Tag Archives: What Happened

Nov 15 2017

Rush Limbaugh is Wrong – Alabama is Not McConnell -vs- Bannon, It’s Bigger…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 14, 2017 by

CTH has attempted to stay away from talking about the Alabama ‘clown show‘, all of it, since we made our position clear long before the primary run-off race.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes etc.

My concern with the Alabama mess was a very simple MAGA issue: riding horses to polling stations does not establish a connection to the man or woman who hit the necessary alarm clock at 5:15am to pay the bills.  Those are MAGA people. That’s the essence of the Trump coalition.

The MAGA coalition I know has never been predisposed to racism, sexism, nativism, or any other kind of “ism” or “ist”, because we’ve never been not busy. It takes time to give a rats-ass about bathroom police, social justice etc. Time and energy for that, who has it?

The current position of the epic fiasco was/is entirely predictable…. warnings, deaf ears, blah-blah-blah; water under the bridge.  That said, the current race to the exits by all of the fly-by-nights (populist wallflowers) is embarrassing to see play out.

Factually, I feel sorry for Mr. and Mrs. Roy Moore… However, I don’t have a smidgen of sympathy for the noob-right financial opportunists: Steve Bannon, Laura Ingraham, Sebastian Gorka et al, or the political Roberts-The-Bruce: Ted Cruz, Mike Lee etc. Heck, I’m still waiting for the ‘Use El Chappo Money to Build The Wall‘ bill…  I digress.

So why engage now?  Well, today Rush Limbaugh weighs in in using the customary (passive aggressive/mamet principle) approach to frame the argument as: “The Roy Moore Soap Opera is Really About McConnell -vs- Bannon”.   No, no it’s not.

I understand the frame of reference, why Limbaugh views it that way, but that’s not an accurate assessment.

The UniParty is against Roy Moore, not just simply Mitch McConnell and the professional political apparatus within the GOP elitist class.  Things are not what they were in 2014.

In 2014 such a Limbaugh framework would be accurate (though the GOPe cat had his tongue back then).  Indeed, during the 2014 Thad Cochran -vs- Chris McDaniel race the current perspective of Limbaugh would have been accurate.  But that was then, this is now 2017.

In 2014 there were billions worth of personal and party indulgences at stake; in 2017 there are trillions of UniParty indulgences at stake.

In 2014 Mitch McConnell was trying to use Thad Cochran to defeat the Tea party.  In 2017 the entire apparatus of the DC system is trying to use Alabama to defeat the existential risk that is Donald Trump.

If ‘political strategist’ Steve Bannon, or ‘political thinker’ Rush Limbaugh, were half as smart as they say they are, they’d chip in buy a vowel, get a clue and see that.

This is no longer small enough for individual personalities, this is a much bigger zero-sum outcome battle albeit with useful side-benefits in smacking Bannon’s ego down to size etc.  Which, in all honesty, speaking as a person on the same side while watching the idiots on our team giving the enemy ammunition, would not be a bad thing – AT ALL.

Domestic DC battles are to billions what multinational UniParty battles are to trillions.   Alabama is bigger than McConnell or Bannon.  Alabama is now as much about NAFTA, China, renegotiated trade deals, geopolitical alliances and Saudi Arabia, and the trillions swirling around via multinational corporate interests.

The swamp is engaged, self-aware and the deep-state part is self actuated now.  Instructions are no longer needed.  Each cell can operate independently to protect itself from any confrontation.  Thus the arguments are bigger; every angle is weighed as does it improve position, or does it weaken position… way-points are transparent. Globalists don’t need to give direction in feet or inches, the battle is much bigger, more broad – the decisions are about “generalized direction”.

Example: NAFTA Round #5 (Mexico) begins this week:  “lest trade disputes create friction with NAFTA-supporting Republican lawmakers.”

Example: “Republicans” control all senate hearings:

Example: Remember when the Senate voted unanimously to block President Trump from making recess appointments?   That rule required “unanimity”, a single Republican senator could block the Senate from handcuffing President Trump.  Not a single Republican broke ranks.

The professional political class in DC, the UniParty, is not confronting Steve Bannon though he’d probably like to make money off that outlook. The united political apparatus is confronting something far more consequential than the annoyance that Bannon represents; they are confronting the framework of ‘America First’.

That bigger dynamic is what’s adverse to their interests.  Bannon is an annoying gnat.

When you accept that difference you are then prepared to ask yourself the question(s):

♦What would/will the professional apparatus do to protect their interests?

♦How far are they willing to go to oppose anything that appears adverse to those interests?

“Christmas Yearbooks”?

Written in two sets of handwriting?

Using two different inks?

Uh huh.

Go read about a republican operative named Harvey Leroy “Lee” Atwater, and how he trained a young protege’ named Karl Christian Rove in political warfare against other republicans.

