G20 Outlooks – Abundance Mindset ‘Build More Pies’ (Bessent) -vs- Scarcity Mindset ‘Divide Up Pie’ (Europe)

What Barbara Boyd describes in this video about the ideological differences in the G20 reminds me of the long battles around MAGAnomics.

One mindset is based on despair, the scarcity mentality, and says there is a limited about of economic pie and it must be divided by government to ensure equitable distribution (Europe/Obama).  The other mindset is based on faith, an abundance mentality, and says we should create, innovate, build and expand economic activity to create more pies (MAGA/Trump).

In this Wednesday update, Barbara Boyd previews the G20 meeting in Asheville, framing it as a clash between an agenda centered on physical economic growth—advanced by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—and what she calls the G20/EU’s long-running Malthusian, “green” framework that followed the 2008 financial collapse, bank bailouts, and a shift toward climate policies.

The episode contrasts Trump-era priorities—domestic manufacturing, supply-chain self-sufficiency, critical minerals, energy expansion, workforce upskilling, and new nuclear plans for shipping outlined by Energy Secretary Chris Wright—with European leaders’ efforts to build a “middle powers” bloc and “redirect” citizens’ savings into EU-directed investment. Boyd argues EU priorities include Ukraine war funding, the green transition, and open borders/free trade, and says the outcome of this fight will shape the future ahead of the midterms.

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 

Grand Jury Subpoenas James Comey Advisor Daniel Richman

Conservative Treehouse 

This is a new report but builds on prior activity.  Former FBI Director James Comey leaked his memos about President Trump and the FBI’s fraudulent “Crossfire Hurricane” operation to his friend Daniel Richman, with the intent of Richman leaking those memos to the media. However, when the issue was discovered James Comey claimed Daniel Richman was his lawyer in an obvious attempt to shield Richman from forced testimony about the events.

SEE Richman article from 2018 – SEE Richman article from 2017 – See Richman article from 2019 

NOVEMBER 2025 – Former U.S Attorney Lindsey Halligan then took up the case and began reinvestigating in 2025. That’s why Halligan was targeted by Lawfare operatives’ intent on her removal. However, prior to her removal Mrs Halligan smartly filed a court response outlining all of the background evidence against James Comey so that prosecution could take place with/without her in place.

FOX News is now reporting that a grand jury is approving a subpoena for Daniel Richman so they can hear directly about his involvement in the activity.  The events surrounding the leaking of the ‘Comey memos’ is central to the matter of the FBI targeting President Trump after he took office in 2017.  The memos were being leaked in order to get support for a Special Counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann.

[SOURCE]

Anticipating she might be removed, Halligan outlined the full extent of Comey’s action in a court filing. {SEE HERE}

In addition to refuting the effort by Comey’s lawyers to challenge her appointment [Response Here], Halligan provided evidence of James Comey’s extensive use of Daniel Richman to act as a cut out for leaks and communications with the media [Attachments HERE].

Beginning on January 2, 2015, James Comey hired Daniel Richman to be his conduit to the media for all things around the Clinton investigation.  Exhibit #3 highlights Richman emails to Office of Legal Counsel, Patrick Findlay, to begin the process of officially working for Comey as a special government employee. [Attachment #3 HERE].

There are multiple exhibits highlighting emails between James Comey (aka Reinhold Niebuhr7) and Daniel Richman [HERE-4 and HERE-5 and HERE-6 and HERE-7] proving the former FBI director did intentionally direct Daniel Richman to contact media persons on his behalf and leak investigative background information, or instruct them on information, James Comey provided. The evidence on this issue is overwhelming.

Daniel Richman, working directly on the instructions of James Comey, worked closely with New York Times journalist Mike Schmidt, husband of MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace, to publish material [ex. Exhibit #8].  Richman then coordinated the FBI director’s message with dozens of national journalists, writing the scripts for them to publish on behalf of James Comey [ex Exhibit #9].   Again, the evidence on this collaborative endeavor is overwhelming.

Interestingly, [Govt Exhibit #12] is the criminal complaint stemming from the FBI investigation which began on July 21, 2025.   The investigative summary notes the purposeful use of Room #9582 at FBI headquarters, intended to destroy classified evidence concealed in five burn bags.

[SOURCE Exhibit #12, page 2]

Back in 2018, Congressman Jim Jordan made mention of the issue where James Comey had a special employee on assignment ‘off-the-books’.  People started asking questions, and Fox News’ Catherine Herridge detailed how Daniel Richman held special access privileges to the FBI, as an outcome of former FBI Director James Comey authorizing his friend as a “Special Government Employee” or SGE.

2018 – The professor, Daniel Richman, confirmed the special status in response to an inquiry from Fox News, while referring other questions, including on the scope of his work, to the FBI.

“I did indeed have SGE status with the Bureau (for no pay),” Richman wrote in an email.

Richman emerged last year as the former FBI director’s contact for leaking memos documenting his private discussions with President Trump – memos that are now the subject of an inspector general review over the presence of classified material. Sources familiar with Richman’s status at the FBI told Fox News that he was assigned to “special projects” by Comey, and had a security clearance as well as badge access to the building. Richman’s status was the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding. (read more)

Daniel Richman has always been part of the Lawfare operation run by his close friend Benjamin Wittes, another of Comey’s tribe.  Remember the little cannon Benjamin Wittes would use during Andrew Weissmann’s Trump-Russia investigation?

(Wittes left, Richman right)

Supreme Court Rule 5-4 to Eliminate Lawsuit Against White House Ballroom – Chief Justice Roberts Joined the Minority

Somehow Chief Justice John Roberts found that a single person who walks past the White House every month and doesn’t like the proposed appearance of the ballroom has some standing to sue and block construction. Go figure. Roberts also decided that the Obamacare mandate wasn’t a tax.

Roberts joined with the minority DEI judges in his position [RULING HERE]. However, the majority decision was against the woman having standing to sue. Therefore, the lawsuit was dispatched and the building can continue.

SCOTUS BLOG – […] On Monday, a divided court granted the government’s request for a stay, permitting construction to move forward while the litigation continues in the lower court. The majority’s opinion focused primarily on its conclusion that the National Trust likely does not have standing to challenge the project. The trust had submitted a declaration from Alison Hoagland, a member who lives in Washington, D.C., and said that she visits the area where the White House is located approximately once per month. Hoagland, who has “expertise in historic architecture,” claimed that the project caused “‘injuries’ to her ‘aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests’ because she finds the ‘scale,’ ‘height,’ and ‘massing’ of the government’s design distasteful.” But those are not the kind of “concrete” and specific injuries required to bring a lawsuit, the majority explained.

The majority also concluded that the government would be permanently harmed if Leon’s order were allowed to go into effect – another key criterion in determining whether to grant emergency relief. Among other things, it noted, senior government officials “attest[] that constructing something approximating the height and mass of the intended above-ground ballroom is ‘crucial’ to the security of the below-ground military installation.”

In his six-page dissent, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, Roberts countered that “[a] historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys, just as,” based on prior court precedent, “an environmentalist can sustain a concrete, particularized aesthetic injury from the extinction of a particular animal or the transformation of a particular forest or river that he regularly enjoys.” Roberts ended the opinion by quoting Winston Churchill, who said that “[w]e shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” “All the more reason,” according to Roberts, “to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.” (source)

President Trump – “I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C. When completed in the Summer of 2028, the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex will be something that the entire Country is very proud of. The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule. The Ballroom is totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

President DONALD J. TRUMP

Canadian Govt Gaslighting Is Off the Charts

Conservative Treehouse 

CTH continues to get considerable questioning about how the U.S-Canada fracture will take place, what it means for the Canadian dollar (CAD) and when the issues can be expected to apex.  It appears that part of the reasoned disconnect people are struggling with is directly related to the messaging from the Canadian government in combination with the financial media.

In short, despite the increased trade friction, a decoupling of the U.S. economy from the Canadian economy just seems unfathomable to most observers. The main question we receive is ‘when will things happen‘?  Meaning when will financial markets react?  The most obvious answer to that question is, when the USA announces the termination of the USMCA (CUSMA) trilateral.

