U.S. President Donald Trump walks from Marine One as he returns from a day trip to Atlanta on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 28, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)
President Donald Trump warned the U.S. Congress on Friday he “will never” sign another bill like the $1.3 trillion omnibus “again,” calling on them to give him a line-item veto. He further renewed his call for the Republican majority to end the filibuster rule, giving the U.S. Senate the ability to pass any bill with 51 votes.
“This will be the largest increase in military pay in ten years and it increases military spending by $60 bill from last year. Therefore, as a matter of national security I signed this omnibus spending bill,” he said at a press conference at the White House. “To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I’m calling on the Congress to give me a line-item veto and the filibuster must end.”
“I say this to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again.”
He said there were numerous problems with the spending bill, including the fact that “no one read it.” But he also called out Democrats for essentially holding military spending hostage to their special interest groups on K Street.
“The Democrats, who don’t believe in that [strong military], added a lot of things that nobody wants,” he said. “I keep trying to tell them that the military is for Republicans, for Democrats, for everyone. But we keep running into tremendous opposition from the Democrats.”
Historically, the filibuster was rarely used and only during the most significant pieces of legislation. However, during the Trump Administration, the Democrats in the Senate minority have used it for unprecedented obstruction, including Cabinet and agency-level confirmations.
President Trump said earlier on Twitter that he was thinking of vetoing the measure, which was passed by the U.S. Congress late last night. He cited the lack of immigration reform, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the border wall.
“DACA recipients have been treated extremely badly by the Democrats,” he said at the press conference. “We wanted to include them in the bill. The Democrats would not do it.”
If President Trump decided to veto the late-night spending bill, lawmakers would need to muster two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The bill cleared the upper chamber 62 to 35 and the lower chamber by an even smaller 256 to 167 margin, both short of two-thirds.
The House Freedom Caucus (HFC) made it clear earlier that they “would fully support” him if he used the veto. sent him a letter on Wednesday urging him to veto the bill. But in the end, it was clear Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis convinced the president not to go with his instinct this one last time given the needed military spending.
“No ones more disappointed than me, especially because the number is so large,” he said. “But we have to fund our military.”
He spoke directly to those impacted by DACA.
“I say this to DACA recipients, the Republicans are with you. We want to take care of your situation,” he stressed “The Democrats just fought us every step of the way. They did not want you in this bill.”
Reps. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., left, and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, members of the House Freedom Caucus, talk before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. (Photo: AP)
Representative Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus (HFC), said the group would fully support President Donald Trump’s decision to veto a $1.3 trillion spending bill pass by the U.S. Congress.
President Trump threatened to veto the measure, which is deeply unpopular with the base, citing a lack of immigration reforms.
The @freedomcaucus would fully support you in this move, Mr. President,” he tweeted to President Trump in response. “Let’s pass a short term CR while you negotiate a better deal for the forgotten men and women of America.”
The @freedomcaucus would fully support you in this move, Mr. President. Let’s pass a short term CR while you negotiate a better deal for the forgotten men and women of America. https://t.co/Dj05V8hevl
If President Trump decided to veto the late-night spending bill, lawmakers would need to muster two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The bill cleared the upper chamber 62 to 35 and the lower chamber by an even smaller 256 to 167 margin, both short of two-thirds.
Without the support of the HFC, the veto will stand.
“I think it’s great and hope he does it,” Representative Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the House Freedom Caucus told reporters in response. He added that the claim the bill has adequate border funding is false.
“Why do you think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are smiling ear to ear?”
The HFC sent a letter to President Trump on Wednesday urging him to veto the bill.
“Mr. President, we urge you to remember the countless forgotten men and women of America who placed their faith in you to change business as usual in Washington, D.C.,” the letter stated. “We urge you to join us and reject this omnibus.”
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks while participating in a tour of U.S.-Mexico border wall prototypes near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in San Diego, California. U.S., March 13, 2018. (Photo: Reuters)
President Donald Trump threatened to veto the massive $1.3 trillion spending bill passed by the U.S. Congress, citing a lack of immigration reforms. He said in tweet that Democrats “abandoned” those impacted by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the measure passed late at night did not fully fund the border wall.
“I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.”
I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.
If President Trump decided to veto the late-night spending bill, lawmakers would need to muster two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The bill cleared the upper chamber 62 to 35 and the lower chamber by an even smaller 256 to 167 margin, both short of two-thirds.
