The BLS released the December jobs report earlier today showing a stable 145,000 new job gains last month, and the unemployment rate remaining a very low 3.5%.

During an interview discussing the health of the U.S. economy in 2020 with National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, the DOW Jones industrial average crossed 29,000 for the first time in history.

Earlier today Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin held a press conference in the White House to announce new sanctions against Iran. The secretaries also took questions from the press pool. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here today. I’d just like to make a brief comment before we talk about Iran sanctions. I’m sure everybody saw that the DOW hit 29,000. The President’s economic plans are clearly working. We’re looking forward to the China signing, USMCA, and a very strong economy this year.

As previously announced by the President, we are announcing additional sanctions against the Iranian regime as a result of the attack on U.S. and allied troops.

First, the President is issuing an executive order authorizing the imposition of additional sanctions against any individual owning, operating, trading with, or assisting sectors of the Iranian economy, including construction, manufacturing, textiles, and mining. And let me be clear: These will be both primary and secondary sanctions. The EO also allows us to designate other sectors in the future as Secretary Pompeo and me think is appropriate.

Second, we are announcing 17 specific sanctions against Iran’s largest steel and iron manufacturers, three Seychelles-based entities, and a vessel involved in the transfer of products. As a result of these actions, we will cut off billions of dollars of support to the Iranian regime, and we will continue our enforcement of other entities.

Third, we are taking action against eight senior Iranian officials who advanced the regime’s destabilizing activity and were involved in Tuesday’s ballistic missile strike. Secretary Pompeo will comment more on this.

Today’s sanctions are part of our commitment to stop the Iranian regime’s global terrorist activities. The President has been very clear: We will continue to apply economic sanctions until Iran stops its terrorist activities and commit that it will never have nuclear weapons.

I’ll now turn it over to Secretary Pompeo.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you, Steven. Good morning, everyone.

Today, President Trump is delivering on the pledge that he made the day after Iran attacked American forces in Iraq: There will be a series of new sanctions.

Secretary Mnuchin just mentioned eight senior Iranian officials that are responsible for the regime’s violence, both at home and abroad. We’re striking at the heart of the Islamic Republic’s inner security apparatus. These sanctions targets include the Secretary of the Supreme National Council and the Commander of the Basij Forces; that’s the regime’s brute squad, which has, in the last few months, killed approximately 1,500 Iranians who were simply demanding freedom.

Our action targets other senior leaders close to the Ayatollah. They’ve carried out his terrorist plots in destabilizing campaigns across the Middle East and around the world. They’ve employed soldiers across the region’s battlefields. They’ve trained militias in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere in the arts of domestic repression.

Today, they’re accountable for murder and mayhem. The goal of our campaign is to deny the regime the resources to conduct its destructive foreign policy. We want Iran to simply behave like a normal nation. We believe the sanctions that we impose today further that strategic objective.

Our campaign is composed of diplomatic, economic components that have deprived the regime of billions in revenue the regime has used to fuel death and destruction across the Middle East and all across the world.

Sadly, the previous administration had opened up revenue streams for Iran. But under our administration, oil revenues are down by 80 percent and Iran cannot access roughly 90 percent of its foreign currency reserves. And not even two weeks ago, President Rouhani of Iran admitted that our sanctions have cost Iran over $200 billion in lost foreign income and investment. As long as Iran’s outlaw ways continue, we will continue to impose sanctions.

Finally, I want to reiterate President Trump’s concern for Americans and dual national citizens detained inside of Iran. Iran knows these individuals have committed no crime. They know the charges against them are fake. And we will do all that we can to get each of them returned home safely to their families.

With that, we’ll take just a few questions.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Mr. Secretary, the administration said this strike was based on an imminent threat, but this morning you said we didn’t know precisely when and we didn’t know precisely where. That’s not the definition of “imminent.” The President has also suggested that there was some sort of attack being planned against an embassy, perhaps several embassies.

Can you clarify? Did you have specific information about an imminent threat, and did it have anything to do with our embassies?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threats included attacks on U.S. embassies. Period. Full stop.

Q So you were mistaken when you said you didn’t know precisely when and you didn’t know precisely where?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Nope. Completely true. Those are completely consistent thoughts. I don’t know exactly which minute. We don’t know exactly which day it would’ve been executed. But it was very clear: Qasem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests. And those attacks were imminent.

Q Against an embassy?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Against American facilities, including American embassies, military bases. American facilities throughout the region.

Q Mr. Secretary —

SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, sir. John?