If you hold the opinion that all of these trade friction points will be resolved within the margins of the USMCA, then it is correct to predict that no significant material impact will be felt north of the border.  If, however, you hold the opinion that the USMCA will be terminated because the core of the issues between the two countries are irreconcilable, then the material impact will come as soon as that announcement is made.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, the only Canadian government official to attend President Trump’s inauguration, appears on Fox Business. Like all other Canadian officials, she cannot contemplate the elimination of CUSMA/NAFTA.  Such an outcome is simply beyond her comprehension. WATCH:

In previous interviews and broadcasts, Mrs Smith claimed if Canada was to introduce an export tax the USA would respond accordingly.  This is not accurate.  The U.S. has no mechanism to place a tax on exports.

Additionally, inside Canada the structure is provincial.  That means each province taxes each other province for goods and services.  In the USA we have state sales taxes, but those taxes are applied across all goods sold to/inside an individual state.  Ex. Florida does not tax Texas.  Florida has one sales tax for all goods regardless of their origin.

Chinese Car Company BYD Inquires to Purchase Stellantis Auto Plant in Canada

Conservative Treehouse 

For about a year CTH has predicted Chinese auto manufacturers BYD and GEELY would take over shuttered auto plants in Canada.  Specifically, six months ago, against the backdrop warning of Stellantis, Toyota and Honda telling the Canadian government that without the USMCA they would shift auto production to the USA, CTH predicted BYD and GEELY would make moves on those closed facilities.

The move by China is easy to predict.  Prime Minister Mark Carney has opened the door to Chinese EVs.  It would be in Beijing’s best interest to retool and take control of closed plants to begin mass production in North America.

Chinese EV manufacturing in Canada serves two purposes.

First, they would not be limited in production to the cars that remain in Canada as part of the agreement.  Factually, China would use their Canadian footprint as an export hub into Europe and save money on current distribution.   Remember, Europe is losing their auto manufacturing base to China and Germany is laying off 100,000+ auto workers.

Second, the appearance of Chinese auto manufacturing in North America would put pressure on the United States to permit their cheap EVs to enter the market.

Today Bloomberg is reporting exactly what we predicted.  Chinese automaker BYD (Build Your Dream) is asking local officials about the currently idled Stellantis auto plant.  Things are following a very predictable timeline.

BLOOMBERG – Chinese carmaker BYD Co. inquired about taking over an idled Stellantis NV plant in the Toronto suburbs, according to a local politician, signaling possible global interest in Canadian auto hubs in the midst of a trade battle with the US.

Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton, Ontario, said BYD approached him about six months ago to talk about making buses at the factory. Stellantis had been retooling the plant to manufacture the Jeep Compass, but the company halted that plan last year when the US adopted a policy of tariffs on foreign autos.

Brown said he also received inquiries from Leapmotor International, a joint venture between Zhejiang Leapmotor Technology Co. and Stellantis, as well as from an Italian automaker. Bloomberg News reported in April that Stellantis was discussing options for building electric vehicles in Canada with Leapmotor.

Most of the vehicles Canada produces are exported to the US, but the trade war and the lack of a new product earmarked for the 40-year-old factory have clouded the future for thousands of people who work there. Unifor, the union representing those workers, said this month that Stellantis is considering selling the plant. (read more)

I went to Russia in 2024, because what I was hearing in western media about the sanctions did not align with what I was seeing from reports inside Russia.

Before I went into Russia, I spent several weeks in Northern and Eastern Europe visiting various institutions, reading material and checking to see how systems in Europe were engaging with commerce given the Russian sanctions.  It wasn’t very exciting work, and sometimes I literally just sat in the lobbies of banks listening to conversations.

When I went into Russia (April, May, June and July ’24) I noticed many of the “Uber cars” were BYD brand, Chinese electric vehicles.  It made sense given two years of existing sanctions and few cars from Europe or America available except under costly brokerage fees for acquisition.

The Russians like the Geely brand better, but BYDs are much cheaper.  A brand new BYD costs around $5,000 to $10,000 USD, in some places even less.

Then later I noticed even more of these BYD cars in Europe.  I started to pay attention to them and saw them everywhere.

When I went back into Russia a year later in 2025, there was a very noticeable increase in BYD cars.  It was crazy, they were everywhere.

My travels also took me to southeast Asia and again those damned BYD’s were all over the place.  In Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, these BYD’s were everywhere, maybe even 30% of total vehicle traffic at times – most certainly well over 50% of all EVs – and there are digital billboards for “Build Your Dream” (BYD) all over the place throughout Asia.

