Oct 18

Today’s News 18th October 2019

  • Teaching Sex-Ed In Poland May Soon Land You In Prison
    Teaching Sex-Ed In Poland May Soon Land You In Prison

    Lawmakers from Poland’s Law & Justice party, who won a second term in Sunday’s election, have backed a new draft law that establishes jail terms for promoting “sexual activity” to minors, according to Reuters.

    Liberals argue that this includes teaching the benefits of condoms or educating minors about the LGBTQ community. 

    The legislation is making its way to a parliamentary committee for “further work”. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Opposition lawmaker Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus said:

     “Disgrace for the deputies … who referred for further work a project punishing sex education with prison.” 

    Hundreds of protesters gathered around parliament to voice opposition to the law.  

    Anton Lewandowska, 23, from the Ponton Group, a voluntary organization that provides sex education said: 

    “The attempt to limit access to education is a direct attack on all of us. Many people I know who do sex education are scared to do our work despite the fact that it is a basic right of every person.”

    Polish schools don’t offer traditional sex education, but rather they teach students how to “prepare for family life”. Cities backed by liberals have started to allow sex ed programs in some schools, prompting backlash from the Catholic Church and the Law & Justice Party.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some believe the party may turn even further to the right and toward the church to show voters that it represents their interests best. 

    But they’re also being accused of “fomenting homophobia during the election campaign, with party officials calling lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights an invasive foreign influence that threatens Poland’s national identity.”

    Scheuring-Wielgus continued: “They are trying to impose a narrative that we are in a culture and civilization war.”

    Newly elected Law & Justice lawmaker Marcin Ociepa says the law is being overinterpreted: “This only says that it is not allowed to encourage a person younger than 15 … to have sex or to conduct other sexual activities.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bishop Ignacy Dec of the Swidnica diocese said: “…it is worrying that some local authorities are introducing to pre-schools and schools sexualization programs recommended by the World Health Organization, which just harm children and youths.”

    Protests in the past have already prevented the Law & Justice party from further restricting Poland’s already strict abortion laws. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 02:45

    Tags
    Social Issues
    Education
    Politics

  • An "Amazingly Good" Brexit Deal But A Constitutional Challenge Looms
    An “Amazingly Good” Brexit Deal But A Constitutional Challenge Looms

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    A deal has been reached. Jean-Claude Juncker opposes an extension. A constitutional challenge to the deal is underway.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Juncker Does Not Back an Extension

    European Commission President and the EU have reached a deal. European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker opposes and extension. That is not his call but it is what I expected..

    In the video, Juncker says he is happy for a deal but sad to see the UK go.

    Reasonable Deal

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

    Those who say this is May’s deal warmed over are simply wrong.

    Constitutional Challenge and Other Details

    The Guardian Live Blog discusses a constitutional challenge, DUP opposition, and other details.

    Jean-Claude Juncker has tried to help sell the new Brexit deal in the face of opposition from the Democratic Unionist party by pouring doubt on a further Brexit extension in the event of it being rejected.

    Juncker said he was “ruling out” a prolongation, although the issue is solely the remit of the heads of state and government. “If we have a deal, we have a deal and there is no need for prolongation,” he added.

    Constitutional Challenge

    Campaigning anti-Brexit QC Jolyon Maugham has now lodged his petition at the court of session in Edinburgh, which essentially tries to ban parliament from debating the new Brexit deal, on the basis that it is illegal, and which he anticipates will be heard tomorrow.

    Maugham believes that the deal contravenes s55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which states that it is “unlawful for Her Majesty’s government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain”.

    With the detail of Boris Johnson’s new deal still emerging, lawyers insist that s55 is “crystal clear” and that any form of differentiated deal for Northern Ireland will contravene it.

    Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, has already cleared time for an emergency hearing in the court of session at noon on Monday 21 October, where he could issue court orders forcing Johnson to send a letter to the EU asking for an extension to article 50 until 31 January as per the Benn Act.

    Boost to Johnson

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

    Johnson Likely Has the Votes

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

    Sir Oliver Letwin will back deal

    Sir Oliver Letwin, who had the Conservative whip withdrawn over his rebellion on a no-deal Brexit vote, has said he will back the Prime Minister’s deal on Saturday, calling it “admirable”

    No Deal Says DUP

    These arrangements will become the settled position in these areas for Northern Ireland. This drives a coach and horses through the professed sanctity of the Belfast agreement.

