theconservativetreehouse--2020-01-09--USMCA Outcome – GM and Ford Shock Over 1,500 Temp Auto Workers with Full-Time Promotions…

One of the key sectors gaining benefit from the USMCA trade agreement is the auto sector .
Rules on steel and aluminum smelting/origination , and rules on part origination from North America are key aspects to the trade agreement that shifts focus from the import of Asian manufactured parts for assembly to manufacturing in North America .
Essentially , seventy-five percent of the component parts for the auto industry must be manufactured in North America .
This shift directly puts U.S. auto-workers at the forefront for job gains & stops the process of using manufactured parts from China , Asia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agreement was/is to make manufacturing investment in North America the main consideration for auto-manufacturers who want access to the U.S. market .
Today , as a direct result of future investment considerations , General Motors and Ford unexpectedly surprise 1,500 auto-workers with the announcement their jobs have gone from part-time to full-time status .
Great news for these families : But when the local ’ s president stepped to the mic , the room listened in awed silence .
“ He said , ‘ As of tomorrow , you guys are full-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Humphrey said .
“ There was a gasp in the room for a few seconds .
Some of us thought he misspoke .
Then , we had to say , ‘ No , we heard him right !
’ It was amazing.
” On Monday , GM made about 930 temporary workers permanent full-time employees at 30 of its 52 UAW-represented facilities in the United States .
There are more to come in the months ahead , it said .
Ford Motor Co. also moved 592 temps to permanent full-time on Monday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more conversions of temps next month .
But Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is still working to implement its temporary worker conversions , said the UAW .
( read more ) The United States , Mexico , and Canada have concluded substantive discussions on new rules of origin and origin procedures , including product-specific rules for passenger vehicles , light trucks , and auto parts .
This update to the rules of origin will provide greater incentives to source goods and materials in the United States and North America .
This deal encourages United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 75 percent of auto content be made in North America .
• Help to incentivize up to billions annually • Help to preserve and re-shore vehicle and parts production in the United States .
• Transform supply chains to use more United States content , especially content that is key to future automobile production and high-paying jobs .
• Close gaps in the current NAFTA agreement that incentivized low wages in automobile and parts production .
This deal uses trade rules to drive higher wages by requiring that 40-45 percent of auto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least $ 16 per hour .
• Support better jobs for United States producers and workers by requiring that a significant portion of vehicle content be made with high-wage labor .
• Ensure that United States producers and workers are able to compete on an even playing field , and incentivize new vehicle and parts investments in the United States .
• Encourage more investment by auto companies in research and development in the region .
Key Achievement : Exceeding NAFTA 1.0 and TPP Standards with Stronger Rules of Origin and Enforcement The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have agreed to stronger rules of origin that exceed those of both NAFTA 1.0 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) , including for autos and automobile parts and other industrial products such as chemicals , steel-intensive products , glass , and optical fiber .
This deal exceeds NAFTA 1.0 and the TPP by establishing procedures that streamline certification and verification of rules of origin and that promote strong enforcement .
This includes new cooperation and enforcement provisions that help to prevent duty evasion before it happens .
The new rules will help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant North American parts and materials receive preferential tariff benefits .
( USMCA Website )