Remember, from the Uniparty’s perspective they have nothing to lose in Alabama by getting caught making crap up.  They were going to lose the race anyway…. so why not pull out the black arts.   It’s simply how they roll.

ps. Friends in Alabama, you must fight like an insurgency.

Nov 15 2017

Breaking: Chairman Xi Jinping Special Envoy to Visit DPRK Friday…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 14, 2017 by

Chairman Xi is sending his CPC special envoy, Song Tao, to North Korea.

Song Tao, special envoy of General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee Xi Jinping, will leave for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Friday.  (Story Here)

This is President/Chairman Xi Jinping, now fully empowered by the communist party in Beijing, sending the party apparatus to talk to Kim Jong-un.  Previously these instructions would have come from Beijing’s old guard.  However, Chairman Xi now commands all power over the communist government; he doesn’t need their approval any longer.

Remember, Beijing quietly removed the 71-year-old veteran diplomat, Wu Dawei, from the position of negotiator toward the DPRK, and replaced him with 58-year-old Kong Xuanyou back in August.

Kong Xuanyou is a long time Chinese diplomat in charge of Asian affairs and he speaks Korean.  He is positioned to lead the Chinese negotiations with the DPRK.  Kong is the name we need to look for AFTER emissary Song Tao delivers the communist message to Kim Jong-un of North Korea.

Nov 15 2017

Is Trump Jr Being Set up By his Own Lawyers?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption

Re-Posted Nov 15, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

One of the most interesting events is how the Democrats and Muller have gone after Trump, Jr. for meeting with a Russian lawyer last year. The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower said the president’s oldest son told her the U.S. government would review a 2012 law punishing Russian human rights abusers if Donald Trump won the presidency, according to a report. So what is this really about? It’s called the Maginsky Act.

I have written before that the Maginsky Act was a political payback for Bill Browder.  The claim of Browder that his Russian tax attorney Sergei Magnitsky was imprisoned and died before trial was trying to fight corruption in Russia is far from the truth with his  Hermitage Capital. This is the very operation that Safra and crew wanted me to invest $10 billion in and it was all about making money – not fighting political corruption.

The documentary film about me and this incident, the Forecaster, was banned in the United States. NetFlix at first agreed to air the film and then management killed the deal. The distributor in the USA and Switzerland paid for the rights and then refused to show the film in theaters. That entire thing was about blackmailing Yeltsin to take over Russia. Talk about manipulating elections – nobody will talk the truth about this matter and you would think that Trump Jr.’s lawyers would be on the phone with me. No way! That leaves a HUGE question in my mind whether Trump, Jr.’s lawyers are really defending him or are they just pretending?

Putin seized all the assets of Hermitage Capital and Browder fought in Congress to get the Magnitsky Act passed to try to seize assets to get his money back. I always found it very strange that here the object was to influence the election of the president of Russia by blackmail, and the Congress passes the Magnitsky Act as if it was human rights because of some attorney who dies in a prison in Russia. Something is seriously missing. The fact that Trump Jr.’s lawyers are not bringing this out, which would really go to the heart of all this Russian nonsense, makes me wonder who is pulling the strings behind the curtain to set-up Trump, Jr

Nov 15 2017

Middle East – Who is Who?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Middle East

Re-Posted Nov 15, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I am confused. On the one hand, you said the Saudis could be sued for 911 and that they have been funding ISIS with the USA. Then Iran is supposed to be a terrorist state. Who is who?

Thanks

KW

ANSWER: It is confusing. Bin Laden was Suni, not a Shia, and he considered Shia Muslims were in the same class as heretics, America, and Israel. He believed these were the true enemies of Islam. So there have been terrorist on both sides of the issue. They are not one group compared to another. I was merely explaining the major religious battle. Each side has its extremes just as do the Jews and Christians. Bin Laden subscribed to the Athari school of Islamic theology which believes in the STRICT interpretation of the Quran. That would be the same as the Born-Again Christians and the Hasidic Jews.

The USA was funding ISIS because they wanted to support Qatar trying to get a pipeline through Syria to compete with Russia. That is why Russia went into Syria. It was the Obama Administration that was giving the blessing to terrorism to overthrow Syria.

Nov 15 2017

At Last – Clinton Foundation Gets Investigated


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption

Re-Posted Nov 15, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

What goes around, comes around. The Washington Post has reported that the Department of Justice has instructed the US Attorney’s Office to investigate the controversial sale of a uranium group to Russia during the presidency of Barack Obama and the role of the Clinton Foundation. The Obama administration approved the deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a much of the American uranium sources. It turns out that the FBI had gathered significant evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering to get the deal in the USA. According to a letter released on Monday, Justice Secretary Jeff Sessions instructed the prosecutors to consider, inter alia, the appointment of a special investigator and an extension of the investigation.