    For all of these reasons it is our view that these arrangements would not be in Northern Ireland’s long-term interests. Saturday’s vote in parliament on the proposals will only be the start of a long process to get any withdrawal agreement bill through the House of Commons.

    Another Referendum?

    I think it is unlikely, but how would it turn out?

    Eurointellience frames it this way:

    for those who are still holding out for a second referendum, and who believe that it could easily be won: the problem with most of the polls is that they confound a person’s position on Brexit – Remain vs Leave – with how they would vote in a second referendum. We know a lot of Remainers who believe that the first referendum results needs to be respected, and who would vote no in a second referendum.

    A ComRes poll for Channel 5 news produced a more granular survey, and came up with a 50-42 split in favour Leave under a concrete 2nd referendum setting.

    When they asked the question whether the 2016 referendum results should be honoured, the response was 54% in favour, and 32% against. It is one poll only – and the numbers are probably going to swing backwards and forwards. But we should be under no illusion that public opinion on Brexit has shifted since the referendum. We see no signs of that.

    All’s Well That Ends Well

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

    Except nothing has ended.

    I suspect all the MPs who lost Tory party membership will regain the whip (membership) if they vote for the deal. That makes passage more likely, but not guaranteed.

    There are about 22 Labour MPs who want Brexit and that would likely be enough to offset the 9 DUP votes. This is my guess, Eurointelligence thinks passage falls short.

    If it does pass, legal challenges loom. And Benn is likely to modify the legislation requiring Johnson to seek an extension if it doesn’t pass.

    Final Irony Coming Up?

    One possibility is that if the legal challenge wins, a hard Brexit might happen, which Johnson could blame on Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Remainers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Boris Johnson needs to swing about 30 vote for his Brexit deal to pass, and that is my expectation even though some insist it will not pass without DUP.

    A Telegraph Number Crunch shows that is not necessarily the case.

    My comments in brackets.

    Mr Johnson has a deficit of 58 votes to overcome from when Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was defeated for a third time.

    Although the new deal has yet to be properly scrutinised, it is unlikely that he’ll lose many of the 286 MPs that voted for a deal in that third meaningful vote. This would leave Mr Johnson with the task of winning a net 30 extra MPs over to his cause.

    1: The ERG and the “Spartans” [28 possible]

    The European Research Group (ERG) consists of around 80 eurosceptic Conservatives who were vocal in their opposition to Theresa May’s deal. Most of them voted against it on the first two occasions but for it on the third.

    A smaller subset of this group – 28 “Spartans”, including Steve Baker – refused to back Mrs May’s deal when their other colleagues caved-in.

    While he can’t get the 30 extra MPs he needs from this camp, there are clear signs that a large number of them may be open to backing his deal.

    2: The expelled Tories [4 possible]

    Last month Mr Johnson expelled 21 Conservatives from the party after they opposed the government by voting along with Labour and the other opposition parties to remove a no-deal Brexit option from the table.

    Just four of this number actually opposed Mrs May’s deal at the third time of asking, with the remaining 17 best classed as anti-no dealers rather than ardent remainers.

    This means they should be persuadable when it comes to supporting any deal that Boris Johnson is able to secure – although there are no guarantees yet.

    3: Labour rebels [50 possible, 19 likely]

    This is the group that will, in all likelihood decide whether or not Boris Johnson passes his Brexit deal. Even with the support of all the expelled Tories and the ERG the numbers might not be there – especially if the DUP aren’t on board.

    Luckily for Mr Johnson there have been consistent rumblings from the likes of Stephen Kinnock – a Labour MP representing a Leave constituency – that they would support a Conservative Brexit deal.

    It didn’t happen under Theresa May – when only five Labour MPs rebelled against their party leader – but there is a sense that it could be different this time around.

    Earlier this month, 19 Labour MPs signed a letter to the EU asking them to agree a deal with Boris Johnson so that they could vote for it, while last month Caroline Flint suggested that up to 50 Labour MPs might back a deal.

    While 50 might be on the high side, 19 Labour rebels would in all likelihood be enough to swing the numbers in Mr Johnson’s favour.

