Aug 10

Today’s News 10th August 2022

  • Sperry: Lies, Damned Lies, And The Jan. 6 Committee
    Sperry: Lies, Damned Lies, And The Jan. 6 Committee

    Authored by Paul Sperry via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    The Select Committee to Investigate Jan. 6 has adjourned for a well-deserved summer break. Misleading the public is exhausting work.

    Members of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol are seen during the fifth public hearing of the committee in Washington on June 23, 2022. (Jim Bourg/Reuters)

    A careful review of the official transcripts of its eight long hearings shows the committee repeatedly made connections that weren’t there, took events and quotes out of context, exaggerated the violence of the Capitol rioters, and omitted key exculpatory evidence otherwise absolving former President Donald Trump of guilt. While in some cases, it lied by omission, in others, it lied outright. It also made a number of unsubstantiated charges based on the secondhand accounts—hearsay testimony—of a young witness with serious credibility problems.

    These weren’t off-the-cuff remarks. Panelists didn’t misspeak. Their statements were tightly scripted and loaded into teleprompters, which they read verbatim.

    In other words, the committee deliberately chummed out disinformation to millions of viewers of not just cable TV, but also the Big Three TV networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—which agreed to preempt regular daytime and even primetime programming to air the Democratic-run hearings. And because Democrats refused to allow dissenting voices on the panel or any cross-examination of witnesses, viewers had no reference points to understand how they, along with the two Trump-hating Republicans they allowed on the committee, shaded the truth.

    This charade of an honest investigation appears to have had the desired effect. Polls show the Jan. 6 hearings hurt Trump, who plans to run again, with independents. Unaffiliated voters have grown more likely to blame Trump for the Capitol riot and to show support for Democrats in the midterms, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey.

    With the November elections fast approaching, Democrats plan to hold another round of hearings next month, hoping voters pay even closer attention. With that in mind, it’s important to examine the false claims and distortions they no doubt will repeat. They are legion. Here’s the fact-checking the viewing public—and the electorate—thus far has been denied.

    CLAIM: While committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) excoriated Trump for not calling off the Capitol rioters earlier, he claimed they were “savagely beating and killing law enforcement officers,” according to the transcript of his remarks from the prime-time July 21 hearing, carried live by the networks.

    FACT: No police officer was killed during the riot.

    CLAIM: During the same hearing, committee member Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) faulted Trump for his “glaring silence” about the “tragic death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who succumbed to his injuries” suffered during the riot.

    FACT: The D.C. medical examiner ruled Sicknick died of “natural causes,” not injuries, well after the riot. Luria seemed to perpetuate false rumors started by The New York Times that Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, a fable debunked by both the coroner and the Sicknick family.

    CLAIM: Thompson asserted Trump “summoned” a mob that was “heavily armed and angry.”

    FACT: Not a single gun was recovered in the riot. For that matter, the only gun used during the four-hour melee was fired by a Capitol police officer, who killed an unarmed rioter, Ashli Babbitt—whose name was never mentioned in any of the hearings. Despite airing endless footage of rioters breaching the Capitol and fighting police, the committee omitted footage of USCP Lt. Michael Byrd shooting Babbitt from behind a doorway without warning, which was the most violent incident that occurred that day.

    CLAIM: The committee put a former far-right extremist on as a witness to testify that rioters built “a gallows” to allegedly hang then-Vice President Mike Pence.

    FACT:  The witness, Jason Van Tatenhove, wasn’t at the Capitol that day. He had no insider knowledge about the purpose of the flimsy wooden structure erected across from the Capitol. In any case, it was a mock gallows, not a functional one. Even the New York Times recently acknowledged it “was too small to be used.”

    CLAIM: Committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) proclaimed in the hearing curtain-raiser—also held in primetime and broadcast live by all three networks—that the panel had evidence Trump said Pence “deserves” to be hanged, a chilling claim if true. “Aware of the rioters’ chants to hang Mike Pence,” she asserted, “the president responded with this sentiment: ‘Maybe our supporters have the right idea,’ Mike Pence quote ‘deserves it.’”

    FACT: Her “evidence” turned out to be a secondhand retelling by witness Cassidy Hutchinson, a White House assistant fresh out of college who overheard a paraphrasing of what Trump may have thought about the chants, not a direct Trump quote as Cheney implied. Hutchinson later testified Trump said, “something to the effect of,” Pence “deserves it.”

    CLAIM: Hutchinson also swore she wrote a note dictated by then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows suggesting a more forceful White House response to the riot.

    FACT: Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann insisted that he actually wrote the note, not Hutchinson, adding a serious chink in her credibility as the committee’s star witness. “The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” said a spokesperson for Herschmann, who noted that Herschmann told the committee that in his deposition. The panel never informed the public that Hutchinson’s claim was disputed.

    CLAIM: Based on Hutchinson’s testimony, the committee also claimed that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone said Trump’s plan to march to the Capitol would cause Trump officials to be “charged with every crime imaginable.”

    FACT: Cipollone didn’t corroborate the claim in his sworn deposition before the committee.

    CLAIM: The committee relied on another second-hand account by Hutchinson to broadcast to the world the alleged bombshell that Trump tried to physically commandeer his Secret Service limo to the Capitol. “When the president got in ‘The Beast’ … he thought they were going up to the Capitol,” Hutchinson testified, relaying what she’d heard from a security official who had heard it from another source. But when Trump was told he had to go back to the White House, she continued, Trump got “irate” and said “something to the effect of ‘I’m the [expletive] president, take me to the Capitol now,’” and proceeded to “grab at the steering wheel.” She claimed he even “lunged” at a Secret Service agent inside the vehicle.

    FACT: Trump rode in a different motorcade vehicle than “The Beast” that day (an SUV, not the famous Cadillac limo), and several Secret Service agents have denied any physical altercation took place, casting further doubt on Hutchinson’s reliability as a key witness for the panel (records show she kept working for Trump in his post-presidential office for nine weeks after he left the White House, even though she claimed to be “disgusted” by what happened on Jan. 6, which she said was based on “a lie” peddled by Trump that the election was stolen). After pushback from the Secret Service, the committee leaked to CNN that a D.C. police officer “has corroborated” Hutchinson’s testimony. But when DCPD Sgt. Mark Robinson testified in the final hearing, he failed to corroborate her tale of Trump grabbing the steering wheel or lunging at a member of his security detail. “The only description I received was that the president was upset and was adamant about going to the Capitol and there was a heated discussion about that,” Robinson said.

    CLAIM: Throughout the hearings, the committee cited Trump’s speech at the Ellipse as the spark that ignited the riot. “There can be no doubt that [Trump] commanded a mob, a mob he knew was heavily armed, violent, and angry, to march on the Capitol to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power,” Thompson said in the last hearing. Emphasized Luria: “Donald Trump summoned a violent mob and promised to lead that mob to the Capitol.”

    FACT: While Trump did urge supporters to “walk” with him down to the Capitol after the rally, he specifically asked them to do so “peacefully.” The committee left that key exculpatory phrase out of the hearings. It never aired the footage or transcript of him saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” If it had, it would have ruined the carefully crafted narrative that Trump incited violence. The omission was a critical deception.

    CLAIM: In the opening hearing, Cheney read out loud a tweet Trump sent during the riot in which he said, “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” She claimed Trump was justifying more violence.

    FACT: But Cheney cut off the next line where Trump called for “peace” and told supporters to leave the Capitol. “Go home with love & in peace,” the rest of the tweet said. Cheney blinded millions of viewers watching to the full picture.

    CLAIM: Cheney, who faces a Trump-endorsed challenger in her Aug. 16 primary race, kicked off the hearing with a bold charge: “President Trump summoned a violent mob and directed them illegally to march on the United States Capitol.” She vowed to show “evidence” to back it up. Thompson said they would prove that Trump was “at the center” of a “seditious conspiracy.”

    FACT: Not only did they fail to deliver any hard evidence that Trump ordered rioters to attack the Capitol as part of a conspiracy, they also began to contradict themselves as the hearings progressed. Thompson later said Trump merely “spurred” the mob and “energized” extremists, which is quite different from directing them. In an unintended revelation, one of their witnesses presented a timeline that suggested the instigators of the breaches of the Capitol had already headed to the Capitol before Trump spoke at the Ellipse. Documentarian Nick Quested testified the Proud Boys marched to the Capitol at 10:30 a.m., which meant Trump couldn’t possibly have incited them. “I was confused to a certain extent why we were walking away from the President’s speech,” said Quested, who was embedded with the Proud Boys.

    Despite taking more than 1,000 depositions and subpoenaing more than 140,000 documents, the committee never found a smoking gun proving Trump was involved in a top-down organization of the riot. There was no coordination or conspiracy, which tracks with what the Biden Justice Department has found. Of the 874 criminal cases prosecutors have brought against Trump supporters at the Jan. 6 riot, none of them names Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator.

    But don’t take my word for it.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 23:25

  • Defense Experts Game Out US-China War Over Taiwan; Dalio Warns Escalations 'Very Dangerous'
    Defense Experts Game Out US-China War Over Taiwan; Dalio Warns Escalations ‘Very Dangerous’

    A group of American defense experts operating out of a 5th floor suite in Washington DC have been mapping out a hypothetical war between the United States and China over Taiwan.

