the memo would outline nuggets of investigative material that would indicate risk to President Trump. However, the Manafort sentencing memo provides no additional insight beyond what was already known.

WASHINGTON – As part of his plea deal in September, Manafort, 69, acknowledged he was guilty of everything he was accused of both in Washington and Virginia: making millions as an unregistered lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians, hiding that money to avoid paying taxes, defrauding banks to pay his debts when his oligarch patrons fell out of power, and lying to cover up his crimes while trying to persuade witnesses to do the same. (link)

Under his prior plea agreement in Washington, prosecutors had agreed to ask Judge Amy Berman Jackson to give Manafort credit at sentencing for cooperation. But because she found he lied to investigators and breached that agreement, the prosecution is no longer bound by the plea.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/400335788/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-lGjib6yUP5rvc8DkRQDe

 

Transcript: President Trump Meets With U.S-China Trade Negotiation Teams in Oval Office…


Today in presidential history is a day when the import of consequence doesn’t surface until historians apply hindsight.  However, those who carry the longest-lens are enjoying these moments in history…. We make with our support of Trump such a sound as all history from these days forward are forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.  And when we are gone, our beneficiaries will sing of these deeds in forbidden songs while tending the flickering flame of liberty; for we few lived in the era of Trump.

[Transcript] Oval Office – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. It’s a great honor to be with the Vice Premier of China, a very highly respected man in China. And we’re negotiating trade and the trade agreement. And we have many representatives from China and — as you’d know, and most of you know who they are — many representatives from the United States.

I think we’re getting along very well. Ultimately, I think the biggest decisions and some even smaller decisions will be made by President Xi and myself. And we expect to have a meeting sometime in the not-too-distant future.

And I can only say talks are going along well, but we’re going to have to see what happens. I think there’ll be some points that this group won’t agree on because maybe they’re not supposed to agree on, allowed to agree on. And I think President Xi and I will work out the final points, perhaps. And perhaps not.

So I just want to say, Mr. Vice Premier, it’s a great honor to have you.

VICE PREMIER LIU: Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And we thank you very much.

VICE PREMIER LIU: Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Would you like to say something?

VICE PREMIER LIU: Okay. Thank you very, very much, Mr. President. It’s a great honor to meet you. I came here — first I bring a message from our President. If you don’t mind, I ask the interpreter to read the letter to you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you. Please.

So, you can hear fine? You’ll speak for them (inaudible).

INTERPRETER: Okay. Message from President Xi Jinping to President Donald J. Trump:

Mr. President,

As China and the U.S. are holding another round of high-level economic and trade talks, I entrust Vice Premier Liu He to be my Special Envoy and ask him to bring you my warm greetings and best regards.

Not too long ago, you sent to me a special letter of festive greetings, together with the lovely video made for me and my wife by your grandchildren on the Chinese Lunar New Year. We enjoyed the performance greatly and were happy to see that the little ones have kept improving in their Chinese. We watched the video more than once and feel that we must (inaudible) for these adorable grandchildren of yours.

I’m also pleased to note that, to follow through on what has been agreed upon between the two of us in Argentina, our economic teams have, since lately, engaged in intensive consultations and made significant progress. This has been well received in both our countries and in the wider international community. It is my hope that our two sides will continue to work together in the spirit of mutual respect and win-win cooperation and could redouble our efforts so as to meet each other halfway and reach an agreement that works for our mutual benefit.

Mr. President, I stand ready to be in close touch with you through various means. Please let me know if you have any specific thought in mind.

To conclude, my wife Peng Liyuan and I wish to extend our season’s greetings to you, Melania, and your family. May you all enjoy happiness and success in the Year of the Pig.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. That’s very nice. Say “Thank you very much”; I would really appreciate if you would just give my warmest regards.

The video he’s talking about is a video made by Ivanka and Jared, and it’s — their children speak fluent Chinese, even though they’re very young. They were taught, at a very young age, Chinese. And when President Xi met Arabella, who’s the oldest, he said this was like perfect Chinese from a — at the time, it was 5-year old — from a 5-year old girl from Beijing. And I thought that was nice. And they actually made a little video that they sent to President Xi.

And if you want, we could even give them — I’m sure the press wouldn’t like to see the video but — (laughter) — if you would, just in case you would, I think it would be fine. If you’d like to do that, Jared, you could just give it to a few of the people. But it was — I thought it was a very nice thing. And it shows a great friendship between the two countries. And that was really just a “Happy New Year” wish that was given in Chinese by Arabella — mostly by Arabella and her two brothers. So I think it was — I think it’s good. I wouldn’t mind if you gave it.