One of the key sectors gaining benefit from the USMCA trade agreement is the auto sector. Rules on steel and aluminum smelting/origination, and rules on part origination from North America are key aspects to the trade agreement that shifts focus from the import of Asian manufactured parts for assembly to manufacturing in North America.
Essentially, seventy-five percent of the component parts for the auto industry must be manufactured in North America. This shift directly puts U.S. auto-workers at the forefront for job gains & stops the process of using manufactured parts from China, Asia or the EU.
The goal of the agreement was/is to make manufacturing investment in North America the main consideration for auto-manufacturers who want access to the U.S. market. Today, as a direct result of future investment considerations, General Motors and Ford unexpectedly surprise 1,500 auto-workers with the announcement their jobs have gone from part-time to full-time status. Great news for these families:
DETROIT – General Motors’ worker Adarrey “Ace” Humphrey was blindsided Sunday. That’s when his life changed. Humphrey, 27, has been a part-time temporary worker at GM’s Flint Assembly in Michigan for the last three years. On Sunday morning, he and about 250 of his co-workers crowded into UAW Local 598’s union hall. Most thought they were there for a routine meeting.
But when the local’s president stepped to the mic, the room listened in awed silence. “He said, ‘As of tomorrow, you guys are full-time seniority employees of GM,’ ” Humphrey said. “There was a gasp in the room for a few seconds. Some of us thought he misspoke. Then, we had to say, ‘No, we heard him right!’ It was amazing.” On Monday, GM made about 930 temporary workers permanent full-time employees at 30 of its 52 UAW-represented facilities in the United States. There are more to come in the months ahead, it said. Ford Motor Co. also moved 592 temps to permanent full-time on Monday, the UAW said, and will do more conversions of temps next month. But Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is still working to implement its temporary worker conversions, said the UAW. (read more)
Promises made, and promises kept…
RULES OF ORIGIN AND ORIGIN PROCEDURES
The United States, Mexico, and Canada have concluded substantive discussions on new rules of origin and origin procedures, including product-specific rules for passenger vehicles, light trucks, and auto parts. This update to the rules of origin will provide greater incentives to source goods and materials in the United States and North America.
Key Achievement: Increasing Regional Value Content Rule
This deal encourages United States manufacturing and regional economic growth by requiring that 75 percent of auto content be made in North America.
The rules will:
Help to incentivize up to billions annually
Help to preserve and re-shore vehicle and parts production in the United States.
Transform supply chains to use more United States content, especially content that is key to future automobile production and high-paying jobs.
Close gaps in the current NAFTA agreement that incentivized low wages in automobile and parts production.
Key Achievement: Creating New Labor Value Content Rule
This deal uses trade rules to drive higher wages by requiring that 40-45 percent of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.
The rules will:
Support better jobs for United States producers and workers by requiring that a significant portion of vehicle content be made with high-wage labor.
Ensure that United States producers and workers are able to compete on an even playing field, and incentivize new vehicle and parts investments in the United States.
Encourage more investment by auto companies in research and development in the region.
Key Achievement: Exceeding NAFTA 1.0 and TPP Standards with Stronger Rules of Origin and Enforcement
The United States, Mexico, and Canada have agreed to stronger rules of origin that exceed those of both NAFTA 1.0 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), including for autos and automobile parts and other industrial products such as chemicals, steel-intensive products, glass, and optical fiber.
This deal exceeds NAFTA 1.0 and the TPP by establishing procedures that streamline certification and verification of rules of origin and that promote strong enforcement. This includes new cooperation and enforcement provisions that help to prevent duty evasion before it happens.
The new rules will help ensure that only producers using sufficient and significant North American parts and materials receive preferential tariff benefits. (USMCA Website)


theconservativetreehouse--2020-01-09--Massive President Trump MAGA-KAG Rally, Toledo, OH – 7:00pm Livestream…

Post was not sent - check your email addresses !
Email check failed , please try again Sorry , your @ @ @ @ @ by email .

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


theconservativetreehouse--2020-01-09--President Trump Press Conference During NEPA Event – Transcript of Presser…

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 — Q — what you hope to accomplish there ?
And will you be travelling to Beijing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
THE PRESIDENT : I know so , but I ’ m not going to tell .
No , no I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That means they would be on their path to nuclear weapons .
And for me , it ’ s about nuclear weapons , more than anything else .
Iran can not 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 ?
THE PRESIDENT : I mean , honestly , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Okay .
Yeah .
Jon , go ahead .
Q Mr. President , the plane that went down — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Could have — could have made a mistake .
It was flying — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible — something very terrible happened .
Very devastating .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information — 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.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — THE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ?
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thank everybody for being here .
It ’ s a great honor .
Thank you very much .
Thank you .
Thank you .
Thank you very much .
( Applause . )

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
.


theconservativetreehouse--2020-01-09--U.S. and Canadian Officials Now Confirm an Iranian Missile Shot Down Ukraine Air Flight 752…

It was only a matter of time before western intelligence agencies confirmed Ukraine flight 752 was shot down just north @ @ @ @ @ missiles .
The evidence was growing , and it was/is overwhelming .
Most of the @ @ @ @ @ Canadian or Iranian heading to Canada .
Today a somber Prime Minister Trudeau informed Canadians @ @ @ @ @ .
There were 176 passengers and crew aboard : 82 Iranians , 63 Canadians , @ @ @ @ @ , 10 Swedes , four Afghans , three Germans and three Britons on board .
@ @ @ @ @ Missile ( SAM ) was identified in a debris field near the crash site .
@ @ @ @ @ has learned U.S. officials are confident that Iran shot down a Ukrainian jetliner in the @ @ @ @ @ attack on U.S. targets .
176 people were killed , including at least 63 Canadians @ @

It was only a matter of time before western intelligence agencies confirmed Ukraine flight 752 was shot down just north of Tehran by Iranian anti-aircraft missiles. The evidence was growing, and it was/is overwhelming.
Most of the passengers on the flight were Canadian or Iranian heading to Canada. Today a somber Prime Minister Trudeau informed Canadians the aircraft was shot down.
The Ukrainian airliner was shot down by Iran with Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, a US official says. Follow live updates.https://t.co/L29HXAlWDt pic.twitter.com/xnfY5nDaeQ — CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) January 9, 2020
There were 176 passengers and crew aboard: 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainian passengers and crew, 10 Swedes, four Afghans, three Germans and three Britons on board. The nose of a Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) was identified in a debris field near the crash site.
https://twitter.com/PoliticalShort/status/1215361761299386368