Chairman Adam Schiff, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Chairman Elijah E. Cummings, Committee on White House Oversight; Chairman Eliot L. Engel, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’ today. [Main Link Here]
However, you’ll notice in these latest versions they are modifying: (#1) now they actually include attachments that would be “subpoenas”; yet they shift language to ‘subpoena schedules’. Why? Because (#2) the letters and subpoenas omit any penalty for non-compliance. They cannot assign a penalty because the letters do not carry judicial authority.
Obviously Lawfare, instructing Pelosi’s group, realizes the larger American electorate has caught on to the impeachment word games. The “official impeachment inquiry” is all a one-party partisan ruse. Here’s the issue they cannot overcome.
Yes, congress can issue subpoenas; however a congressional committee must meet three requirements for their investigative subpoenas to be “legally sufficient” or have “judicial authority”; meaning a subpoena that carries a legal penalty for non-compliance.
First: “the committee’s investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
Second: “the investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress;
Third: the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
These “subpoenas” from the committees do not meet the first hurdle. The “impeachment inquiry” was not authorized by its chamber. The chamber for each committee is the full house of representatives. [Again, there are constitutional processes within impeachment.]
KEY POINT – Remember, the Legislative committee intent is to pierce the constitutional firewall that creates a distinct separation of powers; and the Legislative branch is trying to force documents from the Executive branch, overriding executive privilege. This is a constitutional issue.
This level of committee intent is why judicial authority (the full house authorization to grant weight to legal subpoena power) becomes much more important.
The House must vote to authorize the committee investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial authority. A demand letter only becomes a subpoena, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial authority.
Absent judicial authority, all of these “subpoenas” are simply “letters”. That is why this latest round of letters (they are calling subpoenas) do not carry a penalty for non-compliance. The demands cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial authority…. because the investigation was not authorized by the chamber.
Notice the letters are from Oversight, Intel and Foreign Affairs. Those three committees are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that holds power to write articles of impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee (Chairman Jerry Nadler). As lawyer Ristvan noted:
It is well established that the House has subpoena powers concerning legislative oversight. But that power is limited to matters concerning A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine call) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. Such subpoenas do not abrogate executive privilege.
It is established (SCOTUS concerning Nixon impeachment investigation) that IF the House votes to have the Judiciary committee formally conduct an impeachment investigation, then that committee (only) has subpoena power, and that power CAN pierce thru executive privilege. No such vote has been taken.
In essence, Schiff, Cummings and Engel are on a non-constitutional, non-authorized (by chamber) partisan fishing expedition – given the label “official impeachment inquiry” via a non-constitutional unilateral decree by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi (Speaker), Schiff (Intel), Cummings (Oversight), and Engel (Foreign Affairs) are attempting to use non-jurisdictional committees (no authority within the impeachment process) to gain evidence to relay to the committee that would have impeachment authority, the House Judiciary Committee.
Presumably once their assembled information arrives at the Judiciary, Jerry Nadler’s Lawfare staff will write articles of impeachment. This is the process they are following; however, this partisan approach completely cuts-out the rights of the minority (republicans) and the impeachment due process rights of the executive. It really is quite a scheme.
Pelosi appears to be waiting until all of the assembled evidence arrives at the Judiciary Committee before she will call for a full house vote to authorize the impeachment investigation. Again, manipulating the process.
In the interim, none of these demand letters carry any penalty for non-compliance because Pelosi’s crew doesn’t want to engage the court system. In these latest letters they have retracted the ¹prior threats (example below) to use non-compliance as “evidence ofobstruction” because it’s likely any “obstruction articles” would be easily challenged in court on the basis the underlying subpoena lacked judicial authority.
[¹In my opinion Lawfare messed up when they previously included that threat, and now they’ve recognized what could happen with judicial branch backlash.]
Following the 2018 mid-term election I wrote THIS:
When it comes to political weaponization and political power constructs the Marxists have exceptional work ethics; they will outwork anyone on the other side who opposes them. They are far, far, better at political strategy and scheme than conservative politicians. Part of the reason for their success is that crooks, cons and swindlers are far more cunning than honorable, virtuous and moral people. It is unfortunate, but true; and the same truth applies beyond politics.
[…] We are the normal people who don’t spend every moment of our day scheming, conniving, and developing plans to dismantle the lives of your freedom loving community and rebuild it as a collective society. For these Marxists who are about to take power that’s all they do. Every moment of their existence they spend thinking about how to gain power and dominate, 24/7/365 that’s all they do…. (link)
In a series of tweets today, President Trump explains the U.S. position toward the current quagmire in Northern Syria:
TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2
Sounds like a great opportunity for EU countries to step up and put a peacekeeping force in Northern Syria. After all, Turkey is the gateway to Europe.