    It means that there could well be enough votes available for a Brexit deal to be agreed by parliament on Saturday. But it will be tight.

    Free Vote?

    The margin of victory or defeat will likely come down to whether or not Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn will expel any Labour MP who votes for the deal.

    If Corbyn grants a free vote, or even a 1-line Whip, it could pass with a huge margin.

    My Expectation If DUP On Board

    • 27 Spartans

    • 19 Labour MPs minimum

    • 10 DUP

    My Expectation If DUP Not On Board

    • 22 Spartans

    • 10 Labour MPs on a free vote and possibly anyway

    In either case, it appears the deal will pass, but if it is that close, perhaps it fails because a few of those who voted for May’s deal do not vote for this one.

    But it is not even certain that DUP will vote against the deal. The EU will not revise the deal, but Johnson can likely add some sweeteners

    With DUP on board, passage is a near certainty. If Corbyn offers a free vote or a one-line Whip it’s also likely to pass easily,

    Tricks

    One trick that Corbyn might pull is to allow a free vote on the deal, then demand it be put to a referendum. Such shenanigans would fail, and probably miserably.

    Just Found This – Free Vote

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

    Looks a little convoluted. Here is the rest of the chain:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Amazingly Good Deal

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

    Hannan is a free market advocate. If he likes the deal, so do I.

    With one hand tied behind his back, Johnson did amazingly well.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/18/2019 – 02:00

    Tags
    Politics

  • Everything You Wanted To Know About The Trump-Biden Ukraine Scandal (But Were Afraid To Be Called Partisan)
    Everything You Wanted To Know About The Trump-Biden Ukraine Scandal (But Were Afraid To Be Called Partisan)

    Authored by Aaron Kesel via ActivistPost.com,

    Scandal-plagued U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic “wonder boy” candidate Joe Biden have been exchanging political punches over a new scandal that erupted in Ukraine. Trump asked the Ukrainian President to investigate potential corruption involving Joe’s son, Hunter Biden, after a prosecutor investigating his financial dealings was fired in exchange for billions of dollars in U.S. govt aid organized by Joe Biden as Vice President of the U.S.

    Although, the mainstream media wants the public to believe the Bidens “did nothing wrong.” The truth of the matter is Hunter Biden blatantly used his father’s position of power as Vice President for his own financial gain in both Ukraine and China.

    In Ukraine alone, Hunter Biden was paid half a million dollars a year for a job he never showed up to, where he had no experience and couldn’t even speak the language, several red flags.

    Hunter, a Yale-educated lawyer, had previously served on the boards of Amtrak and a number of nonprofit organizations and think tanks, but lacked any experience in Ukraine. As a fun fact, to make his case worse, just months earlier he had been discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine. Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months for his work for Burisma Holdings, which largely remains unknown.

    In 2014, Hunter Biden is seen golfing in the Hamptons with his father and Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter, FOX News reported.

    Viktor Shokin was widely accused of corruption himself and then booted from his office in April 2016. Shokin was accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures. In March 2016, Biden, as Vice President, had threatened to cut off $1 billion in guaranteed loans unless Ukraine ditched Shokin; one month later the country complied with the demand.

    However, at the same time, Biden had protected his son under investigation by leveraging U.S. aid to Ukraine in exchange for firing the Ukrainian former prosecutor, which could be seen as a conflict of interest. However, Bloomberg disputes this claiming that the prosecution of Hunter Biden’s client had already been shelved at the time Joe Biden was calling for the prosecutor to be removed.

    Investigations into such activities by Hunter are well documented, ironically, by the mainstream press that is now attacking Trump for asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter and his father for corruption; a totally warranted investigation, given that Hunter’s father himself confessed that he told Ukraine to “fire the prosecutor or essentially, I am walking away with a billion dollar loan.” This writer is no legal expert, but that sounds a lot like quid pro quo activity.

    Conflicting accounts have now risen in Ukraine as well about what took place by Biden, with the former President of Ukraine and the prosecutor telling two different tales.

    Ukraine’s former top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, told Rudy Giuliani earlier this year that he was asked to back off any probe of the natural gas company linked to Joe Biden’s son, according to a copy of Giuliani’s notes obtained by Fox News.

    A former top diplomat, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, asked that Shokin use “kid gloves” in pursuing the company, according to the notes of President Trump’s personal attorney, reported by the outlet. “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around  June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador [to Ukraine] Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with kids gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” Rudy Giuliani told FOX.

    Beyond the claim by Giuliani on FOX, Shokin swore in an affidavit prepared for a European court, that when he was fired he was told the reason behind his departure was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation.

    “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

    “On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.

    You may remember Pyatt from the infamous Ukraine coup phone call, in which the former diplomat and then Asst. Sec. of State for Europe, Victoria Nuland, discussed a plot to overthrow the government. Nuland then states, “fuck the EU.”

    Both Joe and Hunter Biden were cleared of any wrongdoing in Burisma earlier this year when Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said that the Ukrainian private gas company was not the target of investigations by his office. He also added the former Vice President, and current Democratic 2020 candidate, didn’t act improperly when he called for the dismissal of Ukraine’s former prosecutor general, Victor Shoki, who had been investigating the company.

    “I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of U.S. presidential elections,” Lutsenko said in an interview with Bloomberg.  “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws – at least as of now,  we do not see any wrongdoing. A company can pay however much it wants to  its board.”

    However, there is a matter of memos and documents that contradict the narrative that were reported by The Hill’s John Solomon. According to the news site, these files, “raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

    Solomon continues writing, “for instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.

    In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.”

    So what’s the deal with Trump’s own involvement?

    Allegations are flying around that Trump may have also withheld money in the form of defense aid to Ukraine and demanded that Biden and his son be investigated for corruption. Trump is further alleged to have instructed Ukraine’s President to work with DOJ Attorney General William Barr.

    Despite these claims, the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that Trump didn’t pressure him, contrary to whats being reported in the media.

    There have been many significant updates since the scandal broke, including the GOP accusing the entire CIA whistleblower complaint to be an organized coup against Trump. The Republicans reason this by saying there was foreknowledge by House Intelligence Committee leader Adam Schiff and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who launched an impeachment investigation.

    This is in part because a spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged that one of the two whistleblowers alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff’s staff before filing his/her complaint. Schiff had previously claimed in a televised interview that “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” A Schiff spokesperson, however, told FOX News that Schiff himself “does not know the identity of the whistleblower, and has not met with or spoken with the whistleblower or their counsel” for any reason.

    The New York Times also weighed in stating in a report that Schiff got an “early account” of the phone call between President Donald Trump and the Ukrainian leader. Schiff respond on Twitter, claiming that his staff on the Intelligence Committee only advised the whistleblower to speak to an inspector general within the intelligence community.

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

    Trump responded to the claims of foreknowledge by bashing Schiff calling him a “fraud” while meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto.

    “It shows that Schiff is a fraud. … I think it’s a scandal that he knew before,” Trump said. “I’d go a step further. I’d say he probably helped write it. … That’s a big story. He knew long before, and he helped write it too. It’s a scam.”

    Schiff read what he called a “parody” version of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a hearing on the matter, which has drawn controversy and blowback.

    “I have a favor I want from you,” Schiff said while appearing to read from a paper. “And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it, on this and on that.”

    “Rep. Adam Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn’t exist,” Trump tweeted. “He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, and me sound guilty.”

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

    Schiff responded to Trump on social media, accusing him of trying to “shakedown” a world leader for election dirt and then attempt to cover it up.

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

    Despite all this, the CIA’s top lawyer, Courtney Simmons Elwood, made what she considered to be a criminal referral on the phone call, according to NBC News.

    NBC botched its reporting by revealing that the whistleblower was a man, writing:

    Elwood, the CIA’s general counsel, first learned about the matter because the complainant, a CIA officer, passed his concerns about the president on to her through a colleague. On Aug. 14, she participated in a conference call with the top national security lawyer at the White House and the chief of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

    Another article by NBC reveals that there is a complaint that involves someone outside of the intelligence agencies.

    As a result, the Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, is withholding that complaint because it doesn’t meet the legal requirement for disclosure to Congress, according to letters obtained by the news agency.

    What much of the mainstream press is missing, is that this information regarding Trump and Ukraine isn’t new. In fact, a headline from May by NYMag reads: “Trump Is Pressuring Ukraine to Smear Clinton and Biden.”

    In that article, NY Mag writes that, “