Thursday, July 25, 2019

West Wing Reads The Do-Over Delusion

West Wing Reads

The Do-Over Delusion


“No matter how many times Democrats demand a do-over, the results won’t change.”

The Washington Times editorial board writes that “facing the klieg lights on national TV Wednesday, Mr. Mueller appeared overwhelmed by the moment, unfamiliar with his brief, a figurehead set in place by mischievous hands.” For a less confused account, look at the Special Counsel’s actual 448-page report. “Each copy spells out in black and white the failure to find that Mr. Trump committed a crime.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows this, and she must be itching “to slam the door on impeachment proceedings,” the editors add. The question is: Will the far left let her?

Click here to read more.
“Democrats are, without question, worse off now than they were before former special counsel Robert Mueller gave his five hours of testimony,” Eddie Scarry writes in the Washington Examiner. “Anyone who watched the back-to-back hearings Wednesday got exactly nothing new from Mueller . . . but Democrats thought it wise to drag out this never-ending nightmare.”
“Manufacturers are promising to upskill nearly 1.2 million workers, a major training commitment that comes as U.S. companies prepare to try to fill millions of open positions over the next decade amid a labor shortage,” Joe Williams reports for Fox Business. “We are thrilled to have [the National Association of Manufacturers] make this huge investment into our future and current manufacturers,” Ivanka Trump said.

Watch live at 3:30 p.m. ET: 1-year celebration of the Pledge to America’s Workers
“Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe blasted former Special Counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday for his report” violating a basic principle of justice, Brooke Singman reports for Fox News. When asked, Mueller couldn’t name a single example of when the Justice Department wouldn’t exonerate an investigated person because their innocence couldn’t be proved. “The bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence—everyone is entitled to it, including a sitting president,” Rep. Ratcliffe said.
“House Democrats hoped that Wednesday’s hearings would allow them to highlight their favorite portions of the Mueller report for people who haven’t read it. Democrats didn’t expect this segment of Americans to include the author,” James Freeman writes in The Wall Street Journal. Regarding “a document with which he seemed strangely unfamiliar, former Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller let stand the report’s finding of no Trump-Russia collusion.”
“Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony Wednesday before two House committees confirmed what we already knew: his two-year investigation of Russia’s meddling in our 2016 presidential election was fatally tainted by deep political bias and was in fact designed to harass and derail President Trump,” Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, writes in Fox News.

More: Voter skepticism about Mueller investigation grows, says Politico poll

Statement from the Press Secretary

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement from the Press Secretary

 

Yesterday evening, a single district judge in California, based on a complaint filed by a few activist groups with no legal standing, issued a nationwide injunction against a lawful and necessary rule that discourages abuse of our asylum system – and did so despite a ruling from another Federal judge earlier in the day rejecting the same request by other plaintiffs and suggesting that the Government was likely to prevail against challenges to the rule. Congress authorized the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to establish categorical limitations on eligibility for asylum, and this rule properly used that authority to encourage migrants to seek asylum in other countries they have traveled through before reaching the United States. The tyranny of a dysfunctional system that permits plaintiffs to forum shop in order to find a single district judge who will purport to dictate immigration policy to the entire Nation – even in the face of a contrary ruling by another Federal court – must come to an end. We intend to pursue all available options to address this meritless ruling and to defend this Nation’s borders.

1600 Daily The White House • July 24, 2019 A Bad Day for the Swamp

1600 Daily
The White House • July 24, 2019

A bad day for the Swamp 


It’s hard to understate just how badly today went for Congressional Democrats. It took a pressure campaign from the left to get former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to agree to testify before Congress in the first place. Now that he has, the reactions to today’s hearing from across the political spectrum were as ruthless as they are revealing.

Here are a few of those reflections:
  • Impeachment is over. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi is going to stand for her members bringing forth something that is going to obviously lose.” – ABC News’ Terry Moran
     
  • “I think the Democrats have to be disappointed that [Mueller] didn’t more vigorously defend his process and the team.” – former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
     
  • “Aside from difficult to watch testimony, there has been no new informationand no elaboration on the 448-page report.” – CNN Commentator Alice Stewart
     
  •  “There were also times when it seemed like [Mueller] was unfamiliar with parts of the investigation.” – CNN’s Jake Tapper
     
  •  “One has to wonder, too, where Democrats go from here.” – Politico’s Blake Hounshell

If Democrats were looking to make headlines with today’s political theater, they got them. “This is Painful,” Mediaite reports in a pundit round-up. “A Sometimes Halting Mueller Parries Questions,” The Washington Post writes. “Democrats And Media Admit: Mueller's Testimony Was A Total Disaster,” Townhall reports.