    “The results are showing that under most — though not all — scenarios, Taiwan can repel an invasion,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which has been simulating various war scenarios. “However, the cost will be very high to the Taiwanese infrastructure and economy and to US forces in the Pacific.“

    In sessions that will run through September, retired US generals and Navy officers and former Pentagon officials hunch like chess players over tabletops along with analysts from the CSIS think tank. They move forces depicted as blue and red boxes and small wooden squares over maps of the Western Pacific and Taiwan. The results will be released to the public in December. –Bloomberg

    The base assumption is that China invades Taiwan to force unification, which the US responds to with its military. Another assumption (that’s ‘far from certain’) is that Japan would grant ‘expanded rights’ to use US bases on its territory – but wouldn’t intervene directly unless Japanese land is attacked.

    Nuclear weapons are not part of the scenarios, and the weapons used in the simulation are the most likely to be deployed based on current capabilities of the nations involved.

    News of the war game simulations come as China began test-firing missiles in recent days following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) visit to Taiwan.So far, 18 of 22 rounds of the simulation to date have resulted in Chinese missiles sinking a large part of the US and Japanese surface fleet, and would destroy “hundreds of aircraft on the ground,” according to Cancian, a former White House defense budget analyst and retired US Marine.

    “However, allied air and naval counterattacks hammer the exposed Chinese amphibious and surface fleet, eventually sinking about 150 ships,” he added.

    “The reason for the high US losses is that the United States cannot conduct a systematic campaign to take down Chinese defenses before moving in close,” Cancian continued. “The United States must send forces to attack the Chinese fleet, especially the amphibious ships, before establishing air or maritime superiority.”

    “To get a sense of the scale of the losses, in our last game iteration, the United States lost over 900 fighter/attack aircraft in a four-week conflict. That’s about half the Navy and Air Force inventory.“

    According to the simulations, the Chinese missile force “is devastating while the inventory lasts,” which makes US subs and long-range-capable bombers “particularly important.” Also key, is Taiwan’s defense capabilities, because its forces would be primarily responsible for countering Chinese landings from the South.

    “The success or failure of the ground war depends entirely on the Taiwanese forces,” said Cancian. “In all game iterations so far, the Chinese could establish a beachhead but in most circumstances cannot expand it. The attrition of their amphibious fleet limits the forces they can deploy and sustain. In a few instances, the Chinese were able to hold part of the island but not conquer the entire island.”

    “For the Taiwanese, anti-ship missiles are important, surface ships and aircraft less so,” because surface ships “have a hard time surviving as long as the Chinese have long-range missiles available.”

    There have been no estimates so far on lives lost, or the sweeping economic impact of such a conflict between the US and China.

    As Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio notes, “The US-China Tit-For-Tat Escalations Are Very Dangerous.”

    Unfortunately, what is happening now between the US and China over Taiwan is following the classic path to war laid out in my book “Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order.” If events continue to follow this path, this conflict will have a much larger global impact than the Russia-Ukraine war because it is between the world’s leading superpowers that are economically much larger and much more intertwined.  

    For reasons previously explained, the Russia-Ukraine war is minor by comparison, though the two conflicts are related and the Russia-Ukraine war, like all wars, is having terrible consequences. For example, consider that China’s share of world trade is over seven times larger than Russia’s [1] and constitutes about 19% of all American manufactured goods imports. [2] Imagine if importing goods from China and doing business with China became the same as they are with Russia now. Imagine what the supply chain and economic impacts on the world would be. Imagine what sanctions on China would be like for the world. Supply chains would collapse, economic activity would dive, and inflation would soar. And that’s just what would happen to economies due to economic warfare which would pale in comparison to the impact that military warfare, which we are obviously dangerously close to, would have.

    For reasons explained in my book, the situation that now exists between the United States and China is very similar to that which existed between powers immediately prior to World Wars I and II and many other immediate prewar periods. The chart below shows my US-China conflict gauge since 2000. As you can see, the readings for conflict between the US and China are the highest ever.

    This index is composed of many indicators such as changes in military spending, personnel, and deployment; sentiment of each country’s people about the other country; media attention given to the conflict, etc. The combination of military spending and attitudes toward each rival country has been particularly indicative. The chart below shows the shares of global military spending for the US and China which significantly understates China’s military spending because much government spending that supports the military is not included as direct military spending. Also, American military spending covers the world while Chinese military spending is more focused in the region. Knowledgeable parties tell me that China has significant military superiority around Taiwan.

    The chart below plots recent Gallop poll data and shows that 80% of Americans now have an unfavorable view of China—which is now on par with how Americans view Russia (and is up meaningfully over the past few years).  

    To put the existing level of conflict between China and the US in perspective, the table below compares the current US-China conflict gauge reading to past readings of other great conflicts. As shown, the current reading for the US and China is nearly 1.2 standard deviations above the average, which is a reading in the high end of the range of major conflicts. While this conveys a high level and risk of conflict, it should not be misinterpreted to mean that a worsening is to come. Sometimes, these moments of heightened conflict are followed by a stepping back from war. For example, the period leading into the Cuban Missile Crisis had a relatively high reading of 0.9, but wise heads prevailed, so a potential disaster was avoided.

    There are many more measures that convey the changing picture that are explained in my book which I don’t have the space to show you here, but will continue to plot along with the historical analogies I outlined in the book.   I will use them to paint as accurate a picture as I can about what’s happening and put it into an historical context. The dot plot will speak for itself as to which path we are on.

    As for what’s now happening, the Chinese are responding to Nancy Pelosi’s visit by cutting off most relations and demonstrating that they can militarily control the area around Taiwan, which implies that China could shut Taiwan off from the rest of the world. Imagine that and its implications, e.g., imagine if semiconductor chips couldn’t get out of Taiwan. China is also displaying its military power and it is crossing previously uncrossed lines of demarcation, thus closing in on Taiwan. [7]

    Pelosi’s visit was perceived by China as a move in favor of Taiwan’s independence rather than toward one China with Taiwan part of China, and it is essentially challenging the US to stop it from doing what it is doing. The question is whether the US will respond with another escalation that will prompt another Chinese response, in the classic tit-for-tat acceleration into war, or if the sides will step back.

    To gain a picture of the past and the forces that are driving the evolution of the US and China toward war (i.e. the Big Cycle) I suggest that you review Chapter 13 “US-China Relations and Wars.” I suggest that you pay particular attention to my explanation of previous Taiwan Straits crises and why I said I would worry if we had a “Fourth Taiwan Crisis” which is the crisis that we are now having. To understand what is happening you must understand these things.  

    As I summarized on page 455 of that Chapter in the section “The Risk of Unnecessary War:” Stupid wars often happen as a result of a tit-for-tat escalation process in which responding to even small actions of an adversary is more important than being perceived as weak, especially when those on both sides don’t really understand the motivations of those on the other side. History shows us that this is especially a problem for declining empires, which tend to fight more than is logical because any retreat is seen as a defeat. Take the issue of Taiwan. Even though the US fighting to defend Taiwan would seem to be illogical, not fighting a Chinese attack on Taiwan might be perceived as being a big loss of stature and power over other countries that won’t support the US if it doesn’t fight and win for its allies. Additionally, such defeats can make leaders look weak to their own people, which can cost them the political support they need to remain in power. And, of course, miscalculations due to misunderstandings when conflicts are transpiring quickly are dangerous. All these dynamics create strong pulls toward wars accelerating even though such mutually destructive wars are so much worse than cooperating and competing in more peaceful ways. There is also risk of untruthful, emotional rhetoric taking hold in both the US and China, creating an atmosphere for escalation.

    While the power of the forces behind the Big Cycle explained in “Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order” can be overwhelming, people still have choices that will affect the outcomes. This conflict is still a low-grade military conflict (which I call a Category 2 military conflict) because 1) it has not yet produced an exchange of bloodshed of people from the two major sides i.e., Chinese and/or Americans and 2) it is not taking place on either country’s homeland (though the Chinese would say Taiwan is part of their homeland even though it’s not part of mainland China). If either of these were to change, that would be the next big step up toward unimaginable all-out war which I still consider improbable.

    A good thing is that sensible people on both sides are scared of war even though they don’t want to look like they are. A bad thing is that some people on both sides want to intensify the fight because to not do so in the face of the provocation wound be perceived as a sign of weakness. That dynamic of upping the ante to avoid looking like one is backing down has throughout history been shown to be a very dangerous dynamic. We have seen many historic cases which have led to terrible wars because neither side wanted to back down and only few in which sensible people stepped back from the brink when faced with the prospect of unacceptable destruction. 

    My hope is that China’s escalation will not lead to the next US escalation which will lead to the next Chinese escalation which, despite the strong desire of sensible people on both sides to avoid war, would lead to a war. But hope is not a strategy, so I will try to be as realistic as possible, navigate accordingly, and communicate well with you.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 23:05

  • Couple Leave City, Transition To Homestead Life In The Mountains
    Couple Leave City, Transition To Homestead Life In The Mountains

    Authored by Louise Chambers via The Epoch Times,

    After receiving a cancer diagnosis, a couple from a city in Southern California gained a new perspective on life and began to question their lifestyle. They then made the huge decision to move to the mountains of North Carolina for a more intentional life. Six years on, they are growing their own food, homeschooling their daughter, and living their dream life.