“I think it’s great and hope he does it,” Representative Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member of the House Freedom Caucus said in response. The HFC sent a letter to President Trump on Wednesday urging him to veto the bill.
A view of a house for sale is seen in Los Angeles on February 24, 2010. (Photo: Reuters)
The U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) said new home sales in February were at an estimated seasonally adjusted annual rate of 618,000. This is 0.6% (±13.3%)* below the revised January rate of 622,000, but is 0.5% (±16.6%)* above the February 2017 estimate of 615,000.
Sales Price
The median sales price of new houses sold in February 2018 was $326,800. The average sales price was $376,700.
For Sale Inventory and Months’ Supply
The seasonally-adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of February was 305,000. This represents a supply of 5.9 months at the current sales rate.
U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC. (Photo: People’s Pundit Daily/Pixabay)
Beginning in the 1980s, money-laundering laws were enacted in hopes of discouraging criminal activity by making it harder for crooks to use the banking system. Unfortunately, this approach has been an expensive failure.
Amazingly, some politicians actually want to make these laws even worse. I wrote last year about some intrusive, expensive, and pointless legislation proposed by Senators Grassley, Feinstein, Cornyn, and Whitehouse.
Now there’s another equally misguided set of proposals from Senators Rubio and Wyden, along with Representatives Pearce, Luetkemeyer, and Maloney. They want to require complicated and needless ownership data from millions of small businesses and organizations.
David Burton of the Heritage Foundation has a comprehensive report on the legislation. Here’s some of what he wrote.
Congress is seriously considering imposing a beneficial ownership reporting regime on American businesses and other entities, including charities and churches. …the House and Senate bills…share three salient characteristics. First, they would impose a large compliance burden on the private sector, primarily on small businesses, charities, and religious organizations. Second, they create hundreds of thousands—potentially more than one million—inadvertent felons out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Third, they do virtually nothing to achieve their stated aim of protecting society from terrorism or other forms of illicit finance. …Furthermore, the creation of this expensive and socially damaging reporting edifice is unnecessary. The vast majority of the information that the proposed beneficial ownership reporting regime would obtain is already provided to the Internal Revenue Service.
…what would you think of a member of Congress who proposes to put a new regulation on the smallest of businesses that does not meet a cost-benefit test, denies basic privacy protections and, because of its vagueness and ambiguity, is likely to cause very high numbers of otherwise law-abiding Americans to be felons? …Some bureaucrats and elected officials argue that the government needs to know who the “beneficial owners” are of even the tiniest of businesses in order to combat “money-laundering,” tax evasion or terrorism. …Should the church ladies who run the local non-profit food bank be put in jail for their failure to submit the form to the Feds that would give them the exemption from the beneficial ownership requirement? …Given how few people are actually convicted of money-laundering, the overwhelming evidence is that 99 percent of the people being forced to submit to these costly and time-consuming proposed regulations will not be guilty of money-laundering, terrorism or whatever, and thus should not be harassed by government.
Writing for the Hill, J.W. Verret, an expert in business law from George Mason University Law School, highlights some of the serious problems with this new regulatory scheme.
Legislation under consideration in Congress, the Counter Terrorism and Illicit Finance Act, risks tying entrepreneurs’ hands with even more red tape. In fact, it could destroy any benefit some small businesses stand to gain from the tax reform legislation passed last year. It would require corporations and limited liability companies with fewer than 20 employees to file a form with the Treasury Department at the time of formation, and update it annually, listing the names of all beneficial owners and individuals exercising control. …Given the substantial penalties, this will impose a massive regulatory tax on small businesses as they spend money on lawyers that should go toward workers’ pay. …It is unlikely someone on a terrorist watch list would provide their real name on the required form, and Treasury will probably never have sufficient resources to audit names in real time.
Professor Verret explains some of the practical problems and tradeoffs with these proposals.
…some individual money laundering investigations would be easier with a small business registry available. But IRS tax fraud investigations would be much easier with access to taxpayers’ bank account login information — would we tolerate the associated costs and privacy violations? …How is the term “beneficial owner” defined? How is “control” defined? As a professor of corporate law, I have given multiple lectures on those very questions. What if your company is owned, in part, by another company? Or there is a chain of ownership through multiple intermediary companies? What if a creditor of the company, though not currently a shareholder or beneficial owner, obtains the contractual right to convert their debt contract into ownership equity at some point in the future? …for the average small business owner, navigating those complexities against the backdrop of a potential three year prison sentence will often require legal counsel. Companies affected by this legislation should conservatively expect to spend at least $5,000 on a corporate lawyer to help navigate the complexities of the new filing requirements.