They’re right. After taking 22 months, calling more than 500 witnesses, issuing more than 2,800 subpoenas, and spending more than $30 million in taxpayer money, Congressional Democrats didn’t get the result they were hoping for from the Special Counsel’s report. In response, they spent more than 6 hours today pressuring Mueller to say something different than what his team concluded in their 448-page analysis.
    
They came up empty. 

While Democrats looked foolish, that isn’t what made today a bad day for the Swamp. It’s a bad day because, once again, Washington put itself first. Americans are sick of partisan theatrics and desperate for our leaders to keep their promises to the voters who sent them here. Instead, Congress spent yet another day arguing about the results of an election that happened more than two and a half years ago.

In that time, President Donald J. Trump’s attention has been on the working-class Americans who put their trust in him. There is plenty of work left to be done, but the results so far are encouraging: 
  • More than 6 million new jobs have been created since Election Day 2016.
     
  • The 3.7 percent unemployment rate remains near its lowest mark in 49 years.
     
  • Unemployment has hit record or near-record low rates for historically marginalized groups including African-Americans, Hispanics, and women.
     
  • U.S. stock markets continue to break record highs.
     
  • Manufacturing job growth soared to a more than two-decade high last year.
     
And that’s just the economy. From criminal justice reform that will make America’s streets safer while giving former inmates a second chance at life, to veterans choice programs that are holding the VA accountable to our nation’s heroes, President Trump is working each day to keep his promises to voters.

Imagine how incredible America could be doing if Congressional Democrats joined us?

“Not buying it: Voter skepticism about Mueller investigation grows, says Politico poll”

Rep. Kelly Armstrong to Mueller: “Federal recusal law exists for a reason.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz: What Mueller’s probe left out 

Photo of the Day

Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian
President Donald J. Trump talks to members of the press on the South Lawn of the White House | July 24, 2019

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE MARINE ONE DEPARTURE - July 24, 2019

Office of the Press Secretary

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP
BEFORE MARINE ONE DEPARTURE

South Lawn



4:24 P.M. EDT

     Q    Mr. President, what's your reaction to the testimony?

     THE PRESIDENT:  So we had a very good day today.  The Republican Party, our country -- there was no defense of what Robert Mueller was trying to defend, in all fairness to Robert Mueller.  Whether his performance was a bad one or a good one, I think everybody understands that.  I think everybody understands what's going on.

     There was no defense for this ridiculous hoax, this witch hunt that's been going on for a long time -- pretty much from the time I came down on the escalator with our First Lady.  And it's a disgrace what happened.  But I think today proved a lot to everybody.  In fact, some of my biggest opponents wrote things today that I wouldn’t have believed they would have written, and I appreciate that they did that.

     This has been a very bad thing for our country.  And despite everything we've been through, it's been an incredible two and half years for our country.  The administration, our President -- me -- we've done a great job.  We've got the strongest stock market, the best unemployment numbers, the most number of people ever working in the history of our country right now -- almost 160 million.  Our military has been rebuilt and getting even stronger.

We've done a great job, and we've done it under this terrible, phony cloud.  A phony cloud; that's all it was.  And they should be ashamed of themselves.  Absolutely ashamed.  And you know who knew it was a phony cloud more than anyone else?  It was Schiff and Nadler and Schumer and Pelosi -- every one of them.  They all knew it was phony stuff.

And if you look at the polls, the polls are showing it maybe more than anybody else or anything else.  And I've had my best polls, and I don’t say why.  But people see what's gone on in our country with this whole thing.  I've been going through it for three years -- for three years -- all the nonsense.

So this was a very big day for our country.  This was a very big day for the Republican Party.  And you could say it was a great day for me, but I don’t even like to say that.  It's great.

I'll tell you what: I very much appreciate those incredible warriors that you watched today on television -- Republicans -- that defended something, and defended something very powerful, very important.  Because they were really defending our country.  More than anything else, they were defending our country.  But they were warriors, and they've been warriors for a long time.