We must always have the backs of our allies, if we expect them to have our back. The Kurds were instrumental in our successful fight against ISIS in Syria. Leaving them to die is a big mistake. #TurkeyIsNotOurFriend
We will introduce bipartisan sanctions against Turkey if they invade Syria and will call for their suspension from NATO if they attack Kurdish forces who assisted the U.S. in the destruction of the ISIS Caliphate.
Things are about to get very interesting and very uncomfortable for NATO. President Trump has announced that Turkey is about to launch a unilateral invasion into Northern Syria… There is going to be a scramble amid many geopolitical interests.
First, the announcement:
[White House] – Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria.
The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area.
The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused.
The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States. (more)
Next let’s establish the foundation for the scramble:
♦There was a 2014 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) voted and approved by Senate committee permitting military action in Syria against the backdrop of chemical weapon use and terrorism – it never went anywhere. The Obama administration used the Bush-era AUMF directed at combating terrorism. With ISIS defeated by President Trump that sketchy 2002 interventionist authorization ends.
♦Also remember in October 2014 then Vice-President Biden accidentally told the truth when he told an audience that Recep Erdogan was specifically responsible for the rise of ISIS in Syria; and that Turkey had actually armed al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, and provided assistance.
Turkey is a member of NATO.
Turkey has previously used its NATO membership as a shield to stop threats from Russia. Remember Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet?
Turkish President Recep Erdogan is a manipulative bad actor; a hostile dictator; and sympathetic to extremes within political Islam. Erdogan has openly showcased his friendship with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Europe draws exclusive benefits from NATO defenses. Europe would not take back the ISIS fighters captured in Syria that were EU nationals.
The ISIS prisoners we turn over to Turkey will be regarded less as prisoners, and more likely considered heroes by Erdogan’s govt. Remember, Erdogan gave the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership safe harbor in Turkey after they were kicked out of Qatar.
Unfortunately, it is likely Erdogan will attack the Kurdish forces in Northern Syria.
The Kurds are U.S. allies; and this will be the point of contention for the neocons.
Turkey will invade NE Syria, but -depending on current strength- Turkey runs the risk of a counter-attack by the Syrian Army, and potentially Russia.
With the European nations, NATO allies, refusing to take their ISIS fighters back as prisoners, President Trump has made a deal with Erdogan to take them.
In the announcement President Trump has made it clear that any action by Turkey into Syria is unilateral; there will be no assistance by the U.S. on any aspect; including if Turkey is counter-attacked by Russia/Syria or organized Kurdish forces.
Essentially, Trump is leaving Erdogan naked to a myriad of his enemies if Erdogan does cross the border. The U.S. part of the NATO shield is removed. The Europeans will likely not evoke the NATO defense treaty without the U.S. Heck, the EU is essentially spineless without the power of the U.S. military.
President Trump is calling out the duplicity of the entire situation by calling all of their bluffs. President Trump is calling-out: NATO, weak EU ‘allies’ and Turkey.
In essence, this White House announcement is a major Gordian knot being cut.
It is unlikely President Erdogan expected to have this framework made so public. This rather loud declaration by President Trump seems strategic in that it could make duplicitous Erdogan think twice about the actual military invasion itself.
However, Erdogan is also a rabid ideologue and he wants to recreate the Ottoman empire… so he’ll likely go ahead regardless of cost.
Down the road…. instead of those ISIS prisoners being held in European jails; and considering the sympathetic Turkish handlers; those ISIS fighters will eventually make their way home without anyone knowing. However, the EU has created that issue by refusing to step-up and take ownership.
That same weak European mindset could likely be facing another challenge surrounding what to do about NATO if Turkey loses this gamble. However, again, another issue created by Europe.
Collectively, GOP politicians are pacifists. They strive to be deft in the art of compromise.
Their opposition, the Democrat Party, presents a unified, aggressive front. They aim to win.
Collectively, the two parties make up a political dialectic that has turned toxic for America
The result is a mismatch.
Not all Republican pols wuss-out—just most of them.
Some, particularly among the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, resist the onslaught of the far-left Democratic Party. But among Republicans in the House, they’re the exception, not the rule.
Likewise, not all Democrats have gone stark-raving mad in their hatred of President Trump. Though it’s hard to find any who don’t tacitly support their colleagues with silence.
Democrats play offense. They attack. Supremacy is their goal.
Republicans play defense. They demur. Survival satisfies them.
Collectively, the two parties make up a political dialectic that has turned toxic for America. That toxicity finds the nation’s Chief Executive fighting against the Democratic Party and its allies, with little help from his own party.
Trump is pitted against the Democrat pols in the House and Senate, the entire media and half of the FOX News “on-air talent,” plus a group of GOP Trump-hating pols.