    (Courtesy of Jason Contreras)

    Jason and Lorraine Contreras, and their daughter, Penelope, currently have a 14-acre homestead in western North Carolina. They have learned to grow the majority of their own food, raise their own meat, improve the land and soil they live on, and thrive without electronic distractions.

    Transition to Homesteading Lifestyle

    “Twelve years ago I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” Jason told The Epoch Times. “After chemotherapy, losing my hair, and a whole year of feeling completely sick from all the treatments, my wife and I began to question everything, from the food we brought into our home and put into our bodies to the products we used on our skin.”

    During this time, Lorraine, who worked in the fashion industry, loved the idea of climbing the corporate ladder and was driven by ambition.

    “I loved clothes and they defined me,” she said.

    However, after Jason’s cancer diagnosis and visiting doctors for various appointments, she realized a few things. She found she wanted to be with Jason at every appointment as well as when he was home sleeping off nausea from chemotherapy. She also wanted to cook him the most nourishing meals, yet had no idea where to begin. She also thought of having children after all, but questioned whether it was too late.

    “I looked at our life and we were so far from that,” she said.

    She felt as helpless as Jason in the face of his cancer diagnosis, so the couple took back control where they could—in their choices of what to eat, how to work, where to live, and how to spend their leisure time.

    They first made a small garden, tuned out the noise of the city by getting rid of their TV, started cooking meals from scratch, and daydreamed of leaving the California city life behind to own a bigger piece of land. One day, Jason quit his office job of 16 years, and the couple started to make their dream a reality.

    “No more days spent sitting under artificial lights and hunched over a computer,” he reflected; “I was free to dig my hands in the soil and get dirty!

    “Slowly but surely, we made the transition into this homesteading lifestyle.”

    In 2016, the couple sold the majority of their belongings and left California when Penelope was just 4 years old. In North Carolina, they had no friends or family nearby. Unaware of whether it would all work out, their only plan was to “figure it out.”

    According to Jason, their only goal at that time was, “to grow food, build a homestead together as a family, and to never go back to an office job.”

    They initially started out on a 1.5-acre plot. Jason created a YouTube channel, SowTheLand, to chronicle the family’s journey as novice homesteaders.

    A 14-Acre Plot

    After almost six years at their first homestead, and many lessons learned, the family had the skills and confidence to graduate to a much larger plot. They now have a 14-acre plot and share the land with two steers, a pair of breeding kunekune pigs, meat chickens, egg-laying chickens, two geese, and eight turkeys.

    “We found an amazing fixer-upper horse property,” said Jason. “The pastures have been over-grazed and soil is beaten down over the years from too many horses; some run-down barns need a lot of attention.

    “We grow most of our own food. We would love to get to a point where we grow almost all of it. We have a small community of like-minded farmers around us where we can barter for things that we cannot produce on our own.

    “Our goal is to have a fruit orchard; we have started one, but we need to build a fence to keep the deer out and continue planting.”

    In the new homestead, the family have also gained access to a creek and a private well, and masses of space to expand their gardens and animal husbandry. They plan on turning the old stables into a barn for hosting educational workshops, to teach others how to plant and harvest farm-to-table food, and raise and butcher animals.

    “We are absolutely thrilled to have this old farm,” said Jason, “and we are already hard at work, rolling up our sleeves, turning it into a working homestead and, day by day, healing the soil.

    “I guess that’s why we chose the name ‘Sow The Land; we are restoring the land, making it better than we found it, and growing the healthiest food from it.”

    Jason, who has been in remission since completing six months of chemotherapy is tasked with continual building, gardening projects, animal husbandry, troubleshooting on the homestead, and creating social media content for SowTheLand, including filming and editing their videos for the channel.

    He said that he feels more active and is in better shape today than ever before.

    Another major change that came with homesteading was the decision to homeschool Penelope. Luckily, Jason and Lorraine have the support of their local community, which comprises other homesteading families and homeschooled children.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 22:45

  • Something Just Doesn’t Add Up In Chinese Trade Data
    Something Just Doesn’t Add Up In Chinese Trade Data

    By Ye Xie, Bloomberg markets live commentator and reporter

    An unusual discrepancy has showed up in two sets of trade data in China. Depending on which official sources you use, China’s trade surplus, could either be overstated or under-reported by a staggering $166 billion over the past year.

    China watchers cannot fully explain the mystery. It’s as if Chinese residents bought a lot of stuff overseas, and instead of shipping the items home, they were kept abroad for some reason.  

    China’s exports have been surprisingly resilient, despite a slowing global economy and Covid disruptions. On Monday, General Administration of Customs data showed China’s exports increased 18% in July from a year earlier. In contrast, imports grew only 2.3%, reflecting weak domestic demand.

    The result is China’s trade surplus keeps swelling, which has underpinned the yuan by offsetting capital outflows. The surplus over the past year amounted to a record $864 billion, more than double the level at the end of 2019.

    But when comparing the Customs data with that from the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), a different picture emerges. The SAFE data shows the surplus is growing at a much slower pace — about 20% less than the customs figure. 

    The two data sets used to track each other closely. SAFE typically reports fewer imports, thus a higher surplus, because it excludes costs, insurance and freight from the value of goods imported, in line with the international standard practice, Adam Wolfe, an economist at Absolute Strategy Research, noted.

    The other adjustments that SAFE does include:

    • It only records transactions that involve a change of ownership;
    • It adjusts for returned items;
    • It adds goods bought and resold abroad that don’t cross China’s border, but result in income for a Chinese entity — a practice known  as “merchanting.”

    The relationship between the two data sets has flipped since 2021, as SAFE reported higher imports, resulting in a smaller surplus than the Customs data.

    It’s particularly odd because it happened at a time when shipping costs skyrocketed. When SAFE removes freight and insurance costs, it would have resulted in even lower, not higher, imports.

    Taken at face value, the discrepancy suggests that somebody in China “bought” lots of goods from abroad, but they have never arrived in China. These transactions would be recorded by SAFE as imports, but not at the Customs office.

    Craig Botham at Pantheon Macroeconomics, suspects that Covid-19 may be playing a role here. Foreign firms unable to manufacture in factories elsewhere during the pandemic might have transferred materials to China for assembly, a transaction excluded by SAFE.

    Could Chinese buyers overstate their foreign purchases to SAFE, which regulates the capital account, so they can move money out of the country? The cross-border transactions show there was widespread overpaying for imports in 2014-2015, during a period of intense capital flight, but not at the moment, Wolfe pointed out.

    Source: Absolute Strategy Research

    The bottom line is that there aren’t many good explanations. As Alex Etra, a senior strategist at Exante Data, said, there’s “no smoking gun” to suggest something fishy is going on.

    It’s another mysterious puzzle waiting to be solved.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 22:28

  • Elon Musk Quietly Dumps A Massive $6.9 Billion In Tesla Shares
    Elon Musk Quietly Dumps A Massive $6.9 Billion In Tesla Shares

    Remember way back in April 2013 when Elon Musk vowed at the Tesla annual shareholders meeting that “just as my money was the first in, it will be the last out.” No? Good, because fast forwarding to Tuesday night, we learned that Musk just took 6.9 billion steps to be among the first to get the hell out of Dodge.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to four Form 4 filings filed late on Tuesday night, Elon Musk sold a total of 7.92 billion (or $6.9 billion) of shares in Tesla, the first time he has sold stock in the carmaker since April, when he was allegedly selling TSLA shares to help him “fund” the Twitter acquisition… for which he dropped his bid shortly after, almost as if the TWTR deal was just a pretext.

     According to the new filings, Musk dumped the shares on Aug. 5, the day when TSLA stocks tumbled some 8%.

    The sale took place shortly after Musk’s latest taunt to shorts, who it appears were right – judging by Musk’s own sale – but were squeezed nonetheless.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    With the latest sale, Musk has now sold around $32 billion worth of TSLA stock in the past 10 months.  

    Tesla’s stock slumped late last year as Musk offloaded more than $16 billion worth of shares, his first sales in more than five years. The disposals started in November after Musk polled Twitter users on whether he should trim his stake.

    The shares have risen about 35% from its recent lows in May. Some have noted how every time Musk dumps a boatload of stock, an unexplained gamma squeeze kicks in just before the sale, affording Musk a far higher sale price.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It is surely also a coincidence, that just as Musk was about to dump his shares, a massive burst of retail buying emerged in recent weeks, which it is safe to say, spilled over into meme stonks and forced the latest WallStreetBets short squeeze. As a reminder, last Wednesday we wrote that “Explosion In Retail Buying Revealed As Source Of Latest Tesla Stock Surge.” Perhaps some regulator will finally look into this.

    Of course, there is a less sinister explanation: Musk and Twitter have reached a settlement agreement, and Musk was quietly prefunding the balance of his purchase commitments, which means that Twitter employees are about to have a very unpleasant night. Then again, if not one can add this latest Tesla mega-dump to the long list of bizarre events Musk will have to explain in court in a few months…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 22:11

  • Google Search Hit With Outage On Monday, Hours After Iowa Campus Electrical Incident
    Google Search Hit With Outage On Monday, Hours After Iowa Campus Electrical Incident

    Tens of thousands of users were affected by a Google search outage that struck on Monday this week. 