We’re having very good talks. There’s a chance that something very exciting could happen. This is a deal that would be signed by me. I’ve been in touch with Congress. I’ve been telling many of the people in Congress exactly where we are. We’re, right now, getting a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion worth of goods coming in — mostly technology and high technology.

We’re getting a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of goods. The 10 percent goes up as of March 1st. It goes to a 25 percent number. So we’d be getting 25 percent on $250 billion. And there’s about $267 billion that’s un-tariffed, untouched, which we’ll discuss later.

But if we could make a deal, we wouldn’t have to bother with that discussion. So we’ll see what happens. But we’ve had very good talks. As you know, Mr. Lighthizer has done a great job. But it’s only a great job, Bob, if you get it finished, right?

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And if it’s a deal that’s a good deal for both.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And, Steve, great. But it’s only great if you get it done.

Wilbur, Sonny — Sonny doesn’t care; he just wants a lot of products being bought from the farmers. Is that right, Sonny? That’s what you care about. Sonny is more interested in the farmers than he is any other aspect.

But Larry Kudlow, Mr. Ambassador — the longest-serving governor in the history of the country, as you know. And now he’s ambassador to China. But he was the Governor of Iowa for 24 years, right?

AMBASSADOR BRANSTAD: Twenty- — well, I would have been, except you appointed me as ambassador. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay, but you were still the longest —

AMBASSADOR BRANSTAD: Twenty-two years and four months, yeah.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s the longest-serving governor in the history of our country. I believe —

AMBASSADOR BRANSTAD: That’s right. That’s right.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: — (inaudible) from the time. And you’ve done a great job as governor and you’re doing a great job as the ambassador to China.

And I might tell the story that when the ambassador was a young man from Iowa, he was in China. And he was dealing with people from China — both in Iowa and in China. And he met a man who was a young man, and he is now the head of China — President Xi. And he said to his wife — he came home — and this was how many years ago, Mr. Ambassador?

AMBASSADOR BRANSTAD: Well, 1970 — 1985 is when he came to Iowa.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right, but —

AMBASSADOR BRANSTAD: 1985.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: — you met him in 1978 or so, right?

AMBASSADOR BRANSTAD: I went to China in ’84, and then he was in Iowa in ’85.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: So he met him, and he came home and he told his wife, “I just met the next President of China.” And they say, “How would you know?” He said, “Because the competence of this man is so enormous that I believe he’s going to be the next President of China.” And years go by, and he became the next President of China. And they like each other.

So when it came time to picking an ambassador from China, I say, “I think I have the right guy. He happens to be governor of the great state of Iowa.” And you have done a fantastic job. But I thought that story was incredible.

So, many years ago, he said that he knows who the next President of China is going to be. I thought — I just think it’s a great story. And his wife confirms it fully, so that’s good.

So I just want to thank everybody for being here. We’re going to have discussions right now. We’re talking. And again, I think we’re making a lot of progress. I think there’s a very, very good chance that a deal could be made. We’ll be meeting at some point with President Xi — assuming we go further along the line, Bob. Could you say a couple of words to that as to the potential of a meeting — whether or not we will (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: We’ve made progress on some very important structural issues and some progress on purchases. We have a few very, very big hurdles that we still have to face, but if we make — if we continue to make progress, that would be a great outcome, and I think the Vice Premier agrees with that.

VICE PREMIER LIU: Yes, we too have made great progress.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Made great progress. I think we have made great progress. Steve Mnuchin, what would you say?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: I would just add that the Vice Premier and his team have agreed to extend their trip for two days, so we will be meeting all day tomorrow and into Sunday so we can continue on a very important — this is — the ambassador has done a very good job at documenting multiple MOUs that will be binding and enforceable and cover all different types of industries.

If we can successfully conclude this, this will be very good for U.S. business and finally allowing China to open up to U.S. business.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Why do you bother putting it in a form of a letter of intent or whatever you want to call it? To me, it’s a waste of time.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Well, we want to make sure. These are very important issues. There’s hundreds of issues that we’re dealing with — everything from financial services to currency, to forced technology transfer, to aircraft, to express shipping, to different industries. So these are very complicated issues that the ambassador —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Currency manipulation — a very important subject which a lot people didn’t even think in terms of.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Yes. And that’s one of the areas, Mr. President, we actually concluded and reached an agreement — one of the strongest agreements ever on currency. But we have a lot of work to do over the next two days on many issues.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Have you discussed and reached a final agreement on currency?

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: We have on currency, but we have a lot more work to do over the next two days.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: To stabilize currencies.

Okay. Wilbur Ross.