Anti-Trump elephants
Anti-Trump elephants include, to name a few:
Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (now a FOX board member who is now trying to convince the other half of FOX to also distance itself from Trump);
U.S. Senator Willard Romney (who failed to win the Presidency by being a nice guy);
Former U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (who, appropriately, heralds from Snowflake, Arizona);
Fred Barnes (who works for Bill Kristol and, therefore, is required to offer tepid support, at most, for Trump);
Senator Susan Collins (Maine, who kept the nation in suspense about whether she’d support Judge Kavanaugh);
Karl Rove (still shocked that Trump won); and,
Bill Kristol (even more shocked than Rove, and Hillary).
Focusing on Romney:On October 4, 2019, he tweeted this: “By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.”
Mittens wasn’t “appalled” during his campaign against Obama’s second term in 2012 when Democrats accused him of torturing puppies, cutting off a gay boy’s hair, being anti-female, and wanting to put blacks in chains. He responded silently, with his half-smile—pacifist that he is.
Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, who posts at Instapundit, three years ago defined the appeal of Trump to supporters that emerged from the Tea Party:
“It [the Tea Party] was hopeful and enthusiastic, open to anyone—and the Left treated it like the KKK merged with radical anarchists. The Republicans took their support and generally did nothing.
So, people tried something different. Romney was the ultimate nice-guy candidate. Unimpeachable ethics, a proven record of success, and moderate credentials. The Left chewed him up and spat him out.
Thus, after you send in friendly folks with SUVs and pickups, then a philanthropist in a limo, might as well send in a tank. Trump refuses to just take it like a proper Republican; he’s not a model of civility and noble citizenship; he’s a brawler. This is why TEA Party conservatives are flocking to his banner.”
And still are—flocking to his banner.
It’s not by accident that a portrait of President Andrew Jackson hangs in the Oval Office today.
The two Presidents have much in common. In an article in The Daily Signal by Jarrett Stepman, entitled ‘Here’s How Andrew Jackson Stood Up to Unaccountable ‘Elites’,’ the author summarizes the three planks of Jackson’s political philosophy:
“The first plank of Jackson’s political philosophy was that entrenched interests in places of power can become dangerous to the liberties of the American people.
The second major plank of Jacksonianism was an intense opposition to crony capitalism, the symbiotic relationship between big government and big business, in which the government interferes with the free market to pick winners and losers.
The third essential plank of the Jacksonian agenda was an aggressive military and foreign posture in the world—something that differentiated Jackson from earlier members of his Jeffersonian Democrat party.”
Jackson scandalized the political world of his time. But he was not without support from his own party.
While Trump’s support from his own party remains where it began. Lukewarm.
An interesting article within The Atlantic draws attention to one of the more intended consequences of Maganomics: wages for the middle-class Americans are rising twice as fast as wages for high-income earners.
This dynamic is directly attached to President Trump’s MAGAnomic policy that focuses wage and income benefit directly to Main Street, “production economy”; and reverses the process that was driving benefit to U.S. multinationals on Wall Street, the “service-driven” economy. As noted in The Atlantic:
[…] According to analysis by Nick Bunker, an economist with the jobs site Indeed, wage growth is currently strongest for workers in low-wage industries, such as clothing stores, supermarkets, amusement parks, and casinos. And earnings are growing most slowly in higher-wage industries, such as medical labs, law firms, and broadcasting and telecom companies. (more)
While there are not technically going to be direct losers in a Main Street economy, there will undoubtedly be some amid the investment class who will be lesser-winners.
The reasoning is really quite simple. There are many people attached to the Wall Street economy who ran-up wealth via the process of de-industrialization of America.
Anyone who gained income through the process of multinational export of investment and jobs, specifically U.S. based multinationals, are naturally going to see negative impact as the reverse takes place.
Multinational investment assets held overseas are precariously positioned, as the Trump’s ‘America-First’ trade policy starts to get teeth. Any U.S. corporation who attempts to fight against the tariff process will find themselves expending a large amount of money while simultaneously losing the ‘price’ advantage;…. And they will be simultaneously positioned to lose market share to U.S-based, or North American-based, competition.
This is why the USMCA becomes important. Once the USMCA is ratified it gives U.S. multinationals a definitive long-term position, from which they can calculate their costs.
A tenuous supply chain/manufacturing position in China or Asia, with unknown short-term risks to rising production costs, can be reconciled against a North American supply chain and/or manufacturing position that is well defined and predictable.
It is within this policy dynamic where the ultimate MAGAnomic winners and losers will be found. Right now the multinationals are trying to keep prior Asia investments viable; however, the clock is ticking. Those unknown variables have a cost.
“The first loss is the best loss“… and right now President Trump is pressuring U.S. corporations to consider this truism carefully.
Someone is coming to the United States next week. Can you read this tweet and predict who it is?…
Seriously, given that we have watched this dynamic play out, over-and-over, for more than two years, it seems almost silly that China continues to play this tactical negotiation card.
Alas, :::heavy sigh::: this stupid dance continues…
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump said on Thursday a delegation from China would come to the United States next week for more trade talks.
“China’s coming in next week. We’re going to have a meeting with them. We’ll see. But we’re doing very well,” Trump said before leaving on a trip to Florida.