And everybody knew it was a hoax, especially the Democrats.  I wish we could be a fly on the wall in those rooms where the Democrats would go in and talk before and after meetings, and they'd be laughing and smiling and say, "Can you believe that we're getting away with this?"  But, in the end, they didn’t get away with it.

Yeah.

Q    Mr. President, Robert Mueller specifically testified that he did not exonerate you.  Why do you continue to say that he does?

THE PRESIDENT:  So, there is no such a thing.  He didn’t have the right to exonerate.  And, you know, it's very interesting: People mention exoneration.  That was something where he totally folded because he never had the right to exonerate.  And it was covered very well by Congressman Turner and put to a conclusion.

We were -- if you take a look at not only the report, beyond the report, take a look at not what he said but what he was forced to say.  And even your networks and your network and your network and your net- -- every one of these networks, they put up their hands.  You know, we had a couple of cases with -- actually, we had about six cases where they asked our people, our representatives' television networks, "Please, don't come in tonight.  We're not going to be doing much on it."  And the reason they're not: because it's over.

     Go ahead.

     Q    Mr. President, sir, do you regret, sir -- two questions for you.  Are you concerned you could be indicted out of office?  And do you regret talking so much about WikiLeaks, given Robert Mueller called that problematic?

     THE PRESIDENT:  So, WikiLeaks is a hoax, just like everything else.  And all of those problems having to do with crime were the biggest hoax of all.  It was a witch hunt.  A total witch hunt.  And when you saw Robert Mueller's statement, the earlier statement, and then he did a recap, he did a correction later on in the afternoon.  And you know what that correction was, and you still asked the question.  Do you know why?  Because you're fake news.  And you're one of the most.

     And let me just tell you, the fact that you even asked that question, you're fake news.  Because you know what?  He totally corrected himself in the afternoon.  And you know that just as well as anybody.

     Kaitlan.  Kaitlan.

     Q    He said your written answers were not "generally truthful."  What was not truthful in your written answers to the Special Counsel?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't know whose answers weren't.  I guess his answers weren’t.  Because if you look, the whole report -- you take a look at what they did: Some of the things that he didn't even know about; some of the things he didn't even know what was going on.

     But you know, in the end, what he did, he actually, probably, came through for himself.  The performance was obviously not very good.  He had a lot of problems.  But what he showed more than anything else is that this whole thing has been three years of embarrassment and waste of time for our country.  And you know what?  The Democrats thought they could win an election like this.  I think they hurt themselves very badly for 2020.

     Q    Did Donald Trump, Jr. -- did your son, Donald Trump, Jr., speak with Robert Mueller?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Did I what?

     Q    Did your son, Donald Trump, Jr., speak with Robert Mueller?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't know.  I really don't know.

     Q    How do you not know?

     THE PRESIDENT:  I never -- I don't know.

Yeah, go ahead.

     Q    Mr. President, are you concerned about what was said --

     THE PRESIDENT:  I mean, frankly, whether or not he did, it wouldn't matter to me --

     Q    How would you not know?

     THE PRESIDENT:  -- because he did nothing wrong.  He did nothing wrong.

     Q    But how would you not know?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Because it's so unimportant.  It was always a very unimportant meeting.  It was only important to the fake news.

     Go ahead.

     Q    Mueller said you could be charged once you leave office.

     THE PRESIDENT:  No, he didn't say that.

     Q    Yes, he did.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Again, you're fake news.  And you're right at the top of the list, also.

     Let me just tell you --

     Q    That is what he said, sir.

     THE PRESIDENT:  -- go back to what -- it's not what he said.  Read his correction.

     Q    That was not his correction.  His correction was about exonerating you.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Read his correction.

     Q    It was about exonerating you.  That was not about if you could be charged after you leave office.

     THE PRESIDENT:  If you read his correction, you'll find out.  That's why people don't deal with you because you're not an honest reporter.

     John.

     Q    Mr. President, do you believe that -- there are some Democrats who are saying that Mueller's testimony today could form the basis for an impeachment investigation?  What do you say in response?

     THE PRESIDENT:  They are devastated.  The Democrats lost so big today.  Their party is in shambles right now.  They've got the Squad leading their party.  They are a mess -- where even you take a look at scribe and you take a look at so many of the people that were the most outspoken, and they say this was a devastating day for the Democrats.  And you know it, John, and everybody else knows it.  This was devastating day for the Democrats.