SECRETARY ROSS: I’m very encouraged by what’s going on. I think that the tariff situation is an important one, that this could be a good substitute for it if we can fill in more of the blanks. But there’s a lot more to be done, as everybody has said. So it’s a little early for champagne.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I agree with that.

Secretary, go ahead. For the farmers, (inaudible).

SECRETARY PERDUE: I think the work that’s being done on both sides is very, very important. And I’m happy to hear the progress, obviously. I think everybody understands, Mr. President, this deal will be consummated — if there is a deal — by you and President Xi. And we understand that.

Obviously, you have some great negotiators on your side, as does the Vice Premier, in that regard. There are a lot of details to work through, but ultimately you and President Xi are going to have to really do the deal.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think we’re doing very well with regard to farmers and the buying of products from our farmers at a certain point. They’ve already made a big commitment to do that. But this will be a very, very substantial farm deal. This will be the biggest farm deal ever made, if you think about it. I don’t think anything will be close, because it’s China. So hopefully, if we arrive at a deal, they’ll be buying lots of every form of farm product.

Mr. Ambassador, would you say something, if you’d like?

AMBASSADOR BRANSTAD: Well, I think this is probably a very historic time. And these are the two biggest economies in the world. And if these difficult structural issues can get worked out, I think it will be tremendously beneficial not only to China and the United States, but to the whole world economy.

So I know people have been working very hard. We’ve had many, many sessions, both in Beijing and here. And I appreciate the hard work and the diligence that’s going on.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you. Yeah, it’s going very well.

Peter, would you like to say something? This is a gentleman that loves tariffs, by the way. He’s like me. He and I — he loves tariffs. Peter, go ahead.

MR. NAVARRO: I agree with you, sir. Tariffs are simple and they’re enforceable.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right. Right. Okay. That’s all you have to say? But it’s — it’s true.

MR. NAVARRO: I wish the team luck.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good. They’re doing a good job.

Larry.

MR. KUDLOW: I’ll just echo. And, you know, a good deal that is enforceable — that’s so important to the United States and to you. But if you get a good deal and we can reduce these barriers, I think it will be good for growth and prosperity for the U.S. and for China, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think the relationship has been very good. That’s what I will say, more than anything else. As to whether we make a deal or not, who knows? But I think we have a good chance. But I think the relationship is outstanding. I think the relationship that we have now with China is better than it’s ever been. And that’s being — you know, making a big statement. Our relationship, the President — the President’s relationship with me, President Xi’s relationship with me — I think that it’s the strongest it’s ever been.

One of the things that’s so important to me is the fentanyl. And President Xi has agreed to criminalize the sale of fentanyl. Right now, it’s not a criminal product because I guess they call it “industrial,” or they call it something. But it’s not a criminal product. And China has much tougher laws than we do in this country on drugs, so they don’t have a big drug problem in China. They have a thing called the death penalty.

And China has much tougher laws than we do. But they’ve agreed to criminalize the sale of fentanyl, including the sale of fentanyl to the United States. And that is a tremendous thing because, as you know, most of it, if not all of it, comes from China. That would be a tremendous thing, in terms of our war on drugs.

So I very much appreciate that. And that’s another thing we’ll be finalizing, hopefully, at the meeting that we have.

So subject to where they are — and we’re going to have a meeting now — but subject to where they are, we will be having at least an additional meeting. And then, ultimately, we’ll have a meeting with myself and President Xi to discuss the final terms and things that haven’t been agreed to. But I think a lot of those things have been agreed to, but they want he and I to agree to them in a final form. But the fentanyl is so important to us. The criminalization of fentanyl is so important to us, and we appreciate that.

I want to just thank everybody for being with us. Mr. Vice Premier, I want to thank you very much. Their trip is being extended, as Steve said. Their trip is being extended by two days, unexpectedly, because they are making great progress. So they’ll be here for an extra couple of days.

So what would that include? That would be Sunday, Monday? Or —

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: It will be all day Saturday and all day Sunday.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: All day Sunday. So they’ll be leaving on Sunday night and Monday morning.

So, great progress being made. Let’s see what happens. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it.

Q Mr. President, do you expect to extend the deadline because of the progress here? Or will you still stick with March 1st?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I set the deadline of March 1st, and right now it’s at 10 percent. And I think that if — I mean, you can tell this to President Xi — I think — and if I see progress being made, substantial progress being made, it would not be inappropriate to extend that deadline — keep it at 10 percent, instead of raising it to 25 percent. And I would be inclined to doing that. I haven’t even spoken to my people about it. Most people assume it’ll just kick in automatically — the 25 percent. But I’m the one that said it, and I think it was a reasonable period of time.