“I have a lot of options on China. But if they don’t do what we want, we have tremendous power,” he added. (link)
Seriously, can Beijing possibly be blind to how transparently obvious the connective tissue between U.S-China trade talks and their ridiculously overused DPRK-nuclear leverage canard is?
China is coming to the U.S. for another round of trade discussions and here we go again with the North Korean captives of Kim Jong-un, entirely controlled by Beijing, pulling out that same page from the worn-out playbook and trying to sell North Korea as leverage to gain favorable trade position… It’s just silly at this point.
Does Xi Jinping rely solely on headlines of the New York Times to analyze the position of the Trump administration?
TODAY – North Korea claimed Saturday that negotiations with American diplomats over the totalitarian country’s nuclear program had broken down Saturday, though the State Department later said the comments “do not reflect the content or the spirit” of the discussions.
North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator, Kim Myong Gil, told reporters through a translator outside Pyongyang’s embassy in Stockholm that working-level talks between officials from Washington and Pyongyang in Stockholm “have not fulfilled our expectation and finally broke off.”
“The U.S. raised expectations by offering suggestions like a flexible approach, new method and creative solutions, but they have disappointed us greatly and dampened our enthusiasm for negotiation by bringing nothing to the negotiation table,” Kim added, according to Reuters. (read more)
In the bigger picture… Within the trade team, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is positioned with primary responsibility toward the EU and India. Ross clear-cuts through the politics, explains Trump’s objectives amid the trade proposals, and paves a path for U.S. Trade Rep Bob Lighthizer to engage his counterparts.
India has always been a key strategic nation within the global trade-realignment taking place by the Trump administration. Under all of the banter, the “Indo-Pacific” strategy is structurally the decoupling of the U.S. from China. As a part of the strategy President Trump has positioned the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) as benefactors in manufacturing & trade as an outcome of the U.S. decoupling from China.
However, India has genuine concerns about the global dynamic. Specifically, India is worried about allowing the multinationals to have influence over their economy and social structure. In this regard India is not wrong; their concerns are not unfounded.
We can all see, heck we’ve lived through, massive multinational corporations quickly gaining too much influence; including -eventually- corporate influence over the politics of a nation. That inherently leads to corruption.
When Americans see it in other nations we call it “bribery and corruption”, but when it happens in Washington, DC, we call it “lobbying”; the process is exactly the same.
As a consequence of the concern, Indian Prime Minister Modi has been straddling the fence while President Trump tries to influence him to come over to the side of ‘free markets’.
In an effort to dissuade the corrupt multinational concerns of Modi (and Trump has clearly indicated he does see validity within the concerns), President Trump has used Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as an example of what can be possible with economic nationalism.
President Trump (USA), Prime Minister Abe (Japan) and Prime Minister Modi (India) have held several unusual trilateral discussions as this dynamic has played out over the past two years. The concerns express by India are valid; however, so too is the opportunity… that’s where Secretary Wilbur Ross comes in:
India and the United States have spoken openly about the ups and downs of their current trade negotiations. Their discussion at the Forum’s India Economic Summit revealed new insights into both sides positions – and a key sticking point.
US secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross and Indian Minister for commerce, industry and railways, Piyush Goyal represented the US and India, respectively. WATCH:
.
Prime Minister Modi, as represented by Minister Goyal, is concerned about the influences that comes with allowing massive foreign investment. Secretary Wilbur Ross will never diminish the concern because structurally that negative outcome, an outcome of corporate influence, is exactly what President Trump is now trying to untangle in the U.S. economy.
If President Trump is successful the new era of national trade will be based on genuine reciprocity and economic nationalism. The decades of allowing corrupt multinational corporate influence have created massive social inequities.
These inequities, both domestic and global in nature; driven almost exclusively by corporate greed to the benefit of multinational interests; allowed China to strategically step-in, open their doors and take advantage.
Fast forward to the past ten years and China is holding their national interests -and grip over prior investment- like a ‘sword of Damocles’ over the heads of the global corporations. As President Trump has said: “I don’t blame China … I blame stupid politicians”.
In many ways President Trump is asking Prime Minister Modi to join in a network of nations and help the U.S. correct the current issue that personifies what Modi is worried about happening to India in the future.
Lastly, and here’s the important part; this is the part the global financial media seem to miss…. When you look at all of this ancillary geopolitical activity taking place toward the objective; you see it is all connected to a singular goal…. President Trump is not negotiating a “deal” with China, he is strategically decoupling the U.S. from China. Period.
If Trump wasn’t decoupling from China, then all of these conversations with Mexico, Canada, the U.K., Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and India would not be taking place in the clear manner and sequencing we see.
For some reason the global financial media cannot see the connective tissue between Wilbur Ross’s statements in India and the U.S. policy toward China.