    At about 9PM Eastern Time, reports started hitting DownDetector that the site had stopped working for some users. In addition to the U.S., problems were also recorded in Taiwan and Japan, Bloomberg wrote in a follow up report.

    More than 40,000 reports of service interruption came through on DownDetector, the report says. 

    It is also worth noting is that there were scattered reports of an “electrical incident” at a Google facility in Iowa Monday. Three people reportedly went to the hospital as a result of the incident, the report says. It isn’t clear whether the two incidents are related.

    Three electricians were critically injured, according to SF Gate:

    Three electricians were critically injured and transported to a local hospital after an “electrical incident” at a Google data center in Council Bluffs, Iowa, according to the Council Bluffs Police Department and Google.

    The incident occurred at 11:59 a.m. local time on Monday, the Council Bluffs Police Department told SFGATE. Three electricians were working on a substation close to the data center buildings when an arc flash (an electric explosion) occurred, causing significant burns to all three electricians.

    The outage was almost 10 hours later, so it is difficult to draw a straight line between the two incidents. 

    Google said on Monday: “We are aware of an electrical incident that took place today at Google’s data center in Council Bluffs, Iowa, injuring three people onsite who are now being treated. The health and safety of all workers is our absolute top priority, and we are working closely with partners and local authorities to thoroughly investigate the situation and provide assistance as needed.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 22:05

  • Previewing The "Historic" July CPI Report, And Why A Miss Will Make Powell's Life Extremely Hard
    Previewing The “Historic” July CPI Report, And Why A Miss Will Make Powell’s Life Extremely Hard

    As Bloomberg’s Sebastian Boyd writes, it’s hard to overstate the importance of Wednesday’s US inflation report to a market that’s split between two different views of the economy, and the Fed’s plans for dealing with it.

    The report is critical because – among other things – two weeks ago, at his July 27 press conference, Powell said the Fed would slow the pace of hikes at some point… but he also made clear that the central bank thinks the labor market remains strong and that is offsetting the slowdown in demand. Friday’s nonfarms payrolls data bore that out in a stunning way, with the US economy creating far more jobs than any of the 71 economists in Bloomberg’s survey expected (granted, the Household survey painted an entirely different picture but we’ll cross that bridge in time). For all intents and purposes, the market saw the number as super hawkish, and while Fed funds were pricing in a 36% chance of a 75-bp September hike before payrolls, they’re now looking at a 74% probability.

    There were more pre-CPI signals in the bond market on Tuesday, when the stellar three-year Treasury bond auction proved that if there are any jitters about another big upside surprise, the bond market doesn’t see it. As Bloomberg’s Alyce Andres pointed out, the short end is acutely sensitive to expectations for both rates and inflation, so were traders worried about a surprise on Wednesday, the sale could have struggled. In the event, the auction went fine, and some traders were seen setting themselves up for a downside inflation surprise. Finally, as we noted earlier, the curve bear flattened even more – as it has been doing since the nonfarm payrolls data on Friday – and the 2s10s curve is set a new multi-decade low. That suggests that investors are bracing for more hawkishness from the Fed, as inflation remains stubborn and the labor-market tight, “and that the the market thinks the space for then avoiding a recession is getting narrower and narrower.”

    So what does the market expect?

    Consensus expects that headline CPI will rise just 0.2% in July, far below the previous month’s 1.3% increase, largely on the back of a sharp drop in energy prices. Core CPI is expected to rise by a brisker 0.5%, still down from last month’s 0.7%.

    The YoY headline is expected to print 8.7%, also down from the 9.1% last month, while Core CPI will rise 6.1% compared to a year ago, an increase vs the 5.9% Y/Y rise in June. Goldman economists are looking for a slightly higher headline YoY CPI of +8.83% and an in-line Core print of +6.09% (vs +6.1% consensus and +5.9% prior). On a monthly basis, Goldman expects a 0.48% increase in July core CPI, a hair below consensus expectations for a 0.5%. The bank also forecasts a 0.24% increase in headline CPI in July, a bit above consensus expectations for a 0.2% increase (and as noted above, corresponding to a 0.3% decline in the year-over-year rate to 8.83%).

    In its CPI preview note (available to pro subs along with a bunch of other pre-CPI reports) Goldman highlights three component-level trends for the July report.

    • First, the bank expects shelter inflation to remain elevated as the official shelter index continues to catch up to the price levels implied by alternative web-based measures of rent inflation (something we were warning about over a year ago).
      • Specifically, Goldman expects OER to increase by 0.6%, as the recent price increases for natural gas and other utilities which the BLS imputes and removes from OER likely lead it to increase by less than rent in July. Going forward, shelter inflation is expected to slow to a 0.4-0.5% monthly pace by year-end and peak at around 7% year-over-year later this year.

    • Second, Goldman expects the energy component of the CPI to decline by 3.2%, reflecting a sharp drop in gasoline prices in July.
      • Futures prices point to further declines ahead, suggesting that headline inflation will likely continue to moderate in the near term.
    • Third, the decline in fuel prices has likely contributed to lower airfares, and the bank expects the airfares component to decline by 7% in this week’s report.

    Elsewhere in the report, Goldman expects continued increases in auto prices (new +1.0%, used +0.5%, parts +0.8%). Additionally, retailers have noted that they anticipate cutting prices in coming months in order to reduce inventory stocks from elevated levels, and apparel prices are expected to shrink by 0.8%.

    Looking ahead, Goldman expect monthly core CPI inflation to remain in the 0.4-0.5% range for the next couple months before edging down to 0.3-0.4% by December 2022. The bank forecasts year-over-year core CPI inflation of 6.1% in December 2022, 2.7% in December 2023, and 2.8% in December 2024, with the bank’s forecast reflecting a negative swing in health insurance prices and a larger slowdown in goods than in services inflation next year.

    That said, even assuming sequential inflation growth slows to a trickle, the chart below from BofA shows how long it will take for inflation to normalize on an annual basis.

    In terms of the market reaction, Goldman’s John Flood writes today that “a softer than expected reading (anything better than prior of 9.1%) likely “stops in” more buyers. I think the print will have to be quite HOT (headline well above prior reading of 9.1%) to apply any real pressure to the tape, because sellers are hard to come by. I think this dynamic essentially rings true for remainder of August and then we can reevaluate post labor day. As painful as it is any headline reading that falls btwn soft and very hot (really anything lower than 9.5%?) keeps current trend of choppy and higher going (as corporates and quants continue to methodically buy).“

    In other words, while a CPI miss is likely – especially at the headline level – and it will push risk assets even higher, this is the worst possible outcome for the Fed which will be left with only red-hot jobs as the only “real time data” preventing it from pivoting, and why the next time we get a big NFP miss, stocks will hit escape velocity.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 21:49

  • The Chickens Of 'Woke' Are Coming Home To Roost On Business Heads
    The Chickens Of ‘Woke’ Are Coming Home To Roost On Business Heads

    Authored by Scott Shepard via RealClearMarkets.com,

    The chickens of wokeness are coming home to roost on the heads of the business leaders who have done so much to unleash this plague upon us.

    There’s a better, and less cliché-ridden, way to frame that…

    Have you seen A Man For All Seasons? If you haven’t, you should. If you have, you’ll remember one of the single greatest scenes in all of film. Sir Thomas More – the one Henry VIII had beheaded because he wouldn’t agree that Henry could head an independent English church – is visited in his home by Richard Rich, who asks him for a job. More roundly refuses, after which Rich slinks away, having made it clear to all that he intends to get revenge on More for this rejection. More’s family can’t believe that he had allowed Rich to leave. They break into horrified cries, demanding that More, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, arrest Rich. More refuses, explaining that he can’t arrest even the devil until he’s broken the law.

    His son-in-law, William Roper, then bellows: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

    More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

    Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

    More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’ sake!”

    The woke leaders of America’s businesses would have done well to screen that wonderful movie some years ago, and to have thought deeply. And maybe also to have read any of the many, many versions of Doctor Faustus, one of the upshots of which is “when you sign a contract with the devil, make sure to read the fine print, and to expect trickery.”

    This, of course, is exactly what these leaders did when they signed themselves and their businesses up in support of the leftwing suite of policy prescriptions that goes by the shorthand “woke.” They were convinced, or convinced themselves, or pretended to believe, that signing up with the hard left constituted a fight against the devil – a fight against inequality and racism and meanness and climate change, and in favor of harmony and happiness and puppy dogs and joy, and always summertime but never August.

    In fact, of course, they were signing up with the devil (metaphorically, of course, faux factcheckers. Put away your po-faces.). As Thomas More knew, and all of the Doctor Fausti learned (but Doctor Fauci still resolutely refuses to admit), the devil gets you to do all his dirty work for him, and then he turns ‘round on you. Then woe betide.

    Thus has it proceeded. The fight against inequality became the fight for equity-based discrimination in order to achieve an enervatingly socialist equality of outcome. Reasonable concern about climate change became economy-destroying climate-catastrophism. Worries about high levels of imprisonment became city-destroying legalization of crime and criminalization of police. And once all that had happened, with these business leaders’ enthusiastic support, the devil turned ‘round on them. Consider some recent examples.