The list of topics to be investigated includes the handling of the FBI investigation of the full Hillary Clinton’s private email server used during her time as Secretary of State, various affairs of the Clinton Foundation, and most importantly, the role of the Clinton Foundation Sale of the Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russia’s Atomic Energy Agency. The role of former FBI director James B. Comey in protecting Hillary is also fair game for investigation. We may have a clash of two titans – two special prosecutors doing battle to overthrow Trump and Hillary.

Despite all the claims that the Clinton Foundation was a real charity, it was quickly shutting its doors as soon as Hillary lost. Guess it was just about buying influence in the future White House.

Nov 13 2017

Sunday Talks: Maria Bartiromo and Senator Blunt Discuss Senate Tax Bill…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 12, 2017 by

When Senator Blunt rises from the darkest and deepest part of the swamp to talk about senate Tax legislation (always written by the biggest K-St donors) you know the sausage is rotten.  Decepticon Blunt is only visible when the little people are conscripted to wash the cigar residue from the Senate’s Corinthian leather.

Senators: Blunt, Cornyn, McConnell, Hatch, Portman, Thune, McCain, Cochran, Murkowski, Graham and Corker will NEVER allow the income tax position of common-folk to supersede their corporate porkulous-minded financial interests.

CTH needed to be patient to see the architecture, and see if they retained their traditional approach at swamp constructs,… Now it’s visible, I can guarantee you this bill is destined to fail.  Maria Bartiromo knows it… she knows, and she’s playing the game; but you can see it behind her eyes… she knows.

.

Accepting that Donald Trump has exceptionally keen instincts, he had to know -in advance- where this was headed. The only purpose this bill serves is ammunition within the ‘big ugly’ to showcase, yet again, the corruption and ineptitude of the GOPe wing of the UniParty and how they are mere salespeople for their financiers on Wall Street/K-Street.

Forget tax reform; like the budget and O-care, it’s a moot point to discuss now.

President Trump needed three things from congress. Only Three Things:

¹♦Approval of his budget reducing $1 trillion in federal spending. – They failed.
²♦The repeal of and replacement of ObamaCare. They failed.
³♦Tax reform to generate middle-class tax cuts and international corporate competitiveness. – They failed.

It’s a big club, and we ain’t in it.

 

Nov 12 2017

The Unseen Cause of Rampant Violence in America


The university-bred doctrine of moral relativism, which influences all levels of education in America, spawns moral confusion and violence throughout American society.

By denying the existence of objective rational standards by which to distinguish right from wrong or good from bad, the academic doctrine of moral relativism fosters the primacy of force or violence as opposed to the primacy of reason and persuasion, as the only effective  means by which to resolve differences of opinion and interests among men.

Therefore, to diminish the violence now rampant in America, it will be necessary for the religious and political leaders of this country to criticize the academic doctrine of moral relativism by exposing its logical consequences and pernicious influence on the attitudes and public behavior of American citizens.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Nov 11 2017

The *ACTUAL* 2016 FBI Report on “Russian Hacking” Does Not Show What Media Claim It Does…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 11, 2017 by

Last year against the backdrop of President Obama’s sanctions announcement against Russia, we closely reviewed the “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report”. This December 2016 intelligence report (actual document below) is the report where the media talking points “17 intelligence agencies agreed” and the Russian “hacking of the election” began.

The report was released to coincide with President Obama kicking out Russian diplomats as punishment for the content therein.  Everyone talks about this report, yet almost no-one talking about it has actually read it.  WE HAVE.

President Obama’s administration released the ‘Joint Analysis Report’ which various politicians and media claimed to outline details of Russia’s involvement hacking into targeted data, computer systems, and political networks during the election.

Except it doesn’t.

Not even a little.

The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf below) is pure nonsense. It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.

This report might as well be blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers.  Just because your grandma didn’t actually win that Nigerian national lottery doesn’t mean the Nigerian government, or representative of the Nigerian government were targeting grandma.

This FBI report is, well, quite simply, pure nonsense, that’s why NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers refused to endorse it.

[…] “And then you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well, it’s three. And one is Brennan and one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks.”

“So you look at it — I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker.”

“So you look at that, and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you’re not going to get into an argument. You’re going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.”

~ President Donald Trump

But don’t take my word for it, read it yourself.

Here’s the “report“:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/335307016/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-qvjYK3gLD9WdgOskmgoe

.

What the report does well is using technical terminology to describe common cyber activity.  Example: “ATPT29” sounds looming, but really is Olaf, the imaginary round faced chubby guy probably working from his kitchen table; and “ATPT28” is his unemployed socially isolated buddy living in Mom’s basement down the street.  But when put into technical terms they sound more alarming…. more colluding or something.