“There are trillions at stake”…
Sec. Wilbur Ross
✔@SecretaryRoss
Today, I am traveling to #India followed by stops in #Myanmar and #Australia to discuss our trade and economic ties in this critical region of the world.
Everything about this short news segment has to be devastating to democrat candidates, party leadership, DC politicians and the DNC as a whole. CNN went to Michigan to interview striking United Auto Workers (GM) about the current state of politics and impeachment of President Trump. Man-o-man, do the results cut the legs out from the professional political apparatus.
First, in a seismic overall political shift the striking UAW workers support President Trump, not democrats. Why? Because President Trump has been calling out GM CEO Mary Barra for not negotiating a win/win. There is no economic reason for a strike. Second, the striking workers can see through the insufferable political agenda of the Democrats. This outcome is devastating to the democrats overall.
Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree house on October 4, 2019 by sundance
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. Earlier this morning President Trump delivered remarks to the assembled press pool as he departing the White House for a visit with wounded warriors at Walter Reed medical center in Bethesda, Maryland. [Video and Transcript below]
.
[Transcript] THE PRESIDENT: So, the unemployment numbers just came out, and they’re the best numbers we’ve had in over 50 years. The unemployment number is down to 3.5 percent. So that goes way, way back. We haven’t had numbers like this in a long time. Wages are up by almost 3 percent. That’s a fantastic increase for everybody out there working. We’re very happy about those numbers. The stock market is substantially up, as it was yesterday. And our country does well. Europe is not doing well. Asia is doing poorly, to put it mildly. And we continue to do very well; we’re the miracle.
But the unemployment numbers just came out: 3.5 percent unemployment. And that is a tremendous number; the lowest in over 50 years. So, very happy.
And, I think, really, very important — again, I’ll say: Wages are up. When I was running, wages were nowhere. They were going down. And people were having two and three jobs, and they were making less money than they made 20 years before. Now wages are up. So we’re very happy about that.
One other thing, having to do with Poland. So, Poland is a country; great people. We have a lot of Polish Americans living in the United States. I’ve just signed — I will soon be signing — and sign certain preliminary applications. We will be giving a full visa waiver to Poland. That means that people from Poland can easily travel there, and people from here can easily go back and forth. They can each — people from the U.S., people from Poland, can very easily go back and forth between the United States and Poland.
So, they’ve been trying to get this for many, many decades. And I got it for the Polish people, in honor of the Polish people in the United States and in Poland. So, we’re very happy with that.
Yeah.
Q Did you see Adam Schiff got four Pinocchios by the Post, this morning, for lying?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I heard Adam Schiff got four Pinocchios. That’s good. He should have gotten them two and a half years ago.
That’s a very nice question. Let me shake your hand. Come here. That’s a very nice question. That’s almost a surprise. I figured that was a trick question, right?
Q Also, what does your letter to Pelosi say? And when will you send it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ll be issuing a letter. As everybody knows, we’ve been treated very unfairly, very different from anybody else. If you go over not only history — I mean, if you go over any aspect of life, you’ll see how unfairly we’ve been treated. We’ve done a fantastic job.
Everything, to me, is about corruption. We want to find out what happened with 2016. And, as you know, there’s a lot of work going on, on that. I don’t care about Biden’s campaign, but I do care about corruption. His campaign — that’s up to him. Politics — that’s up to them. I don’t care about politics. Politics, as I think I’ve made clear — and yesterday, somebody asked me a question, and I gave an answer — but always in the form of corruption.
What I want to do — and I think I have an obligation to do it, probably a duty to do it: corruption — we are looking for corruption. When you look at what Biden and his son did, and when you look at other people — what they’ve done. And I believe there was tremendous corruption with Biden, but I think there was beyond — I mean, beyond corruption — having to do with the 2016 campaign, and what these lowlifes did to so many people, to hurt so many people in the Trump campaign — which was successful, despite all of the fighting us. I mean, despite all of the unfairness.
So, we are looking at corruption. We’re not looking at politics. We’re looking at corruption.
Q Sir, what did you say to the Chinese about the Bidens, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know. Somebody said that a long time ago. Was that in 2017? I don’t know. You’d have to tell me when. All I can tell you is this: When I speak to foreign leaders, I speak in an appropriate way. If you notice, they don’t mention the call that I had with the President of Ukraine. They don’t mention that because it was so good.
The only time they mentioned it was when Adam Schiff made it up. You talk about Pinocchios — that should get 10 Pinocchios. He made up — he made up a story. It was a phony story. Adam Schiff. So, they don’t talk about that anymore.
You know, when this came out, it was “quid pro quo.” Well, there was none. Also, yesterday, the Ambassador — who I heard was tremendous and a tremendous person — he was 100 percent for what we’re saying. A hundred percent. And, if you look, he also said there was no quid pro quo. That’s the whole ballgame.