     Q    Are you concerned, Mr. President, that after you leave office, you could be indicted?

     THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  A very dumb and very unfair question.

     Q    Why is that?

     THE PRESIDENT:  Because if you look at his correction, he took that totally out of play.  He made his decision based on the facts, not based on some rule.  So you shouldn't even ask that question because you know it's a phony.

     Go ahead.

     Q    Do you think the Democrats are trying to (inaudible) and keep (inaudible)?

     THE PRESIDENT:  The Democrats had nothing, and now they have less than nothing.  And I think they're going to lose the 2020 election very big, including congressional seats, because of the path that they chose.

     Now, who knows where it goes.  From what I hear, they're giving up.  But I just say, I know them too well.  They'll never give up.  They'll go back into the room and they'll try and figure something out.  This whole thing has been -- honestly, it's been collusion.  It's been collusion with the media.  It’s been collusion with other countries.  This has been a disaster for the Democrats, and I think we’re going to win bigger than ever.

     Now, I’m -- I’m going to West Virginia, one of the great states.  A state that's doing -- if you look at percentage up, I think it’s number one or number two in the country.  And nobody would have believed that.  West Virginia is doing great.  So, I’m going to West Virginia.

     We did have a big case today.  You know, we won the asylum case in Washington which, frankly, you should be asking about that because that’s the real deal.

I can’t believe how nice you are today.  Go ahead, give me a question.

Q    Thank you.  My question, Mr. President, is: Do you believe that even though he backed away from it, that you, after you leave office, could face indictment for obstruction?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, because we did nothing wrong.  The answer is very simple.  Nothing was done wrong.  This was all a big hoax.  And if you look at it today, nothing was done wrong.

Now, I believe what you’re going to find -- you’re going to find a lot of things that were done very wrong.  But that’s going on now.  That’s something you haven’t been writing about, and that has to do with the other side’s -- that has to do with a thing called “investigate the investigators.”  Let’s see what happens.  That's going to be very interesting.

Q    Do you think Robert Mueller did a good job in this investigation?  Where are you at on that now?

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I think Robert Mueller did a horrible job, both today and with respect to the investigation.  But in all fairness to Robert Mueller, he had nothing to work with.  You know, you can be a builder, but if they don’t give you the right materials, you’re not going to build a very good building.

Robert Mueller had no material.  He had nothing to work with.  So, obviously, he did very poorly today.  I don’t think there’s anybody -- even among the fakers, I don’t think there’s anybody who would say he did well.  I looked at your people; they’re saying it was devastating for the Democrats.

And even, I will tell you, the two most nauseous and nauseating networks -- whose ratings have both gone down, way down -- even they said this was a really bad day for the Democrats.

So, Robert Mueller did a poor job.  But in all fairness to him, he had nothing to work with.

David.

Q    Mr. President, do you regret not talking to Mueller now that you’ve seen him in action?

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, I saw what he did to people -- how he ruined people’s lives because they didn’t remember a date or something very minor.  He ruined people’s lives.

The Democrats, they took people and they destroyed their lives.  They went bankrupt because they couldn’t afford the legal fees, and they were good people -- many, many people.

So when you ask me that question, all they have to do is -- see how nice this weather is?  If I made a mistake and said I was talking to the media and it was a little bit rainy, a little bit overcast, they’d say, “Well, we have to do -- he lied.”

Let me tell you, I’ve seen what they’ve done to people.  I’ve seen how they've destroyed people like General Flynn and so many others -- what they’ve done to people.  No, I did the right thing.

Q    You said Mueller did a “horrible job.”  (Inaudible) about the report today.  Why is that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, Mueller had no material.  Sure.  Mueller had no material to work with, and he did a horrible job.  Obviously, his presentation was way off.  But that’s okay.  It didn’t matter.  He had no material.  There was nothing done wrong.  In fact, things were done right.  There was nothing done wrong.

And certainly -- I mean, look, I read the papers and I read the press and I read the Internet, and if you see what’s going on the Internet, if you listen to the Internet, this was one of the worst performances in the history of our country.  So, you know that.  You know that very well.

But I don’t think anybody could have done a good performance.  He had no material.  It was a fake set of facts that the Democrats used -- and others -- to try and do really an illegal overthrow.  But we’re going to find out about that.

Q    On the asylum ruling, what does this mean for your plans going forward?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the asylum is a big --

Q    And what are you going to do about Guatemala?