Q Mr. Secretary, in the initial hours after the missile attacks on Al-Asad, in Erbil, it was believed that Iran may have taken steps to avoid U.S. casualties. But then, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, came out, the Secretary of Defense came out, other officials came out to say, “No, these missiles were intended to kill Americans.”

If it was Iran’s intent to kill Americans, does that not deserve some sort of response? I mean, if somebody takes a shot at you and they don’t hit you simply because you duck, does that mean that they weren’t trying to kill you?

SECRETARY POMPEO: So, look, I’ll defer to the Department of Defense on the details, but there’s no doubt in my judgment, as I observed the Iranian activity in the region that night, they had the full intention of carrying — killing U.S. forces, whether that was our military folks or diplomatic folks who were in the region. And I am confident that the response the President has taken is appropriate.

The President said we don’t want war; we want Iran to behave like a normal nation. The reason that the Secretary of Treasury and I are here this morning is to continue this campaign — our strategic effort to get Iran to behave in a way that doesn’t continue their 40-year-long effort to terrorize the world.

Q Mr. Secretary and Secretary Pompeo, do you believe that the Iranians shot down the Ukrainian International Airways [sic] plane? And if the Iranians shot that plane down, will there be consequences?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We do believe that it’s likely that that plane was shot down by an Iranian missile. We’re going to let the investigation play out before we make a final determination. It’s important that we get to the bottom of it.

I’ve been on the phone — I was on the phone with President Zelensky. Just before I came here, I was on the phone with my Canadian counterpart. They’re working to get their resources on the ground to conduct that thorough investigation. We’ll learn more about what happened to that aircraft. And when we get the results of that investigation, I am confident we and the world will take appropriate actions in response.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: And let me just —

Q Will you allow the NTSB to work with the Iranians?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Yeah, I was just going to comment on that. The Treasury will issue waivers for anybody, whether it’s Americans or others, that can help facilitate the investigation.

Q The last time that you both joined us in this room, it was back in September and you were announcing additional sanctions, including on the Quds Force. And, Secretary Mnuchin, at that point you said, “I think we’ve done more sanctions on Iran than anybody, and it’s absolutely working.”

Since then, we’ve seen an escalation in violence from Iran: shooting down the drone, attacking the embassy, a contractor who was killed, U.S. troops that were wounded. How are sanctions keeping the United States — economic sanctions keeping the United States and United States’ interests more secure?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: I think we have 100 percent confidence, and we are consistent in our view that the economic sanctions are working; that if we didn’t have these sanctions in place, literally Iran would have tens of billions of dollars. They would be using that for terrorist activities throughout the region and to enable them to do more bad things. And there’s no question, by cutting off the economics to the region, we are having an impact.

And as the President has said, the fact that the Obama administration turned over $150 billion to the regime, we think we wouldn’t be in this situation had that not been the case.

SECRETARY POMPEO: May I just add, it’s important to keep in mind what’s taking place in Iran today. This country has never been in the place that it is today. Big, challenging problems. Their budget — they’re going to fail by tens of billions of dollars of achieving their revenue for this year. They’ve got real challenges, and figuring out how to make difficult decisions: Do you underwrite Hezbollah? Do you pick Hamas? Do you underwrite the Shia militias in Iraq? Or do you allow your people to have the opportunity to live the life they want and grow your economy? Those are the difficult choices that the regime is facing.

And you can see the protests — protests that we expect will continue — that we’ll demand from the Iranian regime that they begin to treat the Iranian people in the way that they so richly deserve. And this administration will continue to support those efforts as well.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: In the back.

Q Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned secondary sanctions here. What is your message to our European allies who continue to do business with the Iranians? And then, specifically, if you can, will this impact the INSTEX barter mechanism, which was set up by a number of European countries to avoid U.S. sanctions and continue to do business without using the U.S. dollar?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Sure. Thank you. I think those are both very important questions.

So let me first comment on INSTEX. I don’t believe there’s been any INSTEX transactions. As we’ve made clear, we are working on a Swiss channel that we have approved for humanitarian transactions. We’ll continue to allow humanitarian transactions. We’ve warned INSTEX and others that they will most likely be subject to secondary sanctions, depending on how they use that. So that’s absolutely the case.

As it relates to the Europeans, both the Secretary and I have spoken to our counterparts in Europe several times over the last few days. We’ve emphasized the impact and the issue of — Iran has announced that they are no longer part of the JCPOA. And we’ve had very direct conversations with our counterparts about that.

Q Secretary Pompeo, what is your definition of “imminent”?