But now the Democrats don’t bring that up anymore because they lost. Look, they never thought I was going to release the phone call between the Ukrainian President and myself. When I released that call, they were — they were jumping around like you wouldn’t believe. They didn’t know how to respond. And then they found out — and then they found out that the call itself was so bad for them. It was a perfect call. There was nothing — we hand that call out. We’ve handed the call out to people, and they’d say, “Wow, this is incredible.” We’re very proud of that call. When I speak to a foreign leader, I speak in an appropriate manner.
Now, we’re also doing trade deals with China and we’re doing deals with a lot of people for the country, so I’m not looking to insult people. I can tell you that. But we can probably find that out.
Q Would you be more willing to do a trade deal with the Chinese if they investigate Biden?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it has nothing to do with it. No. No. I want to do a trade deal with China, but only if it’s good for our country. And it could happen. Because you know they’re very much — they’re very much coming over next week, as I understand it. So I’d like to do a great deal with China, but only if it’s a great trade deal for this country. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Q Do you want the House to proceed with an impeachment inquiry at this point? An official impeachment inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wouldn’t mind because we have no rights. They way they’re doing it, they’ve taken away our rights. So, if they proceed — and, you know, they’ll just get their people. They’re all in line. Because even though many of them don’t want to vote, they have no choice. They have to follow their leadership. And then we’ll get it to the Senate, and we’re going to win.
The Republicans have been very unified. This is the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country. So we beat the one that started immediately. We went through two years of Mueller, and that came out like a 10. It came out perfect. And a few days go by and they start this nonsense. And this is just as ridiculous.
So the Democrats, unfortunately, they have the votes. They can vote very easily, even though most of them, many of them, don’t believe they should do it. And I do believe — I do believe that because of what they’re doing with Pelosi and their real leaders, AOC plus 3 — that’s their real leaders — I really believe that they’re going to pay a tremendous price at the polls.
And we saw the first glimpse of it two weeks ago, in a great state, North Carolina. We saw a great, great glimpse of what’s going to happen. Because, in North Carolina, we had two races. One gentleman, Dan Bishop, was down by 17 points with three weeks to go, and he won easily. And the other man, as you know, Greg Murphy, was up by a very little bit and he won by a massive amount — I don’t know, someplace in the twenties. Twenty percent or something. Maybe higher.
So I think you got your first glimpse of what’s going to happen. And the big key is that I have to campaign there. But if you look at what happened in North Carolina — two races — we won both of them, and we won them easily. And one was almost tied and the other one was a big, big lead, and that one turned and the tie became a landslide.
Q Mr. President, did Mitch McConnell make you any promises about a vote on impeachment in the Senate?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t know about Mitch. I have a lot of respect for Mitch McConnell. I know that; I saw his statements. And he thinks that this is ridiculous. He thinks it’s unfair. I saw his statement yesterday that he put out where he read my phone conversation and he thought it was a wonderful conversation. And it was.
But, see, the Democrats don’t talk about that anymore. They try and go to other things. These people are looking for anything they can get because they know they’re going to lose the election. And we’re in election season now. For them to be doing this now, it’s never been done.
Q The U.S. is speaking to North Korea in Sweden. What do you expect?
THE PRESIDENT: What?
Q The U.S. is speaking to North Korea in Sweden right now. What do you expect?
THE PRESIDENT: So we’re dealing with North Korea. They want to meet, and we’ll be meeting with them. It’s probably being set up as we speak, but we’ll let you know. But North Korea would like to do something. Iran would like to do something. We have a lot of countries in a very good position right now, despite the witch hunt, which hurts our country and it hurts America. But Iran wants to do something. North Korea wants to do something. And China would like to do something.
Q Is the Justice Department investigating Joe Biden?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know that. That, you’d have to ask. Is the Justice Department investigating Joe Biden?
Q Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that, you’d have you to ask Attorney General Barr. But I can tell you, just as an observer, what I saw Biden do with his son — he is pillaging these countries, and he’s hurting us. How would you like to have, as an example, Joe Biden negotiating the China deal if he took it over from me after the election? He would give them —
Q Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. He would give them everything. He would give them everything. How would you like to have that? Joe Biden would just roll out the red carpet. He would give them everything.
So, again, this doesn’t pertain to anything but corruption. And that has to do with me. I don’t care about politics. I don’t care about anything. But I do care about corruption. And to have somebody take out a billion and a half dollars out of China, who’s totally unfit. He’s unfit. To have him get a billion and a half dollars, to have him — and now I’m hearing the number of $50,000 a month. Now I’m hearing the number of $50,000 a month is very low. It’s a much higher number that Biden’s son was getting per month. The fact is it’s much higher. And for him to — and for him, as a total — for him, as a totally unqualified person, to be getting hundreds of thousands a month is very, very (inaudible).
So, again, is the Justice Department investigating that? I just don’t know.