THE PRESIDENT:  Say it?

Q    What are you going to do about Guatemala?

THE PRESIDENT:  So, the asylum is a very big ruling.  That was a tremendous ruling today.  We appreciate it.  We respect the courts very much.  That helps us very much at the border.  The numbers are way down at the border, which is a good thing.  Apprehensions are way down because Mexico has now 22,000 soldiers.  And they’re -- they mean business because they know what happens; the alternative is not good for them.

It’s also good for Mexico, what they’re doing, because the cartels have been running all of the border for years and years.  And Mexico is saying -- and the President is saying, “We got to clean it up.”  So they’ve got 21,000 soldiers.  They’ll probably put up more.

     But this ruling today on asylum is a tremendous ruling.

     Q    What are you going to do about Guatemala?  Guatemala.  What are you going to do about Guatemala?

     THE PRESIDENT:  So, Guatemala gave us their word.  We were going to sign a safe third agreement and then, all of a sudden, they backed up.  They said it was their supreme court.  I don’t believe that.  But they use their supreme court as the reason they didn’t want to do it.

     So we’ll either do tariffs or we’ll do something.  We’re looking at something very severe with respect to Guatemala.  I’ve already cut all payments; I did that a year ago.  I cut all payments going to Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.  We used to send them $500 million for nothing.  For nothing.  They didn’t do anything except set up caravans.

     So, Guatemala we’re going to take care of and it won’t even be tough.  We’re going to do -- we’re looking at a couple of different things.  One of the things very heavy is, as you know, Mexico has put 6,000 people on that border.

     Q    Mr. President, what do you say at the -- Robert Mueller, he said that he -- that lying from your inves- --

     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me just tell you something.

     Q    -- Mr. President, he says that lying --

THE PRESIDENT:  I know, you’re always -- you always have a question.

Q    -- he says that lying -- he said that lying by White House aides and campaign aides --

THE PRESIDENT:  You mean my White House aides lied?

Q    They said that your White House --

THE PRESIDENT:  What about his aides?  What about -- what about Mueller’s aides?

Q    He said that White House aides and campaign aides lied and that your answers were generally untruthful.   What do you say to that?  He’s accusing you and your campaign of lying.

THE PRESIDENT:  He didn’t say that at all.  You’re untruthful when you ask --

Q    He specifically said, “generally untruthful.”

THE PRESIDENT:  You are untruthful.  When you ask that question --

Q    He completely said that.

THE PRESIDENT:  When you ask that question, you’re untruthful.  And you know who --

Q    But quoting, “generally untruthful.”

THE PRESIDENT:  -- else is untruthful?  You know who else is untruthful?  His aides.  And Weissmann was untruthful.  And Weissmann got caught just like he did with Arthur Andersen, where he lost in the Supreme Court nine to nothing.  His aides were very untruthful.  And they put Mueller --

Q    But were your aides lying and impeding the investigation, Mr. President? 

THE PRESIDENT:  -- and they put Mueller -- not at all.  They put Mueller in a very bad positon.  His aides put him in a very bad position.

And if you were ever truthful, you'd be able to write the truth.

Q    Mr. President, have you called Boris Johnson?  Have you called Boris Johnson?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I haven’t.  No, but I’m very happy.  I haven’t called Boris but I’m happy that he won.  I’m very, very happy.

Q    (Inaudible) indictment for Strzok and Page and the investigators that you are referring to?

THE PRESIDENT:  So what happened with Strzok and Page, meaning the two lovers, it’s a disgrace because they had a lot of text messages, and Mueller illegally deleted those text messages.  And they didn’t get too much into that because he forgo; he didn’t really know; he didn’t know too much.  He didn’t know anything.

But Strzok and Page were texting.  Don’t forget, they were the ones with the “just in case she should lose, we’re going to have an insurance policy.”  This is the same Strzok and Page.  So that was a very, very bad situation.  What they did and what Mueller did -- he deleted their text messages back and forth, probably thousands of them.  That’s a serious problem.  They shouldn’t have been allowed to do it.

Q    How did Mueller affect the 2020 election?  How did Mueller affect the 2020 election?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think it’s going to help us because everyone sees now that this thing has been going on for so long.  In all fairness to Mueller, this has gone on long before Mueller.  This has gone on from sometime after we came down the escalator and I got great poll numbers.  Because from the beginning, I was leading.  And this really took place sometime right after we came down the escalator -- the First Lady and myself.  And I will tell you something: I think it’s going to have a huge negative impact on 2020 for the Democrats.