SECRETARY POMPEO: This was going to happen, and American lives were at risk. And we would have been culpably negligent. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, we would have been culpably negligent had we not recommended to the President that he take this action at Qasem Soleimani. He made the right call, and America is safer as a result of that.

Q But then why has there been these — Secretary Pompeo, why have there been these shifting definitions —

(Cross-talk.)

Q Thank you. Thank you, sir.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Go — go ahead. We’re going to —

Q — shifting explanations of the intelligence?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: We’re going to try to do one question for everybody, just —

Q Were they trying to hit Iranian troops — was Iran trying to hit our troops or not?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: — so that as many people can get questions. So I don’t mean to cut you off, but we’re trying to — go ahead.

Q I mean, let me defer to my colleague — but, sir, six months ago, Secretary Pompeo, the President said that U.S. intelligence agencies had been running amok. He spent most of the past three years he’s been in office denigrating and attacking the intelligence community and disputing findings, whether it’s on Russia or North Korea, or really any area that contradicts things that he has said publicly.

Why then should Americans suddenly believe your assertions that you had good intelligence on this when the head of the Executive Branch has been casting aspersions on the intelligence community for most of his time in office?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Look, I served as the CIA Director for the first year and a half of this administration. I watched the President rely on the work that the intelligence community did for the entire time I served as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. I watched him rely on the capable men and women who are delivering exquisite information to the Executive Branch. I watched the President have confidence in that information.

We all challenge their work. We have to make sure we get it right. The intelligence community is not flawless. We — we get it wrong. In this case, the intelligence community got it fundamentally right. Even the reflections we’ve seen after the after-effect, after the strike that Qasem Soleimani took, has demonstrated that we were quite right. There was an imminent attack. There was active plotting. And we took an action that we thought was likely to create less risk for the American people, and I’m confident that we did that.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Go ahead, in the back. In the back.

Q Thank you. This question is for Secretary Pompeo. There are reports that the Iraqi Prime Minister has asked you to start negotiating some withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq immediately. Is that the case? Can you comment on that?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Yeah, he didn’t quite characterize the conversation correctly. But to the larger, more important point, we are happy to continue the conversation with the Iraqis about what the right structure is. Our mission set there is very clear: We’ve been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, the counter-Daesh campaign.

We’re going to continue that mission. But as the — as times change and we get to a place where we can deliver upon what I believe and the President believes is our right structure, with fewer resources dedicated to that mission, we will do so.

We also have today a NATO team that’s here at the State Department working to develop a plan, which will get burden-sharing right in the region, as well, so that we can continue the important missions to protect and defend and keep the American people safe while reducing our cost, our resources, and our burden, and the risk to our soldiers and sailors who are in the region.

Q Secretary Pompeo, if I can — here, today, at the podium, you said that the imminent threat was a threat to U.S. embassies. You didn’t know precisely when or where. Last night, the President said it was a threat to embassies, including to our Baghdad embassy.

Why can you say that here, and the President could say it at a rally in Toledo, but no one said it to lawmakers behind closed doors in a classified setting, as multiple senators have since said?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We did.

Q You said —

SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes.

Q So the senators are lying when they say that (inaudible) imminent threat was a threat?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We told them about the imminent threat. All of the intelligence that we’ve briefed, that you’ve heard today, I assure you, in an unclassified setting, we provide in the classified setting as well.

Q To be clear, you told them that embassies were the — were to be targeted? That was the imminent threat?

SECRETARY POMPEO: I’m not going to talk about the details of what we shared in a classified setting. But make no mistake about it: Those leaders, those members of Congress who want to go access this same intelligence, can see that very same intelligence that will reflect what I described to you and what the President said last night, as well.

Q Is that threat now gone with Soleimani gone?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Threats are never gone. Uh, right? It’s always — a lot of danger in the world.

Q The next general will pick it up?

SECRETARY POMPEO: Always — always a lot of danger in the world, throughout the region. Nobody believed that a single mission, in any respect, took down the risk of terror — terror from al Qaeda, terror from ISIS, terror from al-Shabaab. No — no one believes that. The President doesn’t.

Look at the list though; look at the achievements in the administration. We took away the caliphate in its entirety. We took down Hamza bin Laden. We took down al-Baghdadi. We took down Qasem Soleimani. This is a list that has reduced the capacity for terrorists around the world to perform the functions that put American men and women and the homeland at risk. We’re very proud of what we accomplished. We’re going to stay the course.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Why don’t we take one more over there? Yes. Thank you.