Q Mr. President, do you think the Democrats have the votes? Do you think the Democrats have the votes to impeach you? Do you think you will be impeached?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think they follow the leader. One thing with the Democrats — I give them credit for it — a lot of them don’t want it; you know that, you interview them. A lot of them are in there — they call them “Trump districts” — where I won and then they won after when I wasn’t running. But I’m going to win them big.
If you look at what’s happened with my polls, they’re through the roof. You know why? Because of this phony witch hunt. If you look at what happened with the fundraising, we’ve set a record — the Republicans — because people are sick and tired of it.
I got a call the other night from pastors — the biggest pastors, evangelical Christians. They said, “We have never seen our religious or any religious so electrified.” They are — they say they’ve never seen anything like it. Churches are joining. Hundreds of thousands of people. And, you know, that’s to a large extent because of you and your partner, the Democrats.
Q But do you think it will pass the House, sir? Do you think it will pass the House and die in the Senate?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think this. I think this: We have great — we have a great relationship in the Senate. I have a 95 percent approval rating in the Republican Party. I believe the Senate — and I haven’t spoken to that many senators — but I believe the senators look at this as a hoax. It’s a witch hunt. It’s a disgrace. Should have never happened. Just like Russia collusion delusion should have never happened. That was a witch hunt. And just like that, should have never happened.
So I think in the Senate, I think they feel that the Republican Party has been treated very, very badly. Now, in the House, they have the majority. They all vote with AOC and plus three. Nancy Pelosi is petrified of them. I mean, she’s afraid she’s going to lose her position. Nancy Pelosi will lose her speakership right after the election when the Republicans take over the House.
Q Sir, can we talk about the text messages that included holding off a visit to the White House?
THE PRESIDENT: The one text message that I saw was just about the last text message. Because I don’t know — I don’t even know most of these ambassadors. I didn’t even know their names. But the text message —
Q But what it included, sir, was a visit to the White House.
THE PRESIDENT: — the text message that I saw from Ambassador Sondland — who’s highly respected — was: There’s “no quid pro quo.” He said that. He said, by the way — it almost sounded like in general — he said, by the way, there’s “no quid pro quo.” And there isn’t.
Now, for Biden there would be. But listen to this: There is no pro quo. And that was the text message that I saw. And that nullified everything.
Q Have you asked foreign leaders for any corruption investigations that don’t involve your political opponents? That is, are there other cases where you’ve asked for corruption investigations?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, we would have to look. But I tell you, what I asked for and what I always will ask for is anything having to do with corruption with respect to our country. If a foreign country can help us with respect to corruption and corruption probes, and that — I don’t care if it’s Biden or anybody else. But if they can help us — if Biden is corrupt, if his son is corrupt. When his son takes out billions of dollars — billions — and he has no experience; he just got fired from the Navy — when they do that, that’s no good.
So the only — just to finish your question — anything having to do with corruption, I actually feel I have an obligation to do that.
Q Including with Mr. Putin, sir?
Q Is someone advising you that it is okay to solicit the help of other governments to investigate a potential political opponent?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t say anything is okay. I’ll tell you what’s okay.
Q Is someone advising you that?
THE PRESIDENT: Here’s what’s okay: If we feel there’s corruption, like I feel there was in the 2016 campaign — there was tremendous corruption against me — if we feel there’s corruption, we have a right to go to a foreign country.
And just so you know — just so you know, I was investigated. I was investigated. Okay? Me. Me. In my campaign — I ran, I won. I was invest- — you won’t say that, will you? I was investigated. I was investigated. And they think it could have been by UK. They think it could have been by Australia. They think it could have been by Italy. So when you get down to it, I was investigated by the Obama administration. By the Obama administration I was investigated. So when these people talk —
But as far as I’m concerned, what I want to look at and what we want to investigate: anything having to do with corruption.
Q In your view, Mr. President, do you view China as an ally, a partner, or an adversary?
THE PRESIDENT: I view China as somebody we’re trying to make a deal with; we have a very good chance of making a deal with. We’ve had good moments with China. We’ve had bad moments with China. Right now, we’re in a very important stage in terms of possibly making a deal. If we make it, it will be the biggest trade deal ever made — if we make it.
But I view China as somebody that we deal with on the world stage. I would like to get along with China if we can. And if we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s okay, too.
But what we’re doing is we’re negotiating a very tough deal. If the deal is not going to be 100 percent for us, then we’re not going to make it.
And I will — and I will say this. I will say this. I will say this: China very much wants to make this deal. China is getting killed. The tariffs are killing China. What’s happened is they have now 3 million loss of jobs, their chains are broken up. If you look at their supply chain, which is a disaster — companies are going to other countries, including us. China, right now, is a total disaster.
Q Mr. President, does a trade with China have anything to do with an investigation into Joe Biden? And will you ask Xi to investigate?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. Let me tell you: I’m only interested in corruption. I don’t care about politics. I don’t care about Biden’s politics. I never thought Biden was going to win, to be honest. I picked somebody else a long time ago. And we’ll see what happens.