                         END                 4:42 P.M EDT                          


 

S.J. Res. 38 Veto Message

Office of the Press Secretary

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:


     I am returning herewith without my approval S.J. Res. 38, a joint resolution that would prohibit the issuance of export licenses for the proposed transfer of defense articles, defense services, and technical data to support the manufacture of the Aurora Fuzing System for the Paveway IV Precision Guided Bomb Program in regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  This resolution would weaken America's global competitiveness and damage the important relationships we share with our allies and partners.

     In particular, S.J. Res. 38 would prohibit the issuance of export licenses for the proposed transfer of defense articles, defense services, and technical data for the manufacturing of the Aurora Fuzing System for the Paveway IV Precision Guided Bomb Program.  The misguided licensing prohibition in the joint resolution directly conflicts with the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States, which include strengthening defense alliances with friendly countries throughout the world, deepening partnerships that preserve and extend our global influence, and enhancing our competitiveness in key markets.  Apart from negatively affecting our bilateral relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom, the joint resolution would hamper the ability of the United States to sustain and shape critical security cooperation activities.  S.J. Res. 38 would also damage the credibility of the United States as a reliable partner by signaling that we are willing to abandon our partners and allies at the very moment when threats to them are increasing.

     The United States is providing the licenses that the joint resolution seeks to prohibit for many reasons.  First and foremost, it is our solemn duty to protect the safety of the more than 80,000 United States citizens who reside in Saudi Arabia and who are imperiled by Houthi attacks from Yemen.  The Houthis, supported by Iran, have attacked civilian and military facilities using missiles, armed drones, and explosive boats, including in areas frequented by United States citizens, such as the airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Second, the joint resolution would degrade Saudi Arabia's military preparedness and ability to protect its sovereignty, directly affecting its ability to defend United States military personnel hosted there.  Third, Saudi Arabia is a bulwark against the malign activities of Iran and its proxies in the region, and the licenses the joint resolution would prohibit enhance Saudi Arabia's ability to deter and defend against these threats.

     In addition, S.J. Res. 38 would negatively affect our NATO Allies and the transatlantic defense industry.  It could, for example, produce unintended consequences for defense procurement and interoperability with and between our partners.  It could also create diplomatic and security opportunities for our adversaries to exploit.

     Finally, by restricting the ability of our partners to produce and purchase precision-guided munitions, S.J. Res. 38 would likely prolong the conflict in Yemen and deepen the suffering it causes.  By undermining bilateral relationships of the United States and impeding our ability to support key partners at a critical time, the joint resolution would harm -- not help -- efforts to end the conflict in Yemen.  And without precision-guided munitions, more -- not fewer -- civilians are likely to become casualties of the conflict.  While I share concerns that certain Members of Congress have expressed about civilian casualties of this conflict, the United States has taken and will continue to take action to minimize such casualties, including training and advising the Saudi-led Coalition forces to improve their targeting processes.

     The United States is very concerned about the conflict's toll on innocent civilians and is working to bring the conflict in Yemen to an end.  But we cannot end it through ill-conceived and time-consuming resolutions that fail to address its root causes.  Rather than expend time and resources on such resolutions, I encourage the Congress to direct its efforts toward supporting our work to achieve peace through a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Yemen.

     For these reasons, it is my duty to return S.J. Res. 38 to the Senate without my approval.

 

 

                              DONALD J. TRUMP




THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 24, 2019.

 

###

S.J. Res. 37 Veto Message

Office of the Press Secretary

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:


     I am returning herewith without my approval S.J. Res. 37, a joint resolution that would prohibit the issuance of export licenses for certain defense articles, defense services, and technical data to support the transfer of Paveway II kits to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of France.  This resolution would weaken America's global competitiveness and damage the important relationships we share with our allies and partners.

     In particular, S.J. Res. 37 would prohibit the issuance of export licenses for Paveway II kits to the UAE, the United Kingdom, and France.  The misguided licensing prohibitions in the joint resolution directly conflict with the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States, which include strengthening defense alliances with friendly countries throughout the world, deepening partnerships that preserve and extend our global influence, and enhancing our competitiveness in key markets.  Apart from negatively affecting our bilateral relationships with the UAE, the United Kingdom, and France, the joint resolution would hamper the ability of the United States to sustain and shape critical security cooperation activities with those partners. S.J. Res. 37 would also damage the credibility of the United States as a reliable partner by signaling that we are willing to abandon our partners and allies at the very moment when threats to them are increasing.