Q I’m curious —

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: No, no. Next to you. Right there. Yes.

Q Me?

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Yes.

Q Thank you. Secretary Mnuchin, this is a question for you too about the China trade deal. So the Chinese side is going to be here next Wednesday to sign the phase one part of that deal. But China is also a big importer of Iranian oil and Iranian minerals, and that’s a big part of their economy as well. So how do you balance the two? And are you concerned about the Iran issue coming up in either the signing of the phase one deal or the negotiation for the phase two deal?

SECRTEARY MNUCHIN: Well, let me just comment: I had no idea you’d ask that question, but that’s a good last question to end on.

So let me first say that we are looking forward to the Chinese delegation coming next week. Phase one is very significant. It includes very significant components of changes to technology issues, intellectual property issues, and $50 billion of purchases for our farmers.

I would comment: I don’t agree with your comment that China is a big buyer of oil. The China state companies are not buying oil from Iran. And I would just say we are having conversations with China, as well with any other counterparty on sanctions evasion.

So thank you very much. Thank you, everybody.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Tonight President Trump heads to Toledo, OH for a massive Keep America Great rally at the Huntington Center. President Trump is expected to speak at 7:00pm ET.

UPDATE: Video Added

RSBN Livestream – Fox News Livestream – GST Livestream – Global News Livestream

.

.

.

Following remarks during the National Environmental Policy Act event at the White House, President Trump held a press conference with media: [Transcript Below]

[Transcript] THE PRESIDENT – We’ll take a few questions. Please.

Q Mr. President, you mentioned the Chinese trade deal that you’re working on; you’re going to be signing, next week, phase one. Can you give us a sense of phase two —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q — what you hope to accomplish there? And will you be travelling to Beijing for that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, phase one is a big, big number. It’s a big percentage of the deal. Some would say half, some would say a little less, or a little more than half. But it’s a tremendous percentage. It’s pretty much all for the farmers — also, bankers. We also have regulations for a lot of different — a lot of things are covered that people are going to be very surprised to see, but it’s a big chunk of it.

And we’ll start right away negotiating phase two. It’ll take a little time. I think I might want to wait to finish it until after the election, because by doing that I think we can actually make a little bit better deal — maybe a lot better deal.

But phase one was — is a phenomenal deal. Could be up to $50 billion in farm product. So that’s something that — the most they ever did was $16 billion. So they go from $16 billion to up to $50 billion. So that’s numerous times more than they were buying in the past. It’s going to have a huge impact. And I see farm prices are going way up. I see corn is just — had some big increases over the last little while. Cattle has been doing really well. And the farmers liked me anyway. That’s what I like about the farmers. (Laughter.)

But you know what I did do — and you know this better than anybody — I got — I was able — they were targeted by China. You know — look, China is negotiating. I don’t blame them. But they were targeted. They say, “You know, the farmers like Trump so we’ll target the farmers.” And they did. And the first year was $12 billion, and I took $12 billion and I asked Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture, “What do you think, Sonny?” He said, “It’s $12 billion.” And I think that would’ve caused tremendous consternation. And they were hit for $12 billion, and I took $12 billion out of the tariffs.

We had tens of billions of dollars left over; I gave it to the farmers. The next year it was $16 billion. I took $16 billion out of the tariffs; I gave it to the farmers. So the farmers did pretty well, and now they’re doing great. And the prices are going up very substantially, and China is kicking in. China has already started to buy. Japan — the deal is done. They have been buying. It’s a $40 billion deal.

But the big question I have is whether or not the farmers will be able to supply that much. Because it’s much more than — it’s the biggest contract ever signed. So I think it’ll be great for the farmers, but also great for regulatory, great for banks. You know that. Great for finance companies. Really, a lot.

Then we’re going to covering the opening of China and various other things in phase two.

Q And on impeachment, sir, would you support a deal for witnesses if that included testimony from Adam Schiff and Hunter Biden?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to leave it to the Senate, but I’d like to hear the whistleblower. I’d like to hear Shifty Schiff. I’d like to hear Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. You know. How does Hunter Biden, with no experience whatsoever — would anybody up — Sean, would you like the Hunter Biden job? He has no experience, making no money, and then all of a sudden, see, he’s making millions and millions of dollars. You’d take that. Would you leave the union for that? I think so.

MR. MCGARVEY: Uh, I’m not sure, Mr. President. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I know so, but I’m not going to tell.