Needless to say, squandering $5,000 or more for some useless paperwork is not a recipe for more entrepreneurship.
So how do advocates for this type of legislation respond?
Clay Fuller of the American Enterprise Institute wants us to have faith that bad people will freely divulge their real identities and that bureaucrats will make effective use of the information.
It is time to weed out illicit financing and unfair competition from criminals and bad actors. …Passing the House Financial Services Committee’s Counter Terrorism and Illicit Finance Act should be a priority for the 115th Congress. …Dictators, terrorists and criminals have been freeriding on the prosperity and liberty of the American economy for too long. Officials at FinCEN are sure that beneficial ownership legislation will exponentially increase conviction rates. We should give law enforcement what they need to do their jobs.
Gee, all that sounds persuasive. I’m also against dictators, terrorists, and criminals.
But if you read his entire column, you’ll notice that he offers zero evidence that this costly new legislation actually would catch more bad guys.
And since we already know that anti-money laundering laws impose heavy costs and catch almost no bad guys, wouldn’t it be smart to figure out better ways of allocating law enforcement resources?
I don’t know if we should be distressed or comforted, but other parts of the world also are hamstringing their financial industries with similar policies.
…a new reportfrom Consult Hyperion, commissioned by Mitek, reveals that the average UK bank is currently wasting £5 million each year due to manual and inefficient Know Your Customer (KYC) processes, and this annual waste is expected to rise to £10 million in three years. …Key Findings…Inefficient KYC processes cost the average bank £47 million a year…Total costs for KYC processes range from £10 to £100 per check…In the UK, 25% of applications are abandoned due to KYC friction… The cost of KYC checks is much too high, placing too much reliance on inefficient and error-prone manual processes,” said Steve Pannifer, author of the report and COO at Consult Hyperion.
Anti-money laundering and know-your-customer compliance have become leading concerns at financial institutions in Asia today. … we estimate that AML compliance budgets across the six Asian markets in this study total an estimated US$1.5 billion annually for banks alone. …A majority of respondents (55%) indicated that AML compliance has a negative impact on their firms’ business productivity. …An additional 15% felt that AML compliance actually threatens their firms’ ability to do business. …Eighty-two per cent of survey respondents saw overall AML compliance costs increasing in 2016, with one third projecting that costs will rise by 20% or more.
The bottom line is that laws and regulations dealing with money laundering are introduced with high hopes of reducing crime.
And when there’s no effect on criminal activity, proponents urge ever-increasing levels of red tape. And when that doesn’t work, they propose new levels of regulation. And still nothing changes.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Here’s the video I narrated on this topic. It’s now a bit dated, but everything I said is even more true today.
Let’s close with a surreal column in the Washington Post from Dana Milbank. He was victimized by silly anti-money laundering policies, but seems to approve.
I did not expect that my wife and I would be flagged as possible financiers of international terrorism. …The teller told me my account had been blocked. My wife went to an ATM to take out $200. Denied. Soon I discovered that checks I had written to the au pair and my daughter’s volleyball instructor had bounced. …I began making calls to the bank and eventually got an explanation: The bank was looking into whether my wife and I were laundering money, as they are required to by the Bank Secrecy Act as amended by the Patriot Act. …the bank seemed particularly suspicious that my wife was the terrorist… The bank needed answers. Did she work for the government? How much money does she make? Is she a government contractor? …a week later they came back with a new threat to freeze the account and a more peculiar question: Is my wife politically influential?
Sounds like an awful example of a bank being forced by bad laws to harass a customer.
Heck, it is an awful example of that happening.
But in a remarkable display of left-wing masochism, Milbank approves.
The people who flagged us were right to do so. …Citibank, though perhaps clumsy, was doing what it should be doing. “Know your customer” regulations are important because they prevent organized-crime networks, terrorists and assorted bad guys from moving money. Banking regulations generally are a hassle, and expensive. But they protect us — not just from terrorists such as my wife and me but from financial institutions that would otherwise exploit their customers and jeopardize economic stability the way they did before the 2008 crash.