     The United States is providing the licenses that the joint resolution seeks to prohibit for many reasons.  First and foremost, it is our solemn duty to protect the safety of the more than 80,000 United States citizens who reside in Saudi Arabia and are imperiled by Houthis attacking from Yemen using missiles, armed drones, and explosive boats.  The UAE is an important part of the Saudi-led Coalition that helps protect Americans from these Iranian-supported Houthi attacks on civilian and military facilities, including those located in areas frequented by United States citizens like the airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Second, the joint resolution would degrade the UAE's military preparedness and ability to protect its sovereignty, directly affecting its ability to defend the thousands of United States military personnel hosted there.  Third, the UAE is a bulwark against the malign activities of Iran and its proxies in the region.  It is also an active partner with the United States in combatting terrorism in Yemen and elsewhere.  The licenses the joint resolution would prohibit enhance our partner's ability to deter and defend against these threats.

     In addition, S.J. Res. 37 would negatively affect our NATO Allies and the transatlantic defense industry.  It could, for example, produce unintended consequences for defense procurement and interoperability with and between our partners.  It could also create diplomatic and security opportunities for our adversaries to exploit.

     Finally, by restricting the ability of our partners to produce and purchase precision-guided munitions, S.J. Res. 37 would likely prolong the conflict in Yemen and deepen the suffering it causes.  By undermining bilateral relationships of the United States and impeding our ability to support key partners at a critical time, the joint resolution would harm -- not help -- efforts to end the conflict in Yemen.  And without precision-guided munitions, more -- not fewer -- civilians are likely to become casualties of the conflict.  While I share concerns that certain Members of Congress have expressed about civilian casualties of this conflict, the United States has taken and will continue to take action to minimize such casualties, including training and advising the Saudi-led Coalition forces to improve their targeting processes.

     The United States is very concerned about the conflict's toll on innocent civilians and is working to bring the conflict in Yemen to an end.  But we cannot end it through ill-conceived and time-consuming resolutions that fail to address its root causes.  Rather than expend time and resources on such resolutions, I encourage the Congress to direct its efforts toward supporting our work to achieve peace through a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Yemen.

     For these reasons, it is my duty to return S.J. Res. 37 to the Senate without my approval.


 

                              DONALD J. TRUMP




THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 24, 2019.

 

S.J. Res. 36 Veto Message

Office of the Press Secretary

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:


     I am returning herewith without my approval S.J. Res. 36, a joint resolution that would prohibit the issuance of certain licenses with respect to several proposed agreements or transfers to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian Republic.  This resolution would weaken America's global competitiveness and damage the important relationships we share with our allies and partners.

     In particular, S.J. Res. 36 would prohibit licensing for manufacturing in Saudi Arabia of Guidance Electronics Detector Assemblies, Computer Control Groups, Airfoil Groups, Aircraft Umbilical Interconnect Systems, Fuses, and other components to support the production of Paveway II, Enhanced Paveway II, and Paveway IV munitions.  The misguided licensing prohibitions in the joint resolution directly conflict with the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States, which include strengthening defense alliances with friendly countries throughout the world, deepening partnerships that preserve and extend our global influence, and enhancing our competitiveness in key markets.  Apart from negatively affecting our bilateral relationships with Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy, the joint resolution would hamper the ability of the United States to sustain and shape critical security cooperation activities.  S.J. Res. 36 would also damage the credibility of the United States as a reliable partner by signaling that we are willing to abandon our partners and allies at the very moment when threats to them are increasing.

     The United States is providing the licenses that the joint resolution seeks to prohibit for many reasons.  First and foremost, it is our solemn duty to protect the safety of the more than 80,000 United States citizens who reside in Saudi Arabia and who are imperiled by Houthi attacks from Yemen.  The Houthis, supported by Iran, have attacked civilian and military facilities using missiles, armed drones, and explosive boats, including in areas frequented by United States citizens, such as the airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Second, the joint resolution would degrade Saudi Arabia’s military preparedness and ability to protect its sovereignty, directly affecting its ability to defend United States military personnel hosted there.  Third, Saudi Arabia is a bulwark against the malign activities of Iran and its proxies in the region, and the licenses the joint resolution would prohibit enhance Saudi Arabia's ability to deter and defend against these threats.