No, no I’d like to hear from Hunter Biden. I’d like to hear from — he’s a corrupt politician, Adam Schiff. He’s corrupt. He gave a sentence. You know, he never knew I was going to release the transcript. He gave a sentence that he made up. He made it up. And it was not the — it was not what was said in the conversation. That’s why I released the transcript; got approval from Ukraine. We released the exact transcript, and it turned out to be totally different.

These are corrupt politicians. The whole thing is a hoax. But I would like to hear Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, and some others — the informer that never showed up. You know, once I released the transcript, you know what happened. The informer — he never showed up.

And the second whistleblower — Jon, whatever happened to the second whistleblower? The second whistleblower disappeared. There probably was none or maybe we know who the second whistleblower was. Maybe we do. But he never showed up. All of a sudden, they don’t talk, because they were really unexpectedly met with the actual conversation, the exact conversation.

So yeah, if we do that, I would like to have those people, plus others, testify. Because it’s the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the United States government. This has gone on since the day I came down the escalator. This isn’t just here; this isn’t just the Ukraine hoax. This is the witch hunt. This is the whole thing with Russia that turned out to be a total fabricated plot. The ones who are guilty are the Democrats, the DNC, and all of the dirty cops that were involved that we caught.

Yeah.

Q Mr. President, I’m sure you saw Mike Lee’s comments. Did your national security team really say that it would be wrong for Congress to debate military action on Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: So here’s what happened on that: I had calls from numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women, saying it was the greatest presentation they’ve ever had.

Mike and Rand Paul disagreed because they want information that, honestly, I think is very hard to get. It’s okay if the military wants to give it, but they didn’t want to give it. And it really had to do with sources and information that we had that really should remain at a very high level.

Could we individually maybe give one or two of them some information? Possibly, if we can do that. I get along great with Mike Lee. I’ve never seen him like that. But other people have called and they’ve said it was the best presentation they’ve ever seen.

And let me tell you what was the best, forget about presentation: the result. We killed a man who killed many, many Americans and many, many people — thousands and thousands of people.

And when I go over to Walter Reed and I meet these young, incredible folks — mostly, it just seems mostly men, but also women — where their legs are gone, their arms are gone. In some cases, both the legs and the arms are gone, and the face and the body is badly damaged. And frankly, five years ago, they couldn’t have lived. And today, they can live because of the wonders of medicine and the wonders of Walter Reed and the people that, over there — what — the job they do, the medical doctors.

But I will say this: We caught a total monster, and we took him out. And that should have happened a long time ago. We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy. We also did it for other reasons that were very obvious. Somebody died — one of our military people died. People were badly wounded just a week before. And we did it. And we had a shot at him, and I took it, and that shot was pinpoint accurate. And that was the end of a monster.

Then — and that was — really, that was the second attack. It was not — we didn’t start it. They started it by killing one of our people and wounding badly other of our people. So that you call “retribution.”

Ukraine — if you look at what happened with Ukraine, that’s a hoax. Well, this is a hoax, too. Iran went in, and they hit us with missiles. Shouldn’t have done that, but they hit us. Fortunately for them, nobody was hurt, nobody was killed. Nothing happened. They landed — and very little damage even, to the base. They landed.

But we had a chance to take out a monster; we took him out. And it should have been done a long time ago.

Q But would you go to Congress to take further military action against Iran? Would you seek congressional approval?

THE PRESIDENT: It would all depend on the circumstance. I don’t have to, and you shouldn’t have to be able — because you have to make split-second decisions sometimes. Sometimes, you have to move very, very quickly, Jon. But in certain cases, I wouldn’t even mind doing it.

What — you know what I — what bothers me? When I see a Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster from Iran, who has killed so many people, who has so badly — I mean, so many people are walking around now without legs and without arms. Because he was the big roadside bomb guy. He was the one who would send them to Afghanistan. He would send him to Iraq. He was big. That was his favorite thing. He thought it was wonderful. He doesn’t think it’s wonderful anymore.

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to defend him, I think that’s a very bad thing for this country. I think that’s a big losing argument, politically, too. Yeah.

Q So anyway, outside the JCPOA and also with total sanctions implemented, what’s left if Iran —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, just so you understand, on JCPOA: It’s close to expiring. In other words, if I didn’t terminate it, it expires in a very short period of time.

One of the problems, of which there was many — $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash — all of that money — and then that money was used for terror. Because if you look at Iran, it wasn’t so bad until they got all that money. They used that money for terror. That’s when it became really bad. You just take a look. I mean, it really got bad when they had $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash.