    Perhaps most trenchantly, Bloomberg of all places recently reported that many ESG funds have been forced to close for poor performance and rapidly eroding investor interest. This is hardly surprising. Many ESG funds have been and are fee-generating frauds; they built their supposed alpha simply by stocking up on tech and underweighting energy when tech was soaring and energy was stuck. When those trends reversed, these funds sunk, and their higher fees became wholly unjustifiable.

    With regard to the real ESG funds – the ones that really do invest in companies that actually implement the chief E purpose of political-schedule decarbonization and the S goal of equity-based discrimination: companies that cut themselves off from reliable energy while embracing race and sex discrimination to achieve socialism are never going to be more profitable in the long run than sane companies. These ESG funds require for their survival investors who are sufficiently committed to those woke goals that they’re willing to take relative losses to support companies that embrace them. In flush times, there may be quite a few of those. In increasingly tight times, there are far fewer, as ESG-fund managers are discovering. The obviously absurd magic formulae that they intoned have brought forth monsters – and the tough times have come because of government policies that also follow the woke line. The devil’s turned ‘round on them.

    Then there are the anecdotal and illustrative developments, such as at Starbucks and the NCAA. Both of these businesses have eaten the whole woke sandwich. Starbucks famously thought that its blue haired baristas were the right people to teach America about race – meaning being avatar instructors of the Kendi-style notions that all white people, and only white people, are immutably racist, and that everything connected with whiteness is evil. The NCAA similarly has happily set about demolishing the very college women’s sports that it is bound to support and protect, allowing young men whose bodies were formed by years of testosterone to declare themselves women and then to romp through the women’s sports – destroying the competitiveness and the dreams of collegiate glory of the genuine women over whom they towered and against whom they so unfairly competed.

    Neither Starbucks not the NCAA appear to have read the fine print in their contracts with the devil: if you sign up for woke, you’ll disarm yourselves from fighting any of the woke program – just as Sir Thomas warned when Roper demanded he cut down all the laws in England. When Starbucks’ repeat and current CEO Howard Schultz adopted the leftwing line about racism, he thereby signed up too for the corollary position that racial inequality in outcome in arrests and jailing were per se racist, regardless of the behaviors of specific people, so that if non-whites were being arrested and jailed at higher rates than whites, policing would have to be abolished. Likewise he failed to realize that his grandstanding about equity included an endorsement of equity-based equality of outcome, and so empowered unionization efforts, including specifically at Starbucks.

    Now, when Starbucks finds itself shutting an initial 16 stores (with more surely to come) in cities like San Francisco and Portland that followed most closely the prescriptions indicated by Schultz’s evangelizing for the devil of woke, he responds with indignation, bemoaning that those cities have become unsafe and that unionization is bad in the long run for both Starbucks and its employees. He’s right, but he of all people will not be heard to mouth these complaints. He was himself a chief lumberjack cutting down the laws, basic economic knowledge and profound underlying moral premises that protected him and Starbucks from what’s befallen them. The devil’s turned ‘round on him. Whom can he ask for help, or to mourn? And note that even at this late remove, Schultz still can’t admit the obvious: that it was the very principles that he so preeningly embraced that have led to all of these problems. After all, once you sell your soul to the devil, he’s hardly going to let you denounce him.

    The case is the same with the NCAA. It too went all in on equity and on the other provisions of modern leftist confusion, including allowing people who were born and constructed as men to dominate women’s sports, rolling back 40 years of progress. How then could it effectively complain when the United States Supreme Court declared that student athletes should be able to earn some money for their efforts, instead of doing all their hard work for the benefit of wealthy schools and a massively profitable NCAA itself? That is hardly an equitable outcome – especially considering the relative racial makeup of the parties concerned. And just as with Starbucks, the NCAA now faces a unionization crisis, as Penn State’s football team leads what will likely be a broad, if perhaps uneven, movement toward student-athlete unionization. That’s just equity at work, right, NCAA? Devil’s turned right ‘round, folks. (Or, since it’s the NCAA, surely folx.)

    Then consider the raft of federal and state legislative proposals that seek to stop the mass resale of stolen goods. The same companies that were happy to sign onto equity proposals that make cities unsafe for their citizens want a special carveout – an additional deal with the devil – to stop their establishments from being burgled while leaving their customers to get robbed on the way home. It’s a special kind of evil – and stupid – that, when the devil turns ‘round on you, you gleefully link arms with him, continuing to do his bidding as long as he leaves you alone for just a little bit longer.

    Additionally, and to keep today’s theme alive, there are the ever-growing pile of stories about companies that are reaping what they have sown not in terms of their own stupid policies being visited against them, but rather in the sense of, as it were, “the wages of sin.” Consider how much, for instance, Warner Bros. Discovery is paying for its and DC Comics’ embrace of woke: the most recent movie in that franchise is so bad that, despite having spent at least $70 million ($90?) on it already, Warner’s new boss David Zaslav is sending it to a cave in the desert southwest somewhere to lie forever unseen. The official story is that it’s so unwatchably bad that it can’t be fixed, but that’s true of quite a lot of modern fare that gets released. The likelier story appears to be that the movie was unfixably the final move toward making the DC Comics movie realm wholly women-powered, with dirty evil toxic men like Batman and Superman killed off forever. Vast piles of recent and not-so-recent market data suggest that the teenaged boys who are the only plausible mass audience for superhero movies (well, them and all the guys who can’t quite figure out adulting) don’t much care to watch endless female-empowerment screeds that treat guys as evil or irrelevant. Go figure.

    Finally, just because it’s so funny: the women of The View invited Governor Ron DeSantis to join them on their program. That’s weird, because within the recent memory even of Joy Behar they have, amongst other things, called him “a negligent, homicidal sociopath,” a “fascist and a bigot,” and “anti-black” and “anti-gay.” He naturally declined this offer to be spat upon, but not because they lied about him viciously. Rather, he refused because no one cares about ABC (or CNN or MSNBC or the rest) anymore. They’ve destroyed their credibility, their respectability, and any conceivable reason to go on their programs. Good job, ladies.

    It’s been a bad month for the Ropers of this world, now they’ve voluntarily flattened all their defenses, coast to coast. Maybe its time for them to start planting some trees and reseeding the forests that used to protect them from the devil. They can’t do that, though, until they acknowledge who the devil is and how they have helped him so much in recent years. Otherwise, he’s just going to keep knocking them flat.

    *  *  *

    Scott Shepard is a fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and Director of its Free Enterprise Project.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 21:25

  • 10 Foot Tall SpaceX "Space Junk" Crashes To Earth, Lands On Australian Sheep Farm
    10 Foot Tall SpaceX “Space Junk” Crashes To Earth, Lands On Australian Sheep Farm

    It was just another boring old day on an Australian Sheep Farm…

    That is, until three “large chunks of space debris” that are being attributed to SpaceX, crashed landed from the sky, according to the Australian Space Agency. 

    The “junk” was found embedded in farmlands in New South Wales, according to Live Science. It came from “part of a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft that likely reentered the Earth’s atmosphere on July 9”, according to the report. 

    On the day of the re-entry, locals said they saw a “blazing light arc” and heard a sonic boom. 

    Among the debris was a 10 foot tall spike that had been charred black from re-entry. It was found by sheep farmer Mick Miners on his farm south of Jindabyne. His neighbor, Jock Wallace, also discovered pieces nearby on his farm. 

    Wallace was told by Australian authorities to contact NASA. “I’m a farmer from Dalgety, what am I going to say to NASA?” he said to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. 

    The Crew Dragon had been launched in November 2020 with the plan of taking four NASA astronauts on a round trip to the International Space Station. 

    The debris is “from the unpressurized trunk of the Crew Dragon,” according to experts. 

    The trunk was stocked with solar panels and “was intentionally jettisoned upon reentry to make the Crew Dragon’s return to Earth easier”. However, the report notes that “engineers planned for it to hit the ocean, not a farm.”

    “I think it’s a concern it’s just fallen out of the sky. If it landed on your house it would make a hell of a mess,” Wallace concluded. 

    It marks the largest recorded piece of space junk to land in Australia since 1979.  

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 21:05

  • 4 Guatemalans Indicted For Human Smuggling, Dumping Body In Texas
    4 Guatemalans Indicted For Human Smuggling, Dumping Body In Texas

    Authored by Charlotte Cuthbertson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Four Guatemalan nationals have been charged with conspiring with others to smuggle “large numbers” of illegal aliens into the United States, including one woman who died during the journey and was dumped on the side of a road.

    The Department of Justice seal. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

    Felipe Diego Alonzo, 38; Nesly Norberto Martinez Gomez, 37; Lopez Mateo Mateo, 42; and Juan Gutierrez Castro, 45, were apprehended in Guatemala on Aug. 2 and extradited to the United States at the request of U.S. officials, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Fifteen other individuals were also arrested during the multi-city sweep.

    “As a result of the search warrants, law enforcement recovered 10 high valued motor vehicles, firearms, and cash,” the DOJ stated.

    On top of the “prolific smuggling” of illegal aliens from Guatemala through Mexico and into the United States, the defendants are being charged in relation to a woman’s death.

    In early April, the defendants allegedly agreed to smuggle a Guatemalan woman from Quiche, Guatemala, to the United States for almost $10,000, according to the indictment.