This paragraph is priceless in it’s humorous and disingenuous gobble-speak:

Both groups have historically targeted government organizations, think tanks, universities, and corporations around the world. APT29 has been observed crafting targeted spearphishing campaigns leveraging web links to a malicious dropper; once executed, the code delivers Remote Access Tools (RATs) and evades detection using a range of techniques.

APT28 is known for leveraging domains that closely mimic those of targeted organizations and tricking potential victims into entering legitimate credentials. APT28 actors relied heavily on shortened URLs in their spearphishing email campaigns. Once APT28 and APT29 have access to victims, both groups exfiltrate and analyze information to gain intelligence value.

These groups use this information to craft highly targeted spearphishing campaigns. These actors set up operational infrastructure to obfuscate their source infrastructure, host domains and malware for targeting organizations, establish command and control nodes, and harvest credentials and other valuable information from their targets.

(*note the emphasis I placed in the quote)

All that nonsense is saying is a general explanation for how hacking, any hacking, is generally carried out. This entire FBI report is nothing more than a generalized, albeit techno-worded, explanation for how Nigerians, Indians, or in this case Russians, attempt to gain your email passwords etc., nothing more.

However, what was alarming to consider was how far the various radical political ideologues, and the media, were willing to go to create a straw-man crisis for political benefit.  Secondly how terribly diminished the integrity of the executive office of the U.S. presidency actually became amid this level of ridiculous propaganda.

There’s no doubt the intended outcome was to create internal confusion and begin selling a narrative to undermine the incoming President-elect Trump administration.  No-one expected him to win; Trump’s victory sent a shockwave through the DC system the professional political class were reacting to.

Trump was a threat, an existential threat to their entire livelihood, and Trump won.  Now the outgoing administration was in a state of panic; and the outlier co-dependent agents from that administration were similarly apoplectic with fear.

The outgoing administration needed to create something, some narrative, to block Trump from upending their entire political system.  They sold this ridiculous Russian Narrative to a gullible U.S. left-wing electorate, because the Obama administration -writ large- knew media would help them and millions of people who will buy into these fabrications.

Consider the December 2016 example from a Yahoo News article:

[…] The US intelligence community has concluded that a hack-and-release of Democratic Party and Clinton staff emails was designed to put Trump — a political neophyte who has praised Putin — into the Oval Office. (link)

There was, and still is, absolutely no evidence the DNC was “hacked” (WikiLeaks claims the information was an inside job of “leaking”), and even John Podesta admitted himself he was a victim of an ordinary “phishing” password change scam.

Does hacking exist, of course it does. Do hackers exist in every country connected by the internet, of course they do. Do state governments participate in hacking offense and defense, again – yes, of course they do. And yes, the FBI and U.S. intelligence community act purposefully against all participants they can catch.

But what does that reality have to do with allegations that hostile Russian hackers attempted to gain entry into the DNC or John Podesta?  Those were, and are, two entirely different issues which the Obama administration conflated simply for political and ideological purposes.

Here is an example of that conflated outcome… this is how the narrative was pitched. Again, consider the Yaho0 media paragraph (above) against the headline which accompanied the content:

afp-yahoo-tweet-2

It’s been almost a year, and to this date there is no-more evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election than there was a year ago.  Well, other than some ridiculous claims about Russian bots on Twitter (that did nothing), purchased Facebook advertising (to help Clinton), and CNN claiming that Pokemon Go was part of the Russian conspiracy.

This is ridiculous.

There is no evidence, even from the origin of the Joint Analysis Report, that Russia had any involvement or influence whatsoever in the 2016 election.

Yet there is mounting evidence the Clinton campaign were creating a Russian Conspiracy Narrative to try and undermine candidate Trump – but it wouldn’t work because the Trump people kept refusing to participate in the set-up.

Nov 11 2017

Transcript: President Trump Impromptu Presser Aboard Air-Force-One…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 11, 2017 by

In the flight between Da Nang (APEC Summit) and Hanoi, Vietnam, for the official U.S. State visit, President Trump took questions from the traveling press pool and held an impromptu presser aboard Air-Force-One.

[TRANSCRIPT]  PRESIDENT TRUMP: Everybody okay? Everybody happy? Everybody healthy? Two more days — no problem.

It’s been a — I think it’s been a great trip. In certain ways, it’s been very epic. I think things have happened that have been really amazing. Prime Minister Abe came up to me just at the end, and he said that since you left South Korea and Japan, that those two countries are now getting along much, much better. That’s from Prime Minister Abe — that there’s been a real bonding between South Korea and Japan. So that was great.

And we had a time in China. You were there. Were most of you there? Jennifer?

♦Q We all were, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: They say in the history of people coming to China, there’s been nothing like that. And I believe it.  Did you see the show? Did most of you see the show or part of the show afterwards? It was incredible.

♦Q We saw the opera but not the —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: The opera was great too, but the following night — that was the first time that theater has been used at the Forbidden City in over a hundred years. You know that. They prepared the theater for that — the first time in over a hundred years.

No, it was an amazing — we have an amazing feeling toward each other. And he’s for China; I’m for USA. You know, it’s one of those things. But we have a great feeling.

So it’s been really very incredible. And then today was excellent. Today was a different kind of a thing. It’s a conference.

And then tonight they’re having a state dinner in Hanoi. And we then go to the Philippines, which was a rough trip the last time. That was a rough presidential trip, but this won’t be. And we’re staying the extra day because they have the two conferences; they have first day and they have the second day. And the second day, a lot of people say is very important. And I said, you know what, if I’m there, I should do it.

But it’s gone really well. I’ve really enjoyed it. Developed some new friendships — some really good friendships. But the three countries we’ve stopped in, the original three are — they’re really in our camp, and we’re in their camp.

♦Q How were your discussions with Vladimir Putin? Did you discuss Syria? And apparently they’ve issued a joint statement that —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We issued a joint statement. We’re going to be — have you seen the statement yet?

MS. SANDERS: It’s going out — it’s on the way.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: So I think it’ll go out. You’ll see it in a little while.

MS. SANDERS: It may be out, now that you guys — now that we’re in the air.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s going to save tremendous numbers of lives. And we did that very quickly. We agreed very quickly. 

As you know, we saw each other last night just for a picture, and that was the first time. And then today we had a roundtable with numerous countries. You have a list of the countries, obviously. Right? You have a list.

And we spoke intermittently during that roundtable. We seem to have a very good feeling for each other and a good relationship considering we don’t know each other well. I think it’s a very good relationship.

We had two or three very short conversations because of the meeting, the fact that we’re at a meeting. But during those conversations, we talked about Syria and de-conflicting, et cetera. You know, we have areas where troops are facing — our troops — I mean, their troops are facing our troops and there’s nothing in between.

And we issued a statement — a joint statement. It was just approved, and I think people are going to be extremely happy with it and also very impressed with it.

♦Q Did Russia’s attempts to meddle in U.S. elections come up in the conversation?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He said he didn’t meddle. He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times. But I just asked him again, and he said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they’re saying he did. And he said —

♦Q Do you believe him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, look, I can’t stand there and argue with him. I’d rather have him get out of Syria, to be honest with you. I’d rather have him — you know, work with him on the Ukraine than standing and arguing about whether or not — because that whole thing was set up by the Democrats. 

I mean, they ought to look at Podesta. They ought to look at all of the things that they’ve done with the phony dossier. Those are the big events. Those are the big events.

But Putin said he did not do what they said he did. And, you know, there are those that say, if he did do it, he wouldn’t have gotten caught, all right? Which is a very interesting statement. But we have a — you know, we have a good feeling toward getting things done.

If we had a relationship with Russia, that would be a good thing. In fact, it would be a great thing, not a bad thing. Because he could really help us in North Korea. We have a big problem with North Korea. And China is helping us. And because of the lack of a relationship that we have with Russia because of this artificial thing that’s happening with this Democratic-inspired thing, we could really be helped a lot, tremendously, with Russia having to do with North Korea.

And, you know, you’re talking about millions and millions of lives. This isn’t baby stuff. This is the real deal. And if Russia helped us, in addition to China, that problem would go away a lot faster.

♦Q How did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He just — every time he sees me, he says, “I didn’t do that.” And I believe — I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, “I didn’t do that.” I think he’s very insulted by it, if you want to know the truth. 

Don’t forget, all he said is he never did that, he didn’t do that. I think he’s very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country. Because again, if we had a relationship with Russia, North Korea — which is our single biggest problem right now — North Korea, it would be helped a lot. I think I’m doing very well with respect to China. They’ve cut off financing; they’ve cut off bank lines; they’ve cut off lots of oil and lots of other things, lots of trade. And it’s having a big impact. But Russia, on the other hand, may be making up the difference. And if they are, that’s not a good thing.

So having a relationship with Russia would be a great thing — not a good thing — it would be a great thing, especially as it relates to North Korea.

And I’ll say this, Hillary had her stupid reset button that she spelled the word wrong, but she doesn’t have what it takes to have that kind of a relationship where you could call or you could do something and they would pull back from North Korea, or they’d pull back from Syria, or maybe pull back from Ukraine. I mean, if we could solve the Ukraine problem —

But this is really an artificial barrier that’s put in front of us for solving problems with Russia, and he says that very strongly. He really seems to be insulted by it, and he says he didn’t do it. So —

♦Q (Inaudible) do you believe him —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me?

♦Q Even if he (inaudible) one-on-one, do you believe him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think that he is very, very strong in the fact that he didn’t do it. And then you look, and you look at what’s going on with Podesta, and you look at what’s going on with the server from the DNC and why didn’t the FBI take it, why did they leave it; why did a third party look at the server and not the FBI — if you look at all of this stuff, and you say, what’s going on here? 