The JP- — the agreement — I always call it the Iran nuclear deal that didn’t work. The Iran deal, it was just something that it was — is no — is no good for our country. It expires in a short time. That means they would be on their path to nuclear weapons. And for me, it’s about nuclear weapons, more than anything else. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. They understand that. We have told them very strongly.

Iran now is not wealthy like it was when President Obama handed them $150 billion. They’re a much different country. We’ll see whether or not they want to negotiate.

Maybe they want to wait until after the election and negotiate with a weak Democrat — somebody like a Biden, or a Pocahontas, or [DEL: Buttitieg :DEL] [Buttigieg] or one of these characters. Okay? Maybe they want to wait. But I think they’re probably well off doing it now. Because if you look at the polls, and if look at what’s going on, we’re doing very well.

They’re losing a tremendous amount. They’re getting hurt very badly by the sanctions. It all can end very quickly. But as to whether or not they want, that’s up to them; not up to me. It’s totally up to them.

They can straighten out their country. Iran, right now, is a mess. They can straighten out the economics of their country very, very quickly. Let’s see whether or not they negotiate.

Q (Inaudible) these sanctions — when should we expect to see sanctions on Iran following the attack?

THE PRESIDENT: Immediately.

Q Tomorrow? This week?

THE PRESIDENT: It’s already been done. Yeah. We’ve — we’ve increased them. They were very severe, but now it’s increased substantially. I just approved it a little while ago with Treasury.

Q And who will they be against and what sort of sanctions —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you’ll see. I mean, we’ll put out a minor announcement. It’s actually a major event.

It’s like this. This is, to me, a major event. And so far, I haven’t — had no — I haven’t had — no questions on the fact that we can build a highway in, you know, a small fraction of the time, that we can build all of these beautiful bridges that we want to build but they can’t get approvals. I’ve had no questions on that.

Are you shocked, Sean, when you hear that?

MR. MCGARVEY: No, Mr. President. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, honestly, they — they should be having some questions. Okay. Yeah. Jon, go ahead.

Q Mr. President, the plane that went down —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q — coming from Iran —

THE PRESIDENT: It’s terrible.

Q — what do you think happened to that plane?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have my suspicions.

Q What are those suspicions?

THE PRESIDENT: It was very — I don’t want to say that because other people have those suspicions also.

It’s a tragic thing, when I see that. It’s a tragic thing, because somebody could have made a mistake on the other side. Could have — could have made a mistake. It was flying —

Q The air defense systems?

THE PRESIDENT: It was — it was flying in — not our system, no. It has nothing to do with us. It was flying in a pretty rough neighborhood, and somebody could have made a mistake. Some people say it was mechanical. I personally — I don’t think that’s even a question, personally. So we’ll see what happens.

Q Do you think Iran shot it down by accident?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know. I really don’t know. I don’t want to get — that’s up to them. At some point, they’ll release the black box. Ideally, they’d get it to Boeing. But if they gave it to France or if they gave it to some other country, that would be okay, too. I think, you know, ideally, that will be released.

I have a feeling that it’s just some very terrible — something very terrible happened. Very devastating.

Q Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q The situation in Venezuela has not gone as smoothly as some people would, likely even yourself, have hoped. What are you prepared to do differently —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I never thought it would go smoothly. Venezuela hasn’t gone smoothly since it became a socialist or worse-than-that country. So I never expected anything to go smoothly.

We’ll see what happens with Venezuela. They’re doing poorly. I mean, there’s a great case — when I say this country will never be a socialist nation, there’s a great case. It was a wealthy country 15 years ago, 20 years ago. That was like, a really wealthy country. And now they don’t have water. They don’t have food. We’re supplying a lot of food. We’re supplying a lot of water.

So, no, it takes a period of time. It’s been — you know, I’ve only been here a relatively short period of time. We’ll see what happens.

Q Are you prepared to do anything else — change the strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m not going to say that. No, I have — we have a good strategy. But we’re taking care of people. We’re helping people. Colombia is helping a lot of people. Some of the nation’s surrounding are helping people.

But we’re — I think we’re doing a good job. They have a system that, right now, is very broken. We’ll see what happens. Stay tuned.

Q Mr. President, you said Iran was trying to blow up the embassy in Baghdad. Can you provide more details on what that plot was?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it was obvious. If you look at the protests — and this was the anti-Benghazi. This was — Benghazi was a disaster. They showed up a long time after it took place. They saw burning embers from days before.