But I never thought Biden was going to win. But I don’t care. I mean, frankly, if he won, I’d be very happy. I think he’d be an easy opponent. But I never thought Biden was going to win. I don’t care about politics, but I do care about corruption. And this whole thing is about corruption. This whole thing — this whole thing is about corruption.
This is about corruption, and this is not about politics. This is about corruption. And if you look and you read our Constitution and many other things, we — I have an obligation to look at corruption. I have an actual obligation and a duty.
Q Are you going to comply with the House subpoenas?
THE PRESIDENT: What?
Q Are you going to cooperate with the House in this investigation?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know. That’s up to the lawyers. I know the lawyers think they’ve never seen anything so unfair. They’ve never seen anything so unjust. I’ve been President now for almost three years, and I’ve been going through this for almost three years. It’s almost become, like, a part of my day.
But in the meantime, we have the best economy we’ve ever had. We have the best job numbers we’ve had in 51 years. The best unemployment numbers that we’ve had in a half a century. The best numbers that we’ve ever had — African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, women — everything. We have the best numbers that we’ve had in many, many, many decades.
And you know what? People understand that. People are working. They’re making money. The — if you look at one very important number that was just announced: wages up 3 percent. That’s unheard of. That’s unheard of. So, it’s a great thing.
Q What about other Democrats? What about other Democrats?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t hear you. Go.
Q Mr. President, when did you first get the idea to investigate the Bidens’ activity in Ukraine? Who advised you to look into that?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re investigating corruption. We’re not investigating campaigns. I don’t care about his campaign. As I said, I didn’t think — I didn’t think and I don’t think Biden is going to win. All right? I don’t think.
And maybe to answer your question, when you say, “Who is going to win?” — I’d rather not make a prediction, but I do have a feeling about it.
I didn’t think — because I’ve watched Biden over the years, and Biden is not the brightest person. I never thought he was going to win. I never felt he was going to win. If you look at his other two campaigns, he was a one-percenter. He got very few votes. He got taken off of the garbage heap by Obama. Obama took him off the garbage heap. So it’s one of those things.
But I never thought that Biden — I didn’t think Biden was going to win. I guess that everybody has a shot. But I don’t think he would be, frankly, my toughest opponent.
And just to finish off — just to finish off, I don’t think that he will win. I didn’t think he was going to win, and I don’t think he’s going to win.
Q Joe Biden’s poll numbers are dropping pretty badly. Elizabeth Warren’s are rising. Bernie is sick. What do you think about facing Elizabeth Warren?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s fine. I mean, it’s fine. She’s a socialist and maybe worse than that. But we’ll see.
I heard — I haven’t seen his poll numbers. I haven’t seen Biden’s poll numbers. Look, Joe Biden was never going to make it. All right? He was never going to make it. He tried it twice. He’s at 1 percent. There’s a reason.
When I announced, I went to number one, day one, and I stayed there the entire primary season. I never was off center-stage. I was never given credit for that, but that’s okay. Except by Steve. The only one that gave me credit was Steve.
Q Did you try to talk to Rouhani at the UN?
THE PRESIDENT: Who?
Q Did you try to talk to Iran’s President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, they were trying to set up a meeting but he wanted sanctions lifted. And I said, “You must be kidding.” We had no interest. Rouhani wanted a meeting at the UN. We did talk. I didn’t speak to him personally, but our sides talked. He wanted sanctions lifted or partially lifted, and I said no.
Q (Inaudible) socialism in Venezuela for political campaign.
THE PRESIDENT: We’re watching Venezuela very, very closely. The people are suffering, and we are watching it very closely. We’re also giving big aid to Venezuela.
Now, one thing. I’m now going to Walter Reed Hospital. We’re going to be giving out five Purple Hearts to unbelievably brave young people.
And I’m going to meet you — some of you are going over. I don’t know. I think some of you are going over. So we could talk further over there. Although, when we’re there, I would like you to respect the process. We’re giving out Purple Hearts to very brave people, wounded warriors, people that have been — I mean, they’re just incredible people. And I’m going to be back here in probably two hours.
National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow discusses the Sept. Jobs report, the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing reports and the next stages of U.S.-China trade negotiations.
Kudlow notes job growth in the Household survey was a stunning 391,000 in September.
.
Kudlow also appeared on Bloomberg to discuss similar aspects of the latest reports (below).
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
“By 1939, the French had been preparing for and were content to fight a total, defensive, attritional war. They could see no other way to defeat a German offensive; this was, after all, how they had emerged victorious from the terrible conflict twenty years earlier….[T]here was neither the strength of leadership nor the political stability to indulge in the sort of long-term thinking that was required for a bespoke, flexible military machine that perfectly fitted the country’s strategic requirements” (pp. 382-383, “Blitzkrieg: Myth, Reality, and Hitler’s Lighting War: France 1940,” Lloyd Clark, Atlantic Monthly Press, ©2016.)
Centinel2012 