But we’re covering things that we didn’t even know we’d be covering. We’re going very deep into the trade, and covering items that a lot of people wanted to cover and nobody thought we’d ever get to. But we have a one-time shot at making a great deal for both countries. And so we are going to give it.

So it depends on where we are. If we’re doing well — Jeff, if we’re doing very well on the negotiation, I could see extending that. And I don’t think it would have to be a long-term extension because I would imagine that if it took, Steve, another month or so or less —

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Yeah, I think our expectation is to conclude this quickly. And if we get to the point, over the next few days, of making progress, recommending a meeting for you and President Xi in March.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah. So dependent on how they do over the next few days, I would certainly consider that. Okay?

Q Is drawing down U.S. troops a consideration? Is drawing down U.S. troops a consideration in your upcoming summit with North Korean Kim Jong Un? And —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it’s not. No. That was not a consideration. That’s not — that is not one of the things on the table.

Q What is on the table?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, you really want me to discuss that now?

Q I do.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Everything is on the table. Everything.

Q Mr. President, do have any concerns about the Labor Secretary tampering with the Jeffrey Epstein case?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I really don’t know too much about it. I know he’s done a great job as Labor Secretary. And that seems like a long time ago. But I know he’s been a fantastic Labor Secretary. That’s all I can really tell you about. That’s all I know about.

Q What about the charges against Bob Kraft? He’s a friend of yours.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, it’s very sad. I was very surprised to see it. He’s proclaimed his innocence totally, and — but I’m very surprised to see it.

Q Have you spoken with Bill Barr about the release of the Mueller report? Have you spoken with him about that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I have not. No.

Q You’ve said nothing to him about it?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have not.

Q Do you expect to?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: At some point, I guess I’ll be talking about it. But you know the nice part? There was no collusion. There was no obstruction. There was no anything. So that’s the nice part. There was no phone calls, no nothing. We have a — I won a race. You know why I won the race? Because I was a better candidate than she was. And it had nothing to do with Russia, and everybody knows it’s a hoax. It’s one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on this country.

So I look forward to seeing the report. If it’s an honest report, it will say that. If it’s not an honest report, it won’t.

Yeah, go ahead.

Q You’ve been at this and your teams have been at this trade deal for a long time.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, well, it’s not a long time when you consider it’s probably the biggest deal ever made.

Q It seems like it’s getting close to the finish line. At this point, when you boil it all down, do you believe it’s more likely that a deal does happen or a deal doesn’t happen?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I think I can speak for the United States — the question is an interesting one. Is it more likely that a deal happens or doesn’t happen? Speaking for the United States, I would say it’s probably more likely that a deal does happen. But that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

Speaking for China, if you’d like to add — answer that question, you can. But I would say that it’s more likely that a deal will happen. The fact that they’re staying — and this is a very high delegation. This is a man who is revered all throughout China, as the Vice Premier. So the fact that they’re willing to stay for a quite a bit longer period — doubling up the time — that means something. I think there’s a good chance that it happens.

Go ahead. Would you like to answer that question?

Q Mr. President —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait. Would you like to answer that question?

VICE PREMIER LIU: Thank you, Mr. President. May I speak Chinese instead of English?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, please. Speak Chinese and you — you’ll speak louder.

VICE PREMIER LIU: Okay.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: They can’t hear you.

TRANSLATOR: I will.

VICE PREMIER LIU: (As interpreted.) So from China, we believe it is that —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You have to speak louder. I’m sorry.

VICE PREMIER LIU: (As interpreted.) From China, we believe that is very likely that it will happen and we hope that ultimately we’ll have a deal. And the Chinese side is ready to ready to make our utmost effort.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think we both feel that way. I think we both feel that there’s a very good chance that the deal will happen.

Q Mr. President, on troops in Syria, why are you reversing course?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m not reversing course. I have done something that nobody else has been able to do. In another short period of time, like hours — you’ll be hearing “hours and days” — you’ll be hearing about the caliphate. It will — it’s 100 percent defeated. Nobody has been able to say that. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some very bad people walking around and strapping on bombs and all of these things. But we’ve done a job that nobody else has been able to do.

I heard Lindsey Graham this morning congratulating me on having defeated the cal- — you know, the caliphate. And, frankly, I’m getting a lot of congratulations.

At the same time, we can leave a small force along with others in the force — whether it’s NATO troops or whoever it might be — so that it doesn’t start up again. And I’m okay — it’s a very small, tiny fraction of the people that we have. And a lot of people like that idea and I’m open to ideas.