I said, “Get out today, immediately.” They were saying, “We think we can have them tomorrow.” I said, “Nope. They got to go right now.” And they were on their way very quickly. And they got there almost — I mean, they got there quickly.

They could have done that with Benghazi too, by the way. Same — same thing. Had they gotten there — had they done what I did, you wouldn’t have had — you wouldn’t know the name “Benghazi.” It would not be a very famous name. Now it’s a very famous name.

This was the anti-Benghazi. We got the Apaches there very quickly. They were doing the flares. People didn’t know what was happening. But if you look at those protesters, they were rough warriors. They weren’t protesters; they were Iranian-backed. Some were from Iraq, but they were Iranian-backed. Absolutely.

And they were looking to do damage. And they were breaking the windows. And, you know, those are very structurally strong windows, as you know, and they were almost through. And had they gotten through, I believe we would have either had a hostage situation, or we would have had a — worse, we would have had a lot of people killed.

Those people were going to do very serious harm. They were soldiers; they were warriors. And we stopped it. We stopped it. That was a totally organized plot. And you know who organized it. That man right now is not around any longer. Okay? And he had more than that particular embassy in mind.

Q Mr. President, do you —

THE PRESIDENT: Please.

Q Do you have a problem John Bolton testifying in the Senate trial?

THE PRESIDENT: Always got along with him. He didn’t get along with some of our people. But that’s really going to be up to the Senate. It’s really — it’s al- —

Q But you wouldn’t stop it?

THE PRESIDENT: It’s always up. I don’t stop it, no. But he would — it would be — no, I — I do have to — I’d have to ask the lawyers because we do have to — to me, for the future, we have to protect presidential privilege. When we start allowing national security advisors to just go up and say whatever they want to say, we can’t do that. So we have to protect presidential privilege for me, but for future Presidents. That’s very important.

I would have no problem, other than we have to protect — we have to be able to protect. People can’t go up and say whatever my thoughts are, whatever your thoughts are about us, countries, views. You don’t want that to be out. So we have to protect presidential privilege. Yeah.

Q So, Mr. President, you said yesterday you want NATO to do more. Could you be a little more — could you provide a little more information —

THE PRESIDENT: I did. I spoke —

Q — on what you wanted (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: Right. I spoke to —

Q Have you gotten any indication from them that they might do more?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. I spoke to them yesterday. I spoke to the Secretary General yesterday, and we had a great conversation. He was very — I think he was actually excited by it.

And I actually had a name — “NATO,” right? And then you have “M.E.” — Middle East. You’ll call it “NATOME.” I said, “What a beautiful name.” NATOME. I’m good at names, right? “USMCA.” Like the song, “YMCA.” (Laughter.) Everybody — nobody could remember “USMCA.” I said, “Think of the song, ‘YMCA.’” Now everybody says it. They don’t remember the previous name of the bad deal, okay — commonly known as “NAFTA.”

No, if you add the words — if you add the two words “Middle East” at the end of it. Because that’s a big problem. That’s a big source of problems. And NATOME — doesn’t that work beautifully, Jon? Think of that: NATO plus ME. And he’s not — obviously, he’s not getting it. He’s not smiling. He used to smile. Before Iran, he was smiling. Now, he’s not smiling. So —

Q Mr. President, (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: You know what I’m talking about.

Q Mr. President, more NATO personnel in the region — is that what you’re —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. As opposed to us, to be honest with you. Because this is an international problem, and we can come home — or largely come home — and use NATO. This is an international problem.

We caught ISIS. We did Europe a big favor. We got 100 percent of the caliphate. We have — thousands and thousands of ISIS fighters are killed, and thousands and thousands — tens of thousands are in prison right now. And Europe doesn’t want them. It’s not right. They want to go to France. They want to go to Germany. They want to go to UK. They want to go to these countries where they came from. That’s where they — that’s their home. The U.S. is not their home.

They want to go — it’s not fair that we’re holding these people and that other countries aren’t taking, because we’re bearing the cost.

So I think that NATO should be expanded and we should include the Middle East. Absolutely. And we pay for a big percentage of NATO.

And by the way, if you look at and speak to Secretary General Stoltenberg — who’s doing a terrific job, by the way — he will tell you that I raised $130 billion more than they were getting. It was going down from past administrations every single year. It was down to a very low number. I came in. I said, “You got to pay, folks. You got to pay. We’re working with you. We’re protecting you. We’re a part of this. You got to pay.” We don’t want to be the fools, like we have been for so many years.

So we raised $130 billion almost immediately. We had a meeting with all of the countries. I said, “You got to pay.” I mean, I can imagine they don’t like me as much as Obama and other people. But they got to pay. We’re protecting; you got to pay. We got $130 billion more — more. Not $130 [billion]; $130 [billion] more.

In fact, my biggest fan in the whole world is Secretary General Stoltenberg, because he can’t believe it. And now he just announced $530 billion we’ve gotten under my watch. And so we’re in great shape with — with that whole situation. And I think NATO should be helping us now with the Middle East. Having an international flavor there is good. Plus, you had a deal signed with many of these countries that are in NATO. So — you know, the economic deal with Iran.

So I have actually — I have actually said that I think the scope of NATO should be increased and they should be looking for ISIS. We’ll help. But right now, the burden is on us, and that’s not been fair. But we’ve done a great job with ISIS. When I came in three years ago, ISIS was all over the place. It was a disaster. And now ISIS is — the caliphate — 100 percent of the caliphate is gone. A hundred percent. And we have tens of thousands of prisoners. Well, we have them in prison. But they should be taken, and Europe should be helping with that burden. But I like the idea of NATO expanding their views.

Q How much of your own money are you prepared to spend on your reelection?

Q Since the environment is part of the issue we’re talking about today —

THE PRESIDENT: Say it?

Q Since the environment is something that is on the table here today, what is your position on global warming? Do you think it’s a hoax? Do you think that something needs to be done?

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, not at all. Nothing is a hoax. Nothing is a hoax about that. It’s a very serious subject. I want clean air. I want clear water. I want the cleanest air with the cleanest water.

The environment is very important to me. Somebody wrote a book that I’m an environmentalist — it actually called “The Environmentalist” — actually, before I did this. But they wrote a book; I’d like to get it. I have it in the other office. I’ll bring it to my next news conference, perhaps. I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to see it. I’m sure you’ll report all about it.

But, no, I’m a big believer in that word: the environment. I’m a big believer. But I want clean air. I want clean water. And I also want jobs, though. I don’t want to close up our industry because somebody said, you know, “You have to go with wind,” or “You have to go with something else” that’s not going to be able to have the capacity to do what we have to do.

We have the best employment numbers we’ve ever had. We have the best unemployment numbers we’ve ever had. So that’s very important.

All right, one more.

Q How much of your own money are you prepared to spend on your reelection?

THE PRESIDENT: I literally haven’t even thought about it. I spent a lot on the first one, and I said — I did the primaries, and obviously that came out to be very successful. And I have not thought about it.

I will say this: Because of the impeachment hoax, we’re taking in numbers that nobody ever expected. You saw the kind of numbers we’re reporting. We’re blowing everybody away. We’ve never — nobody has ever taken in the money that we’re taking in from the public. And it’s good because it’s an investment they’re making. They’re making that investment. It’s better than the big donors. We’re taking in — we’re taking in numbers that nobody has ever seen before, frankly. And it’s a great thing.

Q You (inaudible) a lot of voters in 2016 by saying that you wouldn’t take donor money, that you would be —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t know — I put in a lot.

Q — independent, and therefore you wouldn’t be bought by the donors.

THE PRESIDENT: You know the number that I put in? Do you know the number I invested — I put in for the primaries and for the first election? What? Do you know that number?

Q I don’t have the total —

THE PRESIDENT: It’s a big number. And I, to this day, say, “I wonder if it mattered,” because I never noticed myself getting any credit for that. I did; I spent a lot of my own money. You know, tens of millions of dollars, times a lot. But I spent a lot of my own money.

And I always asked the question. I said, “I wonder if it was necessary.” Because I don’t think anybody even knew that I was spending it. I’d mention it every once in a while, but I don’t — for instance, I give up my salary. It’s $450,000 — approximately $450,000 — presidential salary. I give it up. It goes to — usually, I give it to drugs. I give some to Elaine, sometimes, for transportation.

But every quarter — I think it’s paid on a quarterly basis — I give up 100 percent of my salary that I make as President. I don’t think anybody has written that story. You guys don’t want to write that kind of a story, but that’s okay with me.

Listen, I’m going to Ohio — some of you are coming with me — and we look forward to it.

I want to congratulate all of you because I think this is going to make a tremendous difference in your unions and in your — for your workers and for your investments and for everything. This is going to be a fantastic thing. We’ll bring numbers down from 20 years to less than 2. We’ll bring them down from 10 years. I really think that you’ll hit much less than two, even for major projects.

And I want to thank everybody for being here. It’s a great honor. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 12:06 P.M. EST

.