     In addition, S.J. Res. 36 would negatively affect our NATO Allies and the transatlantic defense industry.  It could, for example, produce unintended consequences for defense procurement and interoperability with and between our partners.  It could also create diplomatic and security opportunities for our adversaries to exploit.

     Finally, by restricting the ability of our partners to produce and purchase precision-guided munitions, S.J. Res. 36 would likely prolong the conflict in Yemen and deepen the suffering it causes.  By undermining bilateral relationships of the United States and impeding our ability to support key partners at a critical time, the joint resolution would harm -- not help -- efforts to end the conflict in Yemen.  And without precision-guided munitions, more -- not fewer -- civilians are likely to become casualties of the conflict.  While I share concerns that certain Members of Congress have expressed about civilian casualties of this conflict, the United States has taken and will continue to take action to minimize such casualties, including training and advising Saudi-led Coalition forces to improve their targeting processes.

     The United States is very concerned about the conflict's toll on innocent civilians and is working to bring the conflict in Yemen to an end.  But we cannot end it through ill-conceived and time-consuming resolutions that fail to address its root causes.  Rather than expend time and resources on such resolutions, I encourage the Congress to direct its efforts toward supporting our work to achieve peace through a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Yemen.

     For these reasons, it is my duty to return S.J. Res. 36 to the Senate without my approval.


 

                              DONALD J. TRUMP
 



THE WHITE HOUSE,
    July 24, 2019.

 

tatement from the Press Secretary


Office of the Press Secretary

Statement from the Press Secretary

 

At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin will travel to Shanghai, China, to continue negotiations aimed at improving the trade relationship between the United States and China.  The talks will begin on July 30.  Vice Premier Liu He will lead the talks for China.

 

The discussions will cover a range of issues, including intellectual property, forced technology transfer, non-tariff barriers, agriculture, services, the trade deficit, and enforcement. 

 

West Wing Reads Mentions of Immigration as Top Problem Surpass Record High

West Wing Reads

Mentions of Immigration as Top Problem Surpass Record High


“After hitting a new high last month, mentions of immigration as the most important problem facing the U.S. increased further to 27% in July,” Jeffrey Jones writes for Gallup. As Jones explains, that number is historically significant.

“Gallup has asked the ‘most important problem’ question since 1939, and has done so on a monthly basis since March 2001. Over the past 19 years, only five other issues have been mentioned at some point by at least the 27% who named immigration this month.”

“Immigration is likely to remain a top issue for Americans, particularly at points when large numbers of immigrants or asylum seekers are attempting to enter the country illegally.”

Click here to read more.
“There’s nothing like a celebrity guest to boost a flagging TV show, and House Democrats are hoping Robert Mueller’s congressional performance this week revives their impeachment ratings. Yet if the former special counsel stays true to his own investigation and report, this episode will be the last,” The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes.
For Democrats, questioning former Special Counsel Robert Mueller “is the last bite at the apple in the failed attempt to prove Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 campaign or otherwise obstructed justice during the subsequent investigation. The summary of the report has already been released by the attorney general and then the report itself by Mueller and the unredacted version has been available for lawmakers to see for months,” the Boston Herald editorial board writes. “Now, during this rerun of a rerun of a rerun, Democrats are hoping a disinterested public will finally become outraged and begin the chant for impeachment. They won’t.”
“White House adviser Ivanka Trump on Monday visited Lockheed Martin in Littleton, Colorado for a roundtable discussion on the company’s workforce development and apprenticeship programs as part of her workforce development tour,” Julia Limitone reports for Fox Business. “During the meeting, Trump applauded the company and its CEO Marillyn Hewson for keeping its Sikorsky helicopter plant in Pennsylvania open at President Trump’s request, saving more than 400 jobs and committing to expand the American workforce.”
“From day one, the Trump administration has fulfilled its promise to create good jobs for American workers”—in Virginia alone, unemployment has dropped “from 4% to 3% as more than 127,000 more Virginians found jobs,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross writes in The Virginian-Pilot. “Already, more than 280 companies and organizations have pledged nearly 10 million enhanced training and career opportunities for American students and workers” as part of President Trump’s Pledge to America’s Workers.