But the 2,500 people that we’ve had there will be going to different parts of the world. They may be going over to Iraq, where we have a very powerful base — a base that cost billions of dollars to build, frankly, and that we’ll be using. But we have had tremendous success in defeating the caliphate.

And now everybody is admitting I did more in the last three or four weeks than people have done in years. And it’s been very successful, but we want to make sure it stays that way.

Yes. Please.

Q Tech transfers — going back to the trade deal — we’ve heard that you haven’t made a whole lot of progress on the tech transfers —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Do you want to talk about the transfers? Tech —

Q Does that still have to be part of the deal —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, I’ll let Bob answer that. Go ahead, Bob.

Q Thanks.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: The answer is, yes. It’s one of the structural issues. It has to be done properly. I mean, we’ve made a lot of progress. So whoever told you we weren’t just didn’t know what they’re talking about.

Q Mr. President, why haven’t you condemned the North — the North Carolina election fraud? This is a big story. The Republican candidate is calling for a new election. Why have you not condemned that, given you’ve condemned other kinds of voter fraud?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I condemn any election fraud. And when I look at what’s happened in California with the votes, when I look at what happened — as you know, there was just a case where they found a million fraudulent votes. When I look at what’s happened in Texas —

Q There haven’t been any cases (inaudible) —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me. When I look at what’s happened in Texas. When I look at that catastrophe that took place in Florida where the Republican candidates kept getting less and less and less and less. And fortunately, Rick Scott and Ron ended up winning their election, but it was disgraceful what happened there.

So I look at a lot of different places all over the country. I condemn any voter fraud of any kind, whether it’s Democrat or Republican — or when you look at some of the things that happened in California, in particular. When you look at what’s happened in Texas with all of those votes that they recently found were not exactly properly done, I condemn all of it. And that includes North Carolina, if anything — you know, I guess they’re going to be doing a final report. But I’d like to see the final report. But any form of election fraud, I condemn.

Q Mr. President, when do you want to have that meeting with President Xi? And do expect to have that at Mar-a-Lago?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Probably at Mar-a-Lago. Probably fairly soon, during the month of March. Bob, do you have a date? Steve, do you have a date?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: We’re planning it with your schedule, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay, so there — we have two schedules. And we’ll be planning that with the schedule.

Q Do you have any concerns about Michael Cohen’s testimony before Congress this week?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No. No. No.

[Crosstalk.]

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s lawyer-client, but, you know — he’s taking his own chances.

Q Where do things stand with Huawei and ZTE? Would you still consider a ban of Chinese technology?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, ZTE paid a big fine of $1.2 billion, which nobody has ever even heard of before. And we want everybody to compete. And I guess it will be somewhat of a subject that we’re talking about here, Bob. We’ll be talking about it. We may or may not include that in this deal.

Q Include what?

Q Would you drop criminal charges?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: The Huawei and ZTE.

Q Would you drop criminal charges against Huawei as part of this deal?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re going to be discussing all of that during the course of the next couple of weeks. And we’ll be talking to the U.S. Attorneys. We’ll be talking to the Attorney General. But we’ll be making that decision. Right now it’s not something that we’re discussing.

Q Do you think that (inaudible) Republicans will stick with you on the — on your emergency declaration and vote against the joint resolution?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, I think they’ll stick. Yeah. Everybody knows we need border security. We need a wall. I think it’s a very bad subject for the Democrats. We need a wall.

We’ve apprehended more people than we have in many, many years. “Apprehended,” meaning we’ve gotten. With the wall, we wouldn’t even have to apprehend them if we had the proper structure. It’s costing us a lot of money with the military; we have a lot of military there. We have tremendous border control and border security there.

We have — I’ll tell you what, the people of border security, people of ICE, the law enforcement, generally speaking, have done an incredible job at the border. We have caravans heading up and we’re able to head out the caravans. We’ve done a great job. But if we had the wall, it would be much easier. And, frankly, it would be a job that would be perfecto. And it would cost actually, ultimately, a lot less money.

Q So you don’t think that the joint resolution —

Q Mr. President —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: What?

Q Okay, I have question from China Daily. I — you –

PRESIDENT TRUMP: China Daily.

Q — you tweeted yesterday that the U.S. would not block out, currently, more advanced technology in terms of 5Gs, 6Gs. What do you mean?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I’d like to have all companies be able to compete. I don’t want to artificially block people out based on excuses or based on security. I don’t want to have a security problem.

Q Including Huawei?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait. I’m talking about everybody, really — including. But I’m talking about everybody. I don’t want to use artificial blocking. We want to have great 5G. Ultimately, that’s going to morph into 6G. And probably 6G will be obsolete in about two months, the way it’s going — you know, the way that whole world moves. But 6G, at some point in the future, will be obsolete.

But I want to have competition with China. Fair competition. I don’t want to block out anybody if we can help it. Now if there’s going to be a security reason or something, then we have no choice, but that is one of the things we’ll be discussing today. We want to have open competition. We’ve always done very well in open competition.

Go ahead.

Q Mr. President, your officials mentioned that was a deal on currency. Can you explain to us what that was?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’ll let you know at the appropriate time, but we have a deal on currency and currency manipulation.

Yes.

Q Will you definitively veto that resolution that was introduced today that would block your national emergency if it passes?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: On the wall?

Q Yes.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Will I veto it? 100 percent. 100 percent. And I don’t think it survives a veto; we have too many smart people that want border security, so I can’t imagine it could survive a veto. But I will veto it, yes.

Q Mr. President, last year you had dropped all U.S. assistance to Pakistan because of terrorists coming from there.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I stopped paying Pakistan the $1.3 billion that we were paying them. In the meantime, we may set up some meetings with Pakistan. Pakistan was very taking very strong advantage of the United States under other Presidents and we were paying Pakistan $1.3 billion a year. I ended that payment to Pakistan because they weren’t helping us in a way that they should have.

And honestly, we’ve had — we’ve developed a much better relationship with Pakistan over the last short period of time than we had. But I did; I ended the payment. We were paying Pakistan $1.3 billion a year. I ended that about nine months ago. A lot of people don’t know that, but I ended it nine months ago.

Q But terrorists are still coming from Pakistan, attacking in Afghanistan and India (inaudible).

PRESIDENT TRUMP: But what are you talking about? What are you — what are you trying to refer to? You’ll have to speak up. I can’t hear you.

Q Terrorists coming from Pakistan have attacked Indian forces in Kashmir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s right. No, it’s a terrible thing going on right now between Pakistan and India. It’s a very, very bad situation, and it’s a very dangerous situation between the two countries. And we would like to see it stop. A lot of people were just killed and we want to see it stopped. We’re very much involved in that. Yes, if that’s what you’re referring to.

Q People in India are seeking right to self-defense —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, India is looking at something very strong. And, I mean, India just lost almost 50 people and — with an attack, so I can understand that also. But we’re talking and a lot of people are talking, but it is a very, very delicate balance going on right now. There’s a lot of problems between India and Pakistan because of what just happened in Kashmir.

Are you talking about Kashmir?

Q Yeah.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: In Kashmir, it’s very dangerous. Yes, please.

Q Mr. President, on Huawei, sir, just one quick follow-up: Are you planning an executive order on Huawei?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we’re not doing anything right now. We may or may not put that in the trade agreement. We may be discussing it, but we’d only do that in conjunction with the Attorney General of the United States because that is a matter that is outside of what we’re doing. So we do that with the Attorney General, if we do anything. And I guess there’s a question as to whether or not that’s being included in the agreement.

Yeah, go ahead.

Q Mr. President, we haven’t gotten your response yet to Amazon pulling out of New York City, your home city —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think it’s a big loss to New York City. I think it’s a big loss. I think it’s a — if you look at the deal, the deal was not a great deal from the standpoint of — they could’ve made a better deal than that, a much better deal. But still, I think it’s a loss for New York City.

And the $3 billion wasn’t a check; it was a form of taxes over a period of time that now they’ll never see because, you know, they were going to take in a lot of jobs; they were going to take in a lot taxes. So I think it’s a big loss for New York City. It’s the kind of thinking that our country is going to, on the Left, on the radical Left. But ultimately, it’s not good for jobs and it’s not good for the economy.

But I think it was a big loss for New York City. I come from New York City. I love New York City. I think it was big loss for New York City.

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, when were you briefed, sir, on the Coast Guard member who was arrested for threatening Democrats and other members of the media?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m actually getting a very final briefing and a very complete briefing in about two hours after this.

Q And do you have any thoughts on this man —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think it’s a shame.

Q — who went after members of the media?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah. I think it’s a very sad thing, I mean, when a thing like that happens. And I’ve expressed that, but I’m actually a very complete briefing in about two hours.

Q Do you think that you bear any responsibility for moderating your language when it comes to that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I don’t. I think my language is very nice.

Yes.

Q From People’s Daily China —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: From China. From China.

Q Trade conflict have been one year. Now negotiation is going on. So what’s your — what do you think?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Who are you with in China?

Q People’s Daily China newspaper.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: People’s Daily.

Q Yeah. And then what do you think — that cooperation is still the good solution between the two —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Great cooperation.