And then you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well, it’s three. And one is Brennan and one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks.

So you look at it — I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker.

So you look at that, and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you’re not going to get into an argument. You’re going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.

♦Q You seem to have a fairly warm relationship with a number of —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I do.

♦Q — totalitarian or authoritarian leaders —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And others.

♦Q And others. So, Putin, Xi, leader of the Philippines. Do you think you — what do you think — do you think you understand them in a certain way or relate to them in a way that other Presidents haven’t?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I dont know. They had a story today in one of the papers about China. China likes me. China likes me. And I get along with them; I get along with others too.

I get along very well with Angela. You people don’t write that. I actually get along really well with Angela. You know, they had that handshaking event. I was with her for a long time before that. And somebody shouts out, “shake her hand, shake her hand.” And I didn’t hear them. So by not shaking her hand, they said — I have a great relationship with her. I have a great relationship with Theresa May. I have a great relationship with Justin Trudeau, who I just left.

I think I — I’ll be honest with you, I think I have a great relationship with every single one of them. Every person in that room today — you had what, 15, or so, or 18? Asia Pacific —

♦Q Well, 21 including you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Everyone in that room, I have a good relationship. They’re very different people, but everyone. And I do have a very good relationship with Xi, obviously. It’s the biggest state — it’s the biggest state entrance and the biggest state dinner they’ve ever had, by far, in China. He called it a state-plus. Like he said it — he actually said, state-plus-plus, which is very interesting. 

But he’s — you know, look, again, he’s a strong person. He’s a very smart person. I like him a lot; he likes me. But, you know, we represent two very different countries. But we get along very well. And that’s a good thing that we along; that’s not a bad thing.

And on trade, you know, it was — most of the news covered it fairly. Some didn’t. When I said it’s not your fault — because I was saying how China has been hurting us on trade for many decades, for many years — and it really is. It’s not his fault. We should have been doing that. But we didn’t do it. It’s the fault of the administrations that preceded me. And we’re not going to do that anymore; we’re going to be very tough on trade. And he understands that.

♦Q In the past, American presidents have felt the obligation to raise issues about human rights abuses. Do you feel like that’s an obligation and that’s something that you feel is important to do?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I do. But I also raise issues on many other things. I mean, I have an obligation — we lost, last year, with China, depending on the way you do your numbers, because you can do them a numbers of way — anywhere from $350 [billion] to $504 billion. That’s with one country. Im going to fix that. And I’ve got to fix what we have with Mexico, who was there today too, who I also have a very good relationship with. And I have a great relationship with France. Some of you were in France with me, with the Eiffel Tower dinner. We have a great relationship with Emmanuel.

So I think that’s the thing. I’ve actually been getting — I always said it, I think — I said, I think one of my strong suits is going to be foreign affairs. And we’re actually getting very good marks having to do with foreign affairs. There’s nobody that I can think of that I don’t have a very good relationship with.

But when we can — I mean, you’ll be seeing the release that’s put out. But we can save many, many, many lives by making a deal with Russia having to do with Syria, and then ultimately getting Syria solved and getting Ukraine solved and doing other things, having a good relationship with Russia is a great, great thing.

And this artificial Democratic hit job gets in the way. It gets in the way. And that’s a shame because people will die because of it. And it’s a pure hit job. And it’s artificially induced. And it’s a shame. But anyway.

♦Q If we could ask you about Roy Moore. Is it time to pitch him overboard?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, again, I’ve been with you folks, so I haven’t gotten to see too much. And believe it or not, even when I’m in Washington and New York, I do not watch much television. I know they like to say — people that don’t know me, they like to say I watch television. People with fake sources — you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don’t get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents a lot, and different things. 

I actually read much more — I read you people much more than I watch television. But anyway — but so I have not seen very much about him, about it. And, you know, I put out a statement yesterday that he’ll do the right thing, that — he was interviewed.

♦Q But four women have come forward and accused him of inappropriately touching them, basically making advances when they were underage, including a 14-year-old. I mean, at what point — and you said, “if he did it.” But at what point do you decide if he did it? It’s right now their word against his.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Honestly, I’d have to look at it and I’d have to see. Because again, Im dealing with the President of China, the President of Russia, I’m dealing with the folks over here. So I haven’t devoted — I haven’t been able to devote very much time to it. 

And I’ve been at — I mean, you people are just as strong as me. You’re following me all over the place. I mean, we are going to lots of meetings, right? And, by the way, anybody that took the bet, pick up your money, okay? And the hard stuff was that. Really hard.

♦Q What was the bet again?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, a lot of people said it’s almost physically impossible for someone to go through 12 days. 

What I didn’t want to do was come back because I would have had to come back. And we would have been on this plane again in five weeks from now exactly to do four days. We were going to do four days and four days. And this way we did twelve, and we hit the big conferences, which is a big asset. So anyway.

♦Q So you’re not yet prepared to say that Roy Moore should —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I will see it when — I mean, I basically put out a statement which was obvious. So I’ll stick with statement for now, but I’ll have further comment as we go down the road. I have to get back into the country to see what’s happening. 

♦Q Is there one thing that you were pressing President Xi on that you can say you’re going to take away, where he changed his mind or agreed to something that you’re looking to do specifically on North Korea?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: President Xi made a statement. If you read his statement yesterday — were you all there when he was speaking and made the statement in the big room — the Great Room?

He made a statement that he’s committed to stopping the nuclearization of North Korea. That’s a big statement. He made that statement, and a lot of people didn’t — they didn’t pick that up. I don’t think it was — because it was part of the speech. And somehow a lot people — to me, that was a very big statement. I even looked up — because Im sitting waiting to speak — and I said, wow, that’s a big statement. He made that statement in his speech yesterday or the day before, when he made — you know, when we were speaking together. He put a statement out, Sarah, that said he’s committed to making that happen. That’s a big statement. 

You know, he was, through this process — he’s the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong. Some people say more powerful than Mao. With that being said, I really believe he’s a good person, he’s a good man, he wants to do right, he’s representing his people. He’s strong, he’s very strong. But you know, you look at some of what you saw was very impressive. It was very impressive.

♦Q What’s the next thing you’d like to see him do on Korea?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, I’d like to have him ratchet it up, and I think he’s doing that. We had a long talk about it.

♦Q But ratchet it up with what?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I was with him for hours. You know, I was with him — like I sat with him. You were there at the beginning of that evening, right? Of the —

♦Q No.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, really?

♦Q I wasn’t pool.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I was sitting with him. We were together for hours. And the day before, we were together for hours. And we get along very well. You know, it’s easy to be with him for hours. Whereas, if you don’t have chemistry, you people know, you can’t be with somebody for two minutes. And we talked a lot about North Korea. We talked about a lot of things. We talked a lot about North Korea. 

No, I think he’s going to ratchet it up. I did not speak to President Putin about it because we just had these little segments that we were talking about Syria. But President Putin would be tremendously helpful — tremendously helpful — if I had Russia and China helping us with North Korea, I think that would solve it. But this artificial barrier gets in the way. I call it the “artificial Democrat barrier.” It gets in the way, which is a shame.

♦Q So you didn’t have time to ask Putin specific things on North Korea?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I wasn’t able to — because I really didn’t, Jennifer. I really just — we did, like, little snippets in between. We didn’t have a planned meeting. We spoke, but we didn’t have a planned meeting.

♦Q Where did you leave it with President Putin? Are you looking for another meeting? Him coming to the U.S.? Or are you —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ll have a meeting. I think we have the potential to have a very good relationship. I dont know him like I know President Xi because I’ve spent a lot of time with President Xi, but I think we have the potential to have a very, very good relationship. I have it with Abe. I have it with Abe. Very good.

♦Q Did you see Abe fall at the sand trap?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I didn’t. I say this: If that was him, he is one of the greatest gymnasts because the way he — (laughter) — it was like a perfect — I never saw anything like that. 

No, wasn’t it amazing? And he was standing up. I told him — I said, I’m not going to ask — because it was shot from a helicopter. I said, I will not ask if that’s you, but if it was, I’m very impressed because you’re better than any gymnast I’ve ever seen.

♦Q What do you mean by “artificial Democratic barrier”? I mean, you and Putin can’t warm up because of this investigation? Or what —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: There’s an artificial barrier that puts in the way by the Democrats. It’s a fake barrier. There was no collusion. Everybody knows there was no collusion. I mean, you speak to these people — I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day and I respect her. She was on television the other day saying there’s no collusion. The Democrats — the Republicans come out screaming it, but the Democrats come out, and they say, “No, there’s no collusion.” There is no collusion. There’s nothing. 

And I think it’s a shame that something like that can destroy a very important potential relationship between two countries that are very important countries. Russia could really help us. And the Democrats wanted to have a good relationship with Russia, but they couldn’t do it because they didn’t have the talent to do it. They didn’t have the chemistry to do it. They didn’t have what it takes to do it. You know, there is a talent to that.

But I think Putin and I — President Putin and I would have a great relationship, and that would be great for both countries. And it would take a lot of the danger out because we’re really — you know, this is a dangerous time. This isn’t small stuff. This is a very dangerous time. And having a great relationship, or even a good relationship, with the President of Russia — Hillary tried it, and she failed. Nobody mentions that. They act like, you know — it’s so terrible. She did that reset button; it was a joke. But she tried and she failed.

Obama tried and he failed. Couldn’t have it, because he didn’t have chemistry. They didn’t have the right chemistry. And you know what? I understand that, because there are some people I don’t have chemistry with. Let’s see, some of you are right here. (Laughter.) There are some people I don’t — you know, sometimes if you don’t have chemistry with somebody, you don’t.

But Obama did not have the right chemistry with Putin. And Hillary was way over her head.

MS. SANDERS: Let’s take one more and then let them have lunch.

♦Q Were you able to get any commitments — when it comes to the trade balance, some of the issues you talk about like intellectual property theft — did he make any commitments there to make changes?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, the intellectual property — you’re talking about $300 billion a year. It’s tremendous. We talked about it. But I said, we’re friends, but this is a different administration than you’ve had for the last 30 years. For the last 30 years, China — and, in all fairness, and other countries. Look, we have a $71 billion trade deficit with Mexico. We have a $70 billion trade deficit with Japan. We have a $30 billion trade deficit with South Korea. I could go through a whole list. There are few countries we have a surplus with, and those countries it’s like a two-dollar surplus. It’s disgraceful.

And I don’t blame any of those countries. I blame the people that we had representing us who didn’t know what they were doing. Because they should have never let it happen.

♦Q I’d like to ask a question on AT&T and CNN. Do you want AT&T to sell CNN for the —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I didn’t make the decision. That was made by a man who’s actually a very respected person — a very, very respected person.

I did make a comment in the past as to what I think. I do feel that you should have as many news outlets as you can, especially since so many of them are fake. This way, at least you can get your word out. But I do believe you should have as many news outlets as you can.

Now, with that being said, I didn’t make a statement on it, but I made that statement long before at the very early part. So we’ll see how that — it will probably end up being maybe litigation, maybe not. We’ll see how it all plays out.

♦Q Did you talk to Xi about opening China to Twitter and other social media?

THE PRESIDENT: About what?

♦Q Opening China to Twitter.

THE PRESIDENT: I mentioned it very briefly. Honestly, it wasn’t number one on my list. Number one on my list with him was North Korea and trade. Those are the two I really spoke. I mentioned it, you know, briefly, but we’ll talk. I’m going to have plenty of time to talk. He’ll come here next time. 

This all started in Florida, and it’s a great feeling to have that kind of a relationship where you can really help your country. Because we can really help our country, and he can really help his country.

But we’re going to be very tough on trade. This is not going to be like it was in the past. I did tell him that. This is not going to be the old days. This is a whole different thing going on.

And, you know, it’s not acceptable what’s been happening with trade, generally. China, yes — but generally. And I can think of almost no examples where it’s good. It’s all bad. We had the worst negotiators, whether it’s the Iran deal or any other thing. We had the worst — our trade deals are so bad. Last year, we lost $800 billion, right? Yeah. $800 [billion], approximately. Check it. But approximately $800 billion on trade. Why?

♦Q You put your own guys in there now. So what did you get from him?

THE PRESIDENT: I have a great team. Bob Lighthizer. Bob Lighthizer is — he’s going to town. And he works with me. He works with me. But Bob is going to town.

So I hope you’re all enjoying yourselves. Tonight we’re going to Hanoi.

♦Q Any highlights from APEC? Do you have any asks for the other countries?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the APEC was just — good, very collegial.

♦Q Did anyone ask you for specific things?

THE PRESIDENT: No, but I told them we’re going to have much tougher trade policies now, because, you know, they have barriers. We don’t. I’m not only talking about tariffs. They have non-tariff barriers, and we don’t. I said, you got to remove them.

Good to be with you. Good to be with you.

We’ll talk to you —

♦Q Thank you for coming back.

THE PRESIDENT: I’ll see you in Hanoi. Are you all going up?

♦Q Yes, sir.

♦Q We are.

END 4:01 P.M. ICT

Nov 11 2017

Responding to Trump APEC Speech: USTR Lighthizer Statement of Intent for US-Indo-Pacific Trade…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on November 10, 2017 by

Just love this guy. Remember to teach your kids, grand-kids, family etc. about the unknown wolverine, the third musketeer, United States Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer.

Da Nang, Vietnam – United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer today released the following statement in response to President Trump’s speech on trade between the United States and the Indo-Pacific region, at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEO Summit (emphasis mine):

“The President spoke loud and clear: the era of trade compromised by massive state intervention, subsidies, closed markets and mercantilism is ending. Free, fair and reciprocal trade that leads to market outcomes and greater prosperity is on the horizon.

“President Trump understands that too many nations talk about free trade abroad, only to shield their economies behind tariff and non-tariff barriers at home. The United States will no longer allow these actions to continue, and we are willing to use our economic leverage to pursue truly fair and balanced trade.

“I look forward to doing as the President instructed me and to pursue policies that will improve the lives of our workers, farmers and ranchers.” (link)