    The woman died after spending several days trekking through the desert near Odessa, Texas, according to court documents. Odessa is about 200 miles from the U.S.–Mexico border.

    The defendants, along with their co-conspirators, “arranged for the body of [the woman] to be moved from an alien stash house and dumped on the side of a roadway” in Crane County, Texas, the indictment alleges.

    The defendants then tried to pay off the woman’s family, according to the DOJ.

    The charges against the four include conspiracy to bring an alien to the United States resulting in death, bringing an alien to the United States resulting in death, conspiracy to bring an alien to the United States for financial gain, and conspiracy to encourage and induce an alien to come to the United States for financial gain.

    “Transnational criminal organizations continue to recklessly endanger the lives of individuals they smuggle for their own financial gain with no regard for human life,” said Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner Troy Miller in a statement.

    Recently, several men were charged after the deaths of 53 illegal aliens in the back of a sweltering semi-trailer near San Antonio.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 20:45

  • Worried About Curve Inversion? There's More To Come
    Worried About Curve Inversion? There’s More To Come

    by Ven Ram, cross-aset strategist for Bloomberg’s Markets Live

    The inversion in a key segment of the US yield curve may deepen to levels not seen since the 1980s as competing concerns about higher policy rates and their economic impact play out in the markets.

    Ten-year Treasuries now offer a yield of around 2.78%, compared with about 3.28% on two-year maturities, leading to a differential of minus 50 basis points. That spread may invert further to minus 65 basis points, and beyond, in the coming months as front-end bonds sell off more than longer maturities.

    Employers stunned economists by adding more than half a million jobs in July. That print is likely to add to the Fed’s conviction about the economy’s resilience. Chair Jerome Powell remarked before the report that the “strong labor market makes us question the GDP data” that pointed to a recession.

    Should that momentum in the economy continue to hold and inflation not abate as much as the markets are factoring in, the Fed is likely to take its policy rate into restrictive territory. Given that we haven’t even reached the neutral rate yet, a restrictive rate would be somewhere north of 3.50%.

    The Fed’s dot plot in June showed the median year-end rate at 3.40% and at 3.80% for 2023. St. Louis President James Bullard, an influential voice on the Fed, has argued for front-loading the rate hikes to this year, meaning we could end 2022 at 3.75%-4% if inflation proves sticky.

    Should that be the case, two-year yields could go well beyond this year’s peak of around 3.45%.

    However, any increase in 10-year yields is likely to lag those at the front end, spurring a deeper inversion in the yield curve. While the economy has proved resilient so far, market skepticism will remain, acting to temper any increase in long-dated yields.

    Indeed, the 10-year maturity is now trading at a premium of almost 68 basis points over its implied value of 3.4792% based on realized inflation and the Fed’s benchmark rate. While the 10-year yield may climb in sympathy with a higher Fed funds rate, I expect the security to still trade at a premium.

    Those factors will mean that the spread between 10- and two-year yields may become the most inverted since the early 1980s, when then Chair Paul Volcker was wrestling with mammoth inflation by raising rates successively.

    While a search for duration would have proved to be a failure earlier in the current cycle, now may be the time to get set for a meaningful quest.

     

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 20:25

  • Judge Who Signed Mar-A-Lago Search Warrant Exposed As Associate of Jeffrey Epstein
    Judge Who Signed Mar-A-Lago Search Warrant Exposed As Associate of Jeffrey Epstein

    By BlueApples

    If there were any question as to whether or not the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago residence was rife with corruption, details from the search warrant authorizing it should clear any doubt. Although information is sparse given that the warrant remains under seal, one piece of information that couldn’t be kept confidential sheds new light on the motives behind the raid.

    The judge who signed off on the search warrant was Bruce E. Reinhart, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Before assuming his office as a federal judge, Reinhart was an attorney who represented associates of Jeffrey Epstein implicated in his human trafficking conspiracy, namely; Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova. 

    Kellen worked for Epstein as his scheduler for years and was referenced in deposition testimony given during the defamation case between Virginia Guiffre and Ghislaine Maxwell. Marcinkova was a more prominent member of Epstein’s entourage as she served as one of the pilots of his infamous aircraft dubbed “The Lolita Express.”

    Reinhart assumed his role as Kellen and Marcinkova’s attorney once he set up a criminal defense firm after resigning from his post as a senior prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida as it was negotiating a non-prosecution agreement for Epstein. Reinhart would officially begin his legal representation of Epstein’s accomplices within days of leaving his position as a senior prosecutor within the district.

    Federal Magistrate Bruce E. Reinhart

    While Reinhart’s association with Epstein hadn’t resurfaced until his was thrust back into the spotlight as the Federal Magistrate who authorized the search warrant for the Mar-A-Lago raid, it was a matter of considerable controversy in the wake of his resignation in 2007. In 2013, the US Attorneys states that “while Bruce E. Reinhart was an assistant U.S. attorney, he learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter.’’ in response to his claims against any impropriety. Reinhart’s rejection of any wrongdoing on his part was made in a 2011 affidavit as part of a civil court case filed by two of Epstein’s victims in 2008 which named Former Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta along with two other federal prosecutors, one of whom was Reinhart.

    Reinhart’s representation of Marcinkova best conveys his ties to the human trafficking enterprise that Epstein and his network assembled. Marcinkova is presently the Founder and CEO of Aviloop. The company’s website states that it harnesses Marcinkova’s experience as a pilot for the consulting firm’s focus on companies based in the aviation industry. Marketing, social media services, and event management are listed among the services which are offered. As is an explicit mission to “help employers diversify their crews.”

    While the Aviloop website is rather innocuous, other than the fact that it is operated by an associate of Jeffrey Epstein’s, its YouTube Channel portrays a different image. The YouTube channel is sparse, containing only 4 videos, each of which were posted 8 years ago from the date of this article and only has 34 subscribers. Yet, the content of the videos is suspicious even with the low volume made available. Each video is a brief, 40 second or so monologue from a young woman dressed in a suggestive, pilot-themed outfit. Their sultry voices attempt to entice potential customers into a membership with Aviloop whether they are looking for deals on pilot training courses, aviation services or simply want to “see more girls like me.” Oddly enough, memberships with Aviloop are completely free according to the promotional video.

    No direct contact information for Aviloop is disclosed on the company’s website. However, the website of Aviloop’s sister company, Aviatri, listed a phone number. However, upon this being brought to light in an investigative report of mine which Marcinkova and Mark Esptein became aware of, the phone number was removed from the site.

    Within days the Aviatri site was listed as “under construction,” though a simple redirect to the URL of its homepage showed it was still operational. When this was brought to Marcinkova’s attention by me, she removed the site all but entirely, only leaving its placeholder page in its place. The physical address mentioned on the Aviloop website belonged to a building managed by Ossa Properties, a property management company owned by Jeffrey’s brother Mark Epstein

    The automated voicemail for Aviatri states that callers have reached actually reached Aviloop. Delineating between the 2 businesses is difficult as Aviatri does not appear to be incorporated with the New York Department of State’s Division of Corporations like Aviloop is. Aviatri extends the mission of Aviloop to aspiring female pilots directly by acting as a recruiting agency for them. The agency’s website states that it offers online courses, flight training, and financing to aspiring female pilots.
     
    Marcinkova’s other business, Global Girl, LLC, had its incorporation with the New York Department of State’s Division of Corporations completed in 2005, years preceding Aviloop’s establishment at a time when Marcinkova was in the midst of her association with Epstein. Unlike Aviloop, Global Girl does not appear to currently maintain a website. Its social media channels have all been deactivated as well. A vague reference to Global Girl is mentioned on Marcinkova’s personal website before listing herself as a pilot, fashion model, and the CEO of Aviloop. As such, it is unclear if the company is still operating or even what the basis of its operations entail. The business entity’s filing with the New York Department of State  was sent to Adam B. Kaufman & Associates, PPLC at 585 Stewart Avenue in Garden City, NY. Kaufman & Associated  has not responded to a message regarding an inquiry into the businesses current operational status or a means by which to contact Ms. Marcinkova.

    What is known about Marcinkova is how deeply enmeshed she was with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the crimes they committed. Consequently, Reinhart was likely well-aware of those crimes given his representation of Marcinkova and Kellen on top of his position as a federal prosecutor in the district which tendered Epstein with a non-prosecution agreement. While his decision to leave the office could have been construed as a rejection of its decision to sweep Epstein’s crimes under the rug, his position as Marcinkova’s attorney shows that he was likely more concerned with maximizing his benefit in committing the cover up.

    If Reinhart’s association with the likes of Marcinkova and Kellen reveals anything, it is that the inner machinations of Jeffrey Epstein’s human trafficking network live on, even if he does not. The permutations of insulating those involved with Epstein have resulted in the very people who enabled, if not outright participated in his crimes, be rewarded for their efforts by being placed in the highest echelons of federal government. The exposure of that fact should shake those institutions to their core. This is a daunting reality that those who would be brought down with the ship know all too well. The mere premise of that foreboding future is enough to explain why the Southern District of Florida has removed any contact information for Reinhart entirely from his website – an act which serves as a tacit admission of the blatant corruption behind the search warrant he signed off on.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 20:00

  • EU Submits Final Text of Iran Deal: "Five Minutes From Finish Line"
    EU Submits Final Text of Iran Deal: “Five Minutes From Finish Line”

    European Union efforts to salvage a rebooted Iran nuclear deal appear to have produced a “final text” which is described as tackling all remaining issues. The Vienna talks are now being declared definitively over. 