Q Yeah.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We have great cooperation, both ways, with China. And a lot of good things are happening. I mean, I think you see that. So many people, every day, “They are going to make a deal; they aren’t going to make a deal.” They don’t know. They have no idea. It’s fake news. You know, it’s one of those things.

Do they have fake news in China? I think so. (Laughter.)

But it’s a question: Are they going to make a deal? Aren’t they? I think we have a very good chance of making a deal. But both parties want to make it a meaningful deal. We don’t want to make a deal that doesn’t — I can speak for the Vice Premier, I can speak for President Xi, I can speak for myself: Both parties want to make this a real deal and we want to make it a meaningful deal, not a deal that’s done and doesn’t mean anything.

We want to make this a deal that’s going to last for many, many years, and a deal that’s going to be good for both countries. But we want to make it meaningful.

Now, with that being said, China has the advantage of having many years of tremendous success at the expense of the United States, so they understand that. And I never blamed China for that; I blamed our past leaders. Our leaders have done a lousy job with trade. Our country lost $800 billion last year with trade, generally. Eight hundred billion dollars.

So the Vice Premier understands that. So this same agreement should have been made 20 years ago, not now. Because, for 20 years, the United States has been really taken advantage of. And I’m not blaming China, but we should’ve done the same thing to them. But we didn’t do that. We had Presidents that didn’t do their job. You want to know the truth? We had Presidents that did not do their job.

Yeah, go ahead.

Q Will the MOUs be a long-term deal? How long would your MOUs stay in place?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think the MOU is going to be very short-term — no. I — we expect to go into — I don’t like MOUs because they don’t mean anything. To me, they don’t mean anything. I think you’re better off just going into a document. I was never a fan of an MOU.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: An MOU is a contract. It’s the way trade agreements are generally used. People refer to it like it’s a term sheet. It’s not a term sheet. It’s an actual contract between the two parties. A memorandum of understanding is a binding agreement between two people. And that’s what we’re talking about. It’s detailed; it covers everything in great detail. It’s just called a memorandum of understanding. That’s a legal term. It’s a contract.

Q And would you think that would be a very long-term deal, sir?

VICE PREMIER LIU: Yes. Yes. Yes. (Inaudible.) Yes.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: Contracts last while they last. There’s no term. They last while they last.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: By the way, I disagree. I think that a memorandum of understanding is not a contract to the extent that we want. We’re going to have — we’re doing a memorandum of understanding that will be put into a final contract, I assume. But, to me, the final contract is really the thing, Bob — and I think you mean that, too — is really the thing that means something.

A memorandum of understanding is exactly that: It’s a memorandum of what our understanding is. But, to me, the contract is — the real question is, Bob, so we do a memorandum of understanding, which, frankly, you could do or not do. I don’t care if you do it or not. To me, it doesn’t mean very much. But if you do a memorandum of — how long will it take to put that into a final, binding contract?

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: From now on, we’re not using the word “memorandum of understanding” anymore. We’re going to the term “trade agreement.” All right?

VICE PREMIER LIU: Okay.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: No more. We’ll never use the term again.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: We’ll have the same document. It’s going to be called a “trade agreement.” We’re never going to use “MOU” again.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Are they going to put that into another agreement?

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: It’ll — what we’ll have will be a trade agreement that, if we have — we have major hurdles. I don’t want to put the cart in front of the horse. Assuming you decide on an agreement, it’ll signed by the two people. It’ll be a trade agreement between the United States and China. We’re not going to use (inaudible) —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good. Good. I like that much better. I like that term much better.

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: Do you agree with that?

VICE PREMIER LIU: Okay. I agree. I fully agree.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t — I wouldn’t go into a memorandum. I would go right into a trade agreement. Either you’re going to make a deal, or you’re not. To have these other agreements doesn’t mean anything —

AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: We’re never using that word again.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: — because they’re not that meaningful, in my opinion. But anyway, I like that much better.

Q Mr. President, what do you think needs to be done after your meeting with Lynne Patton on NYCHA?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: On what?

Q Are you going to be meeting with Lynne Patton of the New York City Housing Authority?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, Lynne Patton is great. And I can tell you, the New York City Housing Authority — the Mayor of New York has done a terrible job with public housing. We’re trying to help them, but the Mayor of the City of New York has done a terrible job with respect to public housing. We’re getting reports back, and it’s a disgrace how badly New York City handles its public housing.

Q Do you have any thoughts on Bill de Blasio heading to Iowa?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I think he has to learn how to run New York City before he starts running the country because he hasn’t done a very good job — including, by the way, with Amazon.