I guess we know which way Milbank would have responded to this poll question from 2013.
But he would be wrong because money-laundering laws don’t stop terrorism.
Chairman, CEO and President of Nucor John Ferriola and U.S. Steel CEO Dave Burritt flank U.S. President Donald Trump as he announces his administration will levy new tariffs to product U.S. steel and aluminum manufacturing companies. (Photo: Reuters)
Most recently, I even expressed hope that Congress would overturn his new taxes on American consumers.
Some people are arguing, however, that the situation isn’t quite so bad because Trump may have a clever plan to use tariffs as a tool to force other nations to reduce their trade barriers.
I very much hope that’s the case, as I noted in this interview with Fox Business, but I’m not holding my breath for a favorable outcome.
I’m not the only one who is skeptical.
In her column for the Wall Street Journal, Mary Anastasia O’Grady pours cold water on the hypothesis that Trump is playing a very clever game.
President Trump’s practice of staking out extreme positions on trade as a negotiating tactic is a sign of his brilliance. Or so we’re told. But that theory took on water last week, when Mr. Trump had to backtrack on a promise to hit Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum, without any concessions from either Mexico City or Ottawa. …Mr. “Art of the Deal” figured out that his opening tariff bid was on track to blow up the two best foreign markets for American-made steel and significant markets for American-made aluminum. It’s a good bet that the same producers who are lobbying for protection asked the president to back off the neighbors. The gaffe exposes the Trump administration’s failure to grasp the complexity of the supply chains that interconnect the global economy.
Well said.
By the way, I’m not just picking on Trump. I’ve criticized other Presidents for protectionist policies, most notably Hoover.
And I even dinged Saint Ronald for trade barriers, though I also noted Reagan’s good policies regarding NAFTA and the GATT.
I was one of nine American Nobel laureates invited to visit the White House Nov. 19, 2002, by President George W. Bush. Each of us had a few minutes to speak privately with the president… Mr. Bush congratulated me on my award in economics. …I added: “You must be doing some things right, but you did two things wrong—your steel tariff proposal and the farm bill.” I startled him, but our exchange was not over. …Later in the Lincoln Room, Mr. Bush was talking with a group of my colleagues from George Mason University. Seeing me nearby, he raised his voice in a friendly retort: “Earlier, your laureate friend gave me a hard time about the steel tariff. I’m thinking that he should handle the economics, and I’ll take care of the politics.”
Professor Smith points out, however, that Bush was wrong on the politics as well as the economics (a lesson the GOP should have learned from Reagan).
His proposal collided with a widespread political backlash at home and abroad, and with retaliation from our foreign trading partners. The Bush steel tariff, imposed in 2002, was rescinded in 2003. It was not feasible. He recognized its unreality, and backed off.
But if that happens, be prepared for very bad news. Here’s a report on how trade taxes would undermine America’s economy.
A full-blown trade war would erase any economic benefits from the Republican tax cuts passed last year, according to an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania. …The Penn Wharton Budget Model, a research center at the university, imagined the worst case — no US imports or exports crossing borders tariff-free. The United States has free trade agreements with 20 nations. Wharton’s model assumes those all disappear. Such a trade war would make US economic output 0.9% lower than otherwise by 2027, according to the analysis. …Over the longer term, the costs of a trade war would heavily outweigh the benefits of the tax cut. By 2040, the US would lose 5.3% of economic output in the worst trade-war scenario, compared with a 1.6% increase from the tax cuts, the university found. Put another way, a full-blowntrade war would cost the economy $200 billion over 10 years, and $1.4 trillion by 2040. American wages would decline, too, falling 1.1% over the next 10 years.
Last but not least, Mark Perry recently shared three videos from Khan Academy on international trade and economics. All of them are worth watching if you really want to understand the issue. But here’s the one that I think everyone should watch.
And Mark adds this chart, which reinforces the point from the video – and something I’ve also tried to explain – about a capital surplus being the necessary and automatic flip side of a trade deficit.
In other words, when foreigners get dollars, they oftentimes think the best use of that money is to invest in America’s future. That’s a sign of strength, not weakness.
A Boeing worker is pictured in the wing system installation area at their factory in Renton, Washington, U.S., February 13, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)
News orders for durable goods in the U.S. bounced back strong in February, increasing $7.4 billion, or 3.1% to $247.7 billion. The increase, which easily beat the median forecast, marks the third in four months and erased nearly all the losses from the 3.5% decline in January.
More on New Orders
Excluding transportation, new orders still increased 1.2%. Excluding defense, new orders still increased 2.5%. Transportation equipment, also up three of the last four months, led the increase, $5.5 billion or 7.1% to $83.5 billion.
Shipments
Shipments of manufactured durable goods, which has been up 9 of the last 10 months, gained by 0.9%, or $2.2 billion to $249.7 billion. It follows a 0.5% increase last month. Machinery, up 6 of the last 7 months, led the gain, rising 1.8% or $0.6 billion to $33.4 billion.
Unfilled Orders
Unfilled orders for manufactured durable goods have now risen for 5 of the last 6 months. In February, they increased $2.3 billion or 0.2% to $1,143.3 billion following a 0.3% increase in January. Transportation equipment has been up 2 of the last 3 months and led the increase this month. Transportation is up $1.4 billion or 0.25 to $773.2 billion.
Inventories
Inventories of manufactured durable goods have now risen for 19 of the last 20 months and gained $1.6 billion, or 0.4% to $410.6 billion in February. This follows a 0.4% increase in January. Transportation equipment, up 3 consecutive months, led the gain by $0.7 billion or 0.6% to $132.7 billion.
Capital Goods
Non-defense new orders for capital goods increased $3.3 billion, or 4.5% to $77.4 billion. Shipments gained $0.9 billion, or 1.2% to $75.3 billion. Unfilled orders rose $2.1 billion or 0.3% to $708.6 billion. Inventories gained $1.0 billion or 0.6% to $183.1 billion.
Defense new orders for capital goods increased $1.5 billion or 16.5% to $10.7 billion. Shipments decreased $0.4 billion or 3.6% to $11.1 billion. Unfilled orders decreased $0.4 billion or 0.3% to $140.6 billion. Inventories gained by less than $0.1 billion or 0.2% to $23.2 billion.
Revisions
The data for new orders in January was revised up slightly to $491.9 billion from $491.7 billion. Shipments were also revised up slightly to $499.2 billion from $498.8. Meanwhile, unfilled orders, at $1,141.0 billion, were revised down slightly from $1,141.2 billion. Total inventories were revised slightly higher to $672.6 billion from $672.4 billion in January.
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster answers questions at a White House press briefing. (Photo: AP)
President Donald Trump announced that Ambassador John Bolton will replace General H.R. McMaster as National Security Advisor. The expected move comes amid a White House shakeup meant to move the Trump Administration back toward structural realism and economic nationalism.
“I am pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job & will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9.”
I am pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job & will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9.
Worth noting, the National Security Council (NSC) under General McMaster was a constant source of leaking at the White House, including leaks meant to damage the commander-in-chief politically. Last week, a member of the NSC leaked a conversation President Trump had with Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which he congratulated him on his recent reelection.
The Washington Post ran with the story as if to show an overly friendly gesture to Mr. Putin, without mentioning that Barack Obama did the same in 2012. Mr. Obama also congratulated the then-newly-elected president of Iran and the radical Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The latter, which spawned the organization known today as al-Qaeda, was even invited to the White House.
Ambassador John Bolton addresses the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas, Nevada, in April 2017. (Photo: Reuters)
John R. Bolton served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) from August 2005 until December 2006. He was a recess appointee by President George W. Bush and resigned before Democrats were set to take control in January 2007. The newly-elected majority vowed to oppose his confirmation.
Mr. Bolton was no doubt considered a devout neoconservative at the advent of the Iraq War. But with the return of realism to the Republican Party in the era of President Trump, he has grown considerably closer to the structural realism school of international relations.
“He’s no neocon,” a source and close friend to Mr. Bolton told People’s Pundit Daily (PPD). “He’s America First and kick ass, too.”
Nevertheless, President Trump values differences of opinions in his White House just as he did in his private business. His style is simple: let them fight it out and make their case. If the decision is a close call, he’ll go with his gut instinct.
Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper are sworn in before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on May 8. (Photo: Reuters)
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper “provided inconsistent testimony” to Congress regarding his contacts with the media.
Put plainly, Mr. Clapper, a former Obama Administration official who now serves as an analyst at CNN, lied to congressional investigators about leaking to the media. Further, the committee found those leaks among others “damaged national security and potentially endangered lives.”
Representative Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the Chairman of the HPSCI, submitted the committee report for “an expedited declassification review” on Thursday.
“This report, based on 70-plus witness interviews and more than 300,000 documents collected, provides specific findings and recommendations to improve our election security before the mid-term elections,” Chairman Nunes said in a statement.
“The report, which will include minority views if the minority submits them, presents the comprehensive results of what the Committee has learned during its fourteen-month-long investigation, and will be useful in thwarting any attempts by Russia or other foreign powers to further meddle in U.S. elections.”
Chapter 5 of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report on the findings of the “Russia probe,” entitled “Intelligence Community Assessment Leaks.”
It reveals former Obama Administration officials leaked information that “correlate to specific language found in the Intelligence Community Assessment.” That assessment, which held the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta to help Donald Trump, was erroneously portrayed in the media as a consensus among “17 intelligence agencies.”
In truth, it was the assessment of three officials handpicked by none other than Mr. Clapper, himself.
“Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst, provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN,” the report states under “Finding #44.”
This would not be the first time Mr. Clapper lied to the U.S. Congress under oath.
He made an admittedly false statement to the U.S. Congress in March 2013, when he responded, “No, sir” and “not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans.
Roughly 3 months later, documents leaked by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden proved that answer untruthful. In reality, the NSA was collecting in bulk the domestic call records, along with various internet communications of U.S. citizens.
Mr. Clapper first hid behind national security with his explanation claiming a truthful answer couldn’t be given in public. But he later said during an interview on MSNBC that he viewed the question akin to, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
So, he gave members of the U.S. Congress the “least untruthful” answer.
Most importantly, the report concluded the “committee found no evidence of Trump’s pre-campaign business dealings would have formed collusion with Russia.” It further finds that then-candidate Trump’s insurgency against the establishment left him with slim pickings to choose from in the world of national security during the campaign.
“The opposition to Trump from members of the national security establishment left the Trump campaign with little selection of experts and to the hiring of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.”
As Peoples’ Pundit Daily previously reported, a bombshell memo authored largely by Chairman Nunes exposed how officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Justice Department (DOJ) used false information to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Team Trump via peripheral advisors Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopolous.
That false information came in the form of an unverified dossier put together by former MI6 British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele. The foreign national admitted and the committee confirmed that he almost exclusively used the Kremlin officials as his sources.
The two were used as an excuse to gather “incidental” intelligence on bigger players to include Mr. Trump, himself, before and after the election. The FISA court was not explicitly made aware that the dossier were political opposition research funded by the DNC and the campaign for Hillary Clinton.
The nonprofit Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging both the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose payments for the dossier.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows intelligence agencies to collect information on foreign targets abroad. However, as PPD also previously reported, it has been “routinely” abused and misused to spy on domestic targets, including President Trump, his associates and other U.S. citizens.
Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., sent a a criminal referral to Mr. Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray to investigate Mr. Steele, citing potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or making false statements to investigators particularly regarding the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.
Nathan Rogers works on the jet assembly line at Cessna, at their manufacturing plant in Wichita, Kansas March 12, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)
Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Index showed Tenth District manufacturing activity continued at a solid pace and optimism is high, despite tariff concerns. The month-over-month composite index was 17 in March, unchanged from February and up from 16 in January.
“Factory activity continued to grow steadily in March,” said Chad Wilkerson, vice president and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. “Firms continued to report high input and selling prices and many are concerned about higher steel and aluminum tariffs.”
Worth noting, the employment index ticked up even more from 23 to 26 and the supplier delivery time index soared from 16 to 30. These components are at their highest levels in the history of the Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Index.
While comments from the panel reveal concern over the newly imposed tariffs on aluminum and steel, firms are boosted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).
“Challenging year due to increasing material prices and resistance from customers when we pass those increases along,” a respondent said. “Not a year to be timid. The tax cuts were a boost to our plans to invest in new equipment as well as employee bonuses.”
The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City serves the Tenth Federal Reserve District, encompassing the western third of Missouri; all of Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Wyoming; and the northern half of New Mexico.
“Great start to the year with the feeling of a lot of confidence in our industry,” another respondent said. “Many opportunities for co-manufacturing are showing up like we have never seen before. Looking forward to a great year.”
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