    “After 16 months of torturous on-and-off indirect negotiations to restore the deal, the European Union’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell suggested there was no more room for negotiation on the draft now on the table,” the Associated Press writes of the fresh announcement.

    AFP/Getty Images

    Yet a final decision for sign-off and implementation of a restored JCPOA remains in both Washington and Tehran’s hands, with the Islamic Republic long blaming the United States for stalling and seeking to sabotage a finalized deal. 

    “What can be negotiated has been negotiated, and it’s now in a final text,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell announced on Twitter. “However, behind every technical issue and every paragraph lies a political decision that needs to be taken in the capitals.”

    Borrell has in the last weeks been traveling between capitals, including Tehran, in hopes of salvaging negotiations and a finalized draft deal. For Iran, the chief priority remains getting an inquiry on uranium particles found at undisclosed sites resolved in its favor. 

    The Wall Street Journal detailed at the start of this week, “However, Iran came into last week’s talks insisting that the U.N. atomic agency’s three-year probe into undeclared nuclear material found in the country must be closed down if the nuclear deal is revived.”

    The report noted further that “Several Western diplomats said Sunday that Tehran has doubled down on this condition in the past few days of talks and there is no agreement on the issue.” Israel has been the most outspoken country, though not a signatory to the JCPOA or part of the Vienna process, charging that Tehran is pursing a nuclear bomb. Israeli leaders have long been lobbying the Biden administration to reject a restored JCPOA, seeing it as Iranian cover for a hidden nuclear weapons program, a charge which Iran’s leaders have denied.

    Meanwhile, Russian envoy Mikhail Ulyanov briefed reporters, saying optimistically that “we stand five minutes or five seconds from the finish line.” But it will be interesting to see where the White House officially stands during press briefings and follow-up statements in the coming days.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 19:45

  • "The FBI Is Corrupt": Mark Levin Goes Nuclear Over Trump Raid, Slams 'Silent' GOP Leadership
    “The FBI Is Corrupt”: Mark Levin Goes Nuclear Over Trump Raid, Slams ‘Silent’ GOP Leadership

    Fox News host Mark Levin went nuclear on Monday night in response to the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence on Monday, reportedly in connection with documents that the former president took home after leaving office in 2021.

    “This was well orchestrated, so this has been going on for weeks,” Levin told host Sean Hannity. “Now, you keep asking your guests, what’s the justification? There is no justification. What’s he going to say tomorrow, the attorney general? Here’s my guess: ‘We’ve been negotiating with Trump and his lawyers since February when we found out they had this information. We were getting nowhere, and then we know or we heard that some documents were being destroyed.”

    Levin also noted that photos shared by New York Times columnist Maggie Haberman purporting to show official documents with Trump’s handwriting on them in White House toilets.

    (Except… it isn’t Trump’s handwriting)

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js“There is no justification for sending 30 friggin’ FBI agents to the former president’s compound in Mar-a-Lago in early morning and conducting themselves this way or in any other cases in which they’ve done exactly the same thing,” Levin continued, adding “The FBI is corrupt.“

    Levin called it “the worst attack on this republic in modern history,” before slamming GOP leadership. (h/t Mediaite)

    “This is the worst attack on this republic in modern history. Period,” he said. “And it’s not just an attack on Donald Trump. It’s an attack on everybody who supports him. It’s an attack on anybody who dares to raise serious questions about Washington, D.C., and the establishment in both parties. I haven’t heard a damn thing from the Republican leadership in the Senate! Have you? Not one of those guys has put out a statement. Because they’re weak. That’s why.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 19:33

  • The Guardian Accuses Republicans Of 'Weaponising' Trump-Raid
    The Guardian Accuses Republicans Of ‘Weaponising’ Trump-Raid

    Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

    Following the news of the FBI raiding President Trump’s home, The Guardian suggested that REPUBLICANS are ‘weaponising’ the situation to make unfounded claims of a deep state and a politicised justice department.

    The leftist newspaper’s headline reads Republicans dust off familiar playbook to weaponise Mar-a-Lago FBI search, with a sub headline of GOP accusations of ‘deep state’ and politicization of justice department likely to foment an intense backlash.

    So the FBI, under Democrat guidance, break into a former President’s home and ransack through his belongings and it’s somehow the GOP that is responsible for the ‘weaponising’.

    Remarkable.

    The article quotes several Democrats waxing about how ‘justice is being served’, and then claims that Republicans are engaging in “florid rhetoric” that will “enflame America’s political divisions” and encourage Trump supporters to further point to a “deep state conspiracy”.

    Armed federal agents in the dead of night cracking open a former President’s safe in an attempt to steal documents. Nothing Deep Statey or conspiracy like about that is there.

    The piece concludes by quoting ‘never Trumper’ Joe Walsh who tweeted “The Republican Party has abandoned the rule of law. Just listen to them tonight. They’re at war with the rule of law.”

    Who is at war with the rule of law?

    As several Trump allies noted, the rule of law seems to be AWOL when it concerns Hillary Clinton or Hunter Biden:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *  *  *

    Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

    In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.  We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 19:25

  • Australia's Central Bank Working With BIS To Launch Digital Currency System
    Australia’s Central Bank Working With BIS To Launch Digital Currency System

    Australia’s Reserve Bank is launching a pilot program over the course of the next year in collaboration with the Bank for International Settlements (the central bank of central banks) to test the “benefits” of a blockchain ledger based digital currency system.  The central bank is added to a long list of participants in BIS efforts to introduce CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) with the target goal of launching them globally by 2025-2030.

    It’s important to note that substantial economic changes would have to occur within the next few years in order to make CBDC a viable option for the general public.  Though many people use electronic transactions as a matter of convenience, a large portion of the population still prefers cash.  In the US, surveys within the last few years show that at least 37% of Americans still choose cash over other methods of payment like credit and debit cards.  In Australia, the number stands at around 32%.  

    The usage of digital payment systems also does not necessarily denote a societal shift away from the idea of cash, it only shows a preference for convenience.  People still like to know that cash exists as an option if they need it or want it, but central banks are working diligently to remove physical cash as a choice within the next 8 years.  

    CBDCs, much like all blockchain based currency mechanisms, are inherently devoid of privacy.  By it’s very design, blockchain tech requires a ledger of transactions than can be tracked by governments if they so choose.  Physical cash, though fiat in nature, is at least anonymous.

     

    With the advent of widespread CBDCs the very notion of privacy in trade would utterly disappear from society within a generation.  Not only that, but if these currencies are tied into a social credit system like the one used in communist China, then there is a good chance governments will be able to freeze accounts or even erase your savings at the push of a button.  And, without physical cash there would be no recourse for trade.  A person deemed “problematic” could be locked out of the economy on a whim.    

    The fact that the BIS is so heavily involved in national digital currency programs suggests that the ultimate goal of CBDCs will be an eventual global digital currency – A one world currency mechanism that all other digital currencies are eventually absorbed into.   This collaboration extends to the IMF and World Bank as well. 

    With so many physical currencies in use around the world and at least 30% of each western nation preferring cash, there is little chance that central banks will be able to force the issue of CBDCs unless there is an economic downturn or crash that inspires a public outcry for alternatives to existing currencies.  Meaning, banking elites will need a crisis that damages the very buying power of multiple currency systems in order to get people accept an aggressive shift to a cashless society before 2030.

    The pitfalls of such a framework are many and the potential for abuse goes far beyond the idea of fiat printing.  CBDCs would give banks and governments ultimate power of influence over the populace, inspiring fear in individuals as they consider the threat that their access to the economy could be severed at any moment should they say or do anything in defiance of the authorities.

    Banks and politicians will try to sell CBDCs as the pinnacle of convenience and a necessary transition in order to stabilize the economy.  What they will not mention is the pervasive level of control they will gain in the process.    

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 19:05

  • Republicans Say Americans Will 'Fire The Democratic Majority' In Midterms For Passing Reconciliation Bill
    Republicans Say Americans Will ‘Fire The Democratic Majority’ In Midterms For Passing Reconciliation Bill

    Authored by Frank Fang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Senate Republicans lambasted their Democrat colleagues for passing a $740 billion health care and climate spending bill, warning the economic package will not help the sagging U.S. economy.

    “Democrats under Joe Biden have spent trillions, creating the worst inflation in over four decades, and now their answer to this disaster of their own making is to tax us into a recession,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement after voting against what he called a “radical proposal.”

    The U.S. Capitol in Washington on Aug. 6, 2022. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)

    Inhofe said it is not right to tackle the spiraling inflation by raising “taxes on small business and middle-class Americans,” as well as spending money on the “Green New Deal” agenda.

    “This proposal could put more than 100,000 American jobs at risk and inflict a severely disproportionate economic impact on natural gas producing states, like Oklahoma,” Inhofe said.