Australia is stocked full of those things, and the middle east, yup, even there too.  It became increasingly weird to notice.  So many were visible I was wondering how the heck China can mass produce and ship this many cheap EVs so fast.

Then as serendipity would have it, I ran into a Chinese guy, professionally an actuary, in a hotel restaurant.  He explained to me that China produces the BYD not to make money from the automobile, but rather to sell the carbon credits the automobile generates within the auto industry.

The actual value to Beijing is in selling the carbon credit worthiness to various automakers who are fined or penalized by their government for producing gasoline powered vehicles.

BYD is, in essence, not a car per se’, but a mechanism to generate a carbon credit certificate that can be sold to other car companies. It’s the carbon credit certificate that generates the revenue, not the sale of the vehicle.  As my dinner guest explained, the auto insurance industry was having fits about this because the actuaries couldn’t accurately put a correct figure on the cost of the insurance warrantee within the industry (that’s another story).

The bottom line is that China is manufacturing a product to create a carbon credit certificate in response to the demand for carbon credits from all the world auto-makers.  Any nation that has a penalty or fine attached to their climate goals is a customer. Those are nations with fines or quotas associated with the production of gasoline powered engines if the auto company doesn’t hit the legislated target for sales of electric vehicles.

In essence, EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies buy Chinese car company carbon credits, to avoid the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN fines.  The Chinese then use the carbon credit revenue to subsidize even lower priced Chinese EVs to the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car markets, thereby undercutting the EU/AU/CA/RU/ASEAN car companies that also produce EVs.

Big Panda brilliantly exploits the ridiculous pontificating climate scam and has an interest in perpetuating -even emphasizing- the need for the EU/AU/RU/ASEAN countries to keep pushing their climate agenda.  China even goes so far as to fund alarmism research about climate change because they are making money selling carbon credit certificates on the back end of the scam to the western fear mongers.  This is friggin’ brilliant.

My dinner buddy was in the business of identifying the cost/benefit equation between the climate change fines and the prices Big Panda could charge for the carbon credit certificates.   If, as an example, Brussels dropped the quotas for EVs, China would need to lower the price for the carbon credit certificates.  So, Beijing wants Brussels to make sure they don’t drop the quotas.  See how that works?

The climate change alarmists are helping China’s economy by pushing ever escalating fear of climate change.  You just cannot make this stuff up.

What does the outcome look like?

Well, in this example we see thousands of unsold BYDs piling up in countries that emphasize climate regulations with no restrictions on the import of EVs (which most don’t even manufacture), which is almost every country.  Big Panda doesn’t care about the car itself; they care about generating the carbon credit certificate to sell in the various carbon exchanges.

Put this context to the recent announcement by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about his trade deal with China to accept 49,000 EVs this year.

Prime Minister Carney bragged about getting the Chinese to agree to only super low prices for the Canadian market.  Mark Carney was very proud of his accomplishment to get much lower priced vehicles for Canadian EV purchasers.   No doubt Big Panda left the room laughing as soon as Carney made his grand announcement.

1. China sells EV’s in Canada, creating credits available on the carbon exchange scheme. Europe et al will purchase the carbon credits because Bussels has fines against EU car companies.

2. With a foothold already established in Europe, China will then take the money generated by the carbon credit purchases and lower the prices of the Chinese EV cars sold in Canada.

It’s gets funnier.

3. Carney bragged about forcing China to only sell low price EV’s as part of the trade agreement. The low price of the EV’s in Canada will be subsidized by Europe. China doesn’t pay or lose a dime.

But wait….

4. Carney can’t do anything about the scheme he has just enmeshed Canada into, because Canada has a Carbon Credit exchange in law. 

Big Panda wins again.

[…] In a statement published Thursday, BYD said sales of its battery-powered cars rose nearly 28% to 2.26 million units.

Musk openly laughed at the mention of BYD while being interviewed on Bloomberg TV in October 2011. He said he did not see the company as a competitor to Tesla, adding: “I don’t think they have a great product.” Meanwhile, Tesla said Friday it delivered 1.64 million vehicles in 2025. [SOURCE]

Elon thinks BYD are building cars.  They aren’t.