Q On North Korea, your own administration officials say that Kim Jong Un has not actually decided yet whether he wants to denuclearize. So how can you meet with him if he doesn’t even want to get the goal that you want?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We have had such a great relationship, and China has helped us a lot with North Korea and with Kim Jong Un since I got to office.

If I were not elected President, you would have been in a war with North Korea. We now have a situation where the relationships are good — where there has been no nuclear testing, no missiles, no rockets. We got our hostages back. And we have many of the remains back, and coming back rapidly — the remains of our great warriors from many, many years ago. And the families are so thrilled and so happy. We’ve had a great relationship.

The Singapore was a tremendous success. Only the fake news likes to portray it otherwise. We would’ve gone — we would’ve been — we would have literally been in a war with North Korea, in my opinion, had I not been elected.

Okay. Thank you very much everybody.

Q (Inaudible.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you. We’ll see how it goes. I think it will be successful.

Q Do you think Steve King should run again for Congress?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I can’t hear you. You have to speak up.

Q Do you think Steve King should run again for Congress? He said he’d run.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You know, I don’t know anything about the situation. When did he announce that?

Q He said — today, he said he wanted to run.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have not seen it. He hasn’t told me anything. So we’ll have to take a look.

Q Are you still in touch with him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I haven’t spoken to him in a long time, no. I haven’t spoken — I have not been involved in that.

Thank you very much everyone.

END 3:07 P.M. EST

Advertisements

Brilliant Agitprop: Peshwa Warrior Trump…


The selected facial impressions are buckets of awesome.

President Trump Nominates Ambassador Kelly Knight Craft as U.N. Ambassador…


President Trump has nominated current U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Kelly Knight Craft, to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations replacing Nikki Haley.

Washington – […]  Craft is set to succeed Nikki Haley, pending Senate confirmation, and is Trump’s second pick to replace Haley, who left the U.N. post at the end of last year. The president’s earlier candidate, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, withdrew from consideration last week.

Trump praised Craft’s tenure representing his administration in Ottawa as “outstanding” as he made the announcement on Twitter. (more)

Advertisements

DOJ: No Mueller Report Next Week – Meanwhile Schiff and Nadler Demand Report Details….


The most likely sequencing of the Democrat scheme has always looked to be: (1) Michael Cohen testimony; then (2) The Mueller report.

Cohen is scheduled to testify to Elijah Cummings House oversight committee Wednesday February 27th (10:00am) next week.  Today, predictably, the DOJ announces the Robert Mueller report will be *after* that testimony:

WASHINGTON DC – Special counsel Robert Mueller will not deliver his report to the Justice Department on Friday or next week, a Justice Department official told The Hill.

The news comes amid broad speculation that Mueller’s probe into Russia’s electoral interference is wrapping up, with several news outlets reporting Wednesday that newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr was preparing to receive Mueller’s final report as soon as next week. (read more)

Meanwhile, also anticipated, with Attorney General William Barr in place to receive and statutorily summarize the report from Robert Mueller, House democrats start posturing to impede AG Barr’s influence within the final report construct.

HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff writes a letter to AG Barr establishing a set of congressional demands to exploit innuendo and inference for their impeachment objectives.

[Link to Source – Link to pdf]

It is obvious how Pelosi’s primary team (Schiff, Nadler and Cummings) plan to exploit the Robert Mueller report for maximum political value, ie. impeachment goals.

[…] We also expect that the Department will provide to our Committees, upon request and consistent with applicable law, other information and material obtained or produced by the Special Counsel regarding certain foreign actors and other individuals who may have been the subject of a criminal or counterintelligence investigation.

[…] If the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the President has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct, then the President must be subject to accountability either in a court or to the Congress.

Pelosi, Schumer and the House committee democrats do not want William Barr to be able to write a summary, a public statement, based on the report delivered to him by Robert Mueller.

Instead, the Democrats want the report from Mueller, including all the investigative trails that were exhausted, so they can exploit aspects of the inquiry that were not able to be proven, and weaponize “innuendo” and “possibility” for political benefit.

The process they are following is by design:

Sen Dianne Feinstein

@SenFeinstein

Regulations governing Mueller’s investigation do not prohibit AG Barr from disclosing the final report to Congress, & I repeat my call for Barr to provide the report unedited once he has received it. A summary written by Barr instead of the Mueller report will not be acceptable.

6,290 people are talking about this

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Adam Schiff

@RepAdamSchiff

Here’s our simple message to Attorney General Barr:

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller completes the investigation, make his report public. And turn the evidence over to Congress. Without delay and to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Our letter:

6,780 people are talking about this