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gives opening remarks at the confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense nominee retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin before the Senate Armed Services Committee at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 19, 2021. (Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

    On Aug. 7, the Senate passed the economic package, officially known as the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” by a party-line vote of 51 to 50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. Senate Democrats were able to get the legislation passed without any Republican support by resorting to a reconciliation process, which allows budget-related bills to pass on a simple majority and avoids the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

    Before the final passage of the bill, Democrats rejected more than 30 Republican amendments, points of order, and motions during a “vote-a-rama,” a procedure that is part of the reconciliation process when senators can introduce an unlimited number of amendments to budget-related measures.

    Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a U.S. advocacy group, said the Senate bill “will drive up the cost of household energy bills,” according to a commentary published on Aug. 7. It pointed to a provision to levy a 16.4 cents-per-barrel tax on crude oil and imported petroleum products, a cost the group said will be “passed on to consumers in the forms of higher gas prices.”

    The bill is now being sent to the House for a vote, likely on Aug. 12, when House lawmakers reconvene briefly from summer recess. President Joe Biden has issued a statement urging the House to pass it “as soon as possible” and he looked forward to signing the bill into law.

    American Rescue Plan

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, both reminded Americans where the U.S. economy is now, after Biden signed into the law the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” in March last year.

    “My Democratic colleagues who are assuring you this bill [Inflation Reduction Act of 2022] will help you are the same people who said that in 2021,” Graham stated according to a statement from his office.

    “The American Rescue Plan–a $1.9 trillion tax and spend proposal passed in 2021–was disaster for the American people,” Graham continued. “At the time of its passage, inflation was 2.6 percent. It is now 9.1 percent. And it’s no accident that the American Rescue Plan caused this problem.”

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) leaves the Senate Chamber after final passage of the Inflation Reduction Act at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Aug. 7, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

    On July 13, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the consumer price index (CPI) soared 9.1 percent from a year ago, reaching the highest level since November 1981.

    On a monthly basis, the CPI rose by 1.3 percent, higher than economists’ estimates of 1.1 percent. Food prices jumped by 10.4 percent, while energy prices surged 41.6 percent. Meanwhile, Americans’ real wages dropped 1 percent from May to June.

    “Republicans warned Democrats in 2021 that if you pass the massive tax and spend bill called the American Rescue Plan, you will not rescue America. You will create a recession,” Graham added. “Unfortunately, we were right then and we are right now.”

    “Where are we today?” Crapo asked in a statement, pointing to the state of the U.S. economy after the “American Rescue Plan” went into effect. “​​Gas prices have doubled. Economic stagnation.”

    Crapo added the “Inflation Reduction Act” was “mislabeled,” for it “does nothing to address the significant inflation we are facing, or to ease burdens born today by low- and middle-income Americans.”

    Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) questions U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tia during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 31, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

    Graham and Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, both predicted a disaster for the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.

    “In November the American people will fire the Democratic majority who have created the chaos in their lives,” Graham said. “Every problem we had before the Inflation Reduction Act was introduced is only going to get worse because of the policies in this bill.”

    McDaniel said, “Democrats will pay the price in November for raising taxes on families during a recession.”

    ‘Wars’

    Some GOP senators suggested that their Democratic colleagues are waging “wars” with their massive spending bill.

    Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, pointed out how Democrats voted against “commonsense Republicans” amendments to the bill, such as banning strategic petroleum crude exports to China, and expediting consideration of permits for infrastructure and energy projects.

    “The Democrats’ war on American energy continued today,” Barrasso added. “These proposals would have unleashed American energy and lowered costs for families.”

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 18:45

  • Taibbi: Welcome To The Third World
    Taibbi: Welcome To The Third World

    Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

    Secret service outside Mar-a-Lago Monday

    [The Justice Department] must immediately explain the reason for its raid and it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives, or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation and legitimacy of January 6 investigations.

    — Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

    Headline from Politics Insider this morning:

    Feds likely obtained ‘pulverizing’ amount of evidence ahead of searching Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, legal experts say.

    Pulverizing! Hold that thought.

    We’ve reached the stage of American history where everything we see on the news must first be understood as political theater. In other words, the messaging layer of news now almost always dominates the factual narrative, with the latter often reported so unreliably as to be meaningless anyway. Yesterday’s sensational tale of the FBI raiding the Mar-a-Lago home of former president Donald Trump is no different.

    As of now, it’s impossible to say if Trump’s alleged offense was great, small, or in between. But this for sure is a huge story, and its hugeness extends in multiple directions, including the extraordinary political risk inherent in the decision to execute the raid. If it backfires, if underlying this action there isn’t a very substantial there there, the Biden administration just took the world’s most reputable police force and turned it into the American version of the Tonton Macoute on national television. We may be looking at simultaneously the dumbest and most inadvertently destructive political gambit in the recent history of this country.

    The top story today in the New York Times, bylined by its top White House reporter, speculates this is about “delayed returning” of “15 boxes of material requested by officials with the National Archives.” If that’s true, and it’s not tied to January 6th or some other far more serious offense, then the Justice Department just committed institutional suicide and moved the country many steps closer to once far-out eventualities like national revolt or martial law. This is true no matter what you think of Trump. Despite the early reports of “cheers” in the West Wing, the mood in center-left media has already drifted markedly from the overnight celebration. The Times story today added a line missing from most early reports: “The search, however, does not mean prosecutors have determined that Mr. Trump committed a crime.” There are whispers throughout the business that editors are striking down certain jubilant language, and we can even see this playing out on cable, where the most craven of the networks’ on-air ex-spooks are crab-crawling backward from last night’s buzz-words:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The hugeness of the story has become part of its explanation. An action so extreme, we’re told by expert after expert, could only be based upon “pulverizing” evidence.

    Throughout the Trump years we’ve seen a numbing pattern of rhetorical slippage in coverage of investigations. The aforementioned Politics Insider story is no different. “Likely” evidence in the headline becomes more profound in the text. An amazing five bylined writers explain:

    Regardless of the raid’s focus legal experts quickly reached a consensus about it: A pile of evidence must have backed up the warrant authorizing the search.

    They then quoted a “former top official in the Justice Department’s National Security Division” — you’ll quickly lose track if you try to count the named and unnamed intel spooks appearing in coverage today — who said, “There’s every reason to think that there’s a plus factor in the quantum and quantity of evidence that the government already had to support probable cause in this case.”

    Politico insisted such an action must have required a magistrate’s assent “based upon evidence of a potential crime.” CNN wrote how authorities necessarily “had probable grounds to believe a crime had been committed,” while the New York Times formulation was that “the F.B.I. would have needed to convince a judge that it had probable cause that a crime had been committed.” Social media was full of credentialed observers explaining what must be true. “The affidavit in support of the MAL search warrant must be something else,” said Harvard-trained former Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Signorelli, one among a heap of hyperventilating names:

    It’s amazing how short our cultural memory has become. Apparently few remember all the other times this exact rhetoric was deployed in the interminable list of other Trump investigations, only to backfire later. Does anyone remember this doozy?

    TK News subscribers can read the rest here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 18:25

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham: States Should Decide On Same-Sex Marriage
    Sen. Lindsey Graham: States Should Decide On Same-Sex Marriage

    Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Aug. 7 that states, not the federal government, should decide whether same-sex marriage should be legally recognized.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 5, 2021. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    Graham’s comments came during a panel discussion on CNN’s “State of the Union” after HR 8404, the proposed Respect for Marriage Act, passed the House of Representatives 267-157 on July 19 with the support of 47 Republicans. The bill is pending in the 50/50 Senate where it is expected to enjoy the support of Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Susan Collins (R-Maine.)

    Among the Republicans voting for the bill were House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Scott Perry (R-Penn.), who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Voting no were Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to accept same-sex marriages recognized under other states’ laws. After then-President Bill Clinton signed DOMA, about 40 states banned same-sex marriage. DOMA was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), a ruling that held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriage.

    The new bill would also codify the Obergefell ruling.

    Respect for Marriage Act supporters say the bill is needed because the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision overturning 49-year-old abortion precedent Roe v. Wade potentially opened the door to the future reversal of Obergefell by the court.

    Although Graham said he did not believe the Supreme Court would actually reverse Obergefell, neither the court nor the federal government should be deciding the issue of same-sex marriage for the entire nation.

    “I’ve been consistent. I think states should decide the issue of marriage and states should decide the issue of abortion,” Graham told CNN.

    “I have respect for South Carolina. South Carolina voters here I trust to define marriage and to deal with [the] issue of abortion and not nine people on the court. That’s my view.”

    The proposed Respect for Marriage Act is a distraction from the problems Americans are really facing, Graham suggested.

    “We’re talking about things that don’t happen because you don’t want to talk about inflation, you don’t want to talk about crime,” Graham said, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) at his side.

    Blumenthal said the Obergefell ruling must be codified because “there’s a real danger of it being overturned” by the high court.

    “This Supreme Court has indicated it has a hit list, beginning with marriage equality, contraception, possibly others as well, Loving v. Virginia,” the senator said.

    In Loving, the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that laws forbidding interracial marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In his concurring opinion (pdf) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade, Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically wrote that the Dobbs ruling “does not threaten or cast doubt” on Loving or Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court decision recognizing the right to use contraceptives.

    In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court, now that it has overturned Roe, should also reconsider its “demonstrably erroneous” rulings in cases such as Obergefell and Griswold. Thomas did not identify Loving as a precedent that should be overturned.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 08/09/2022 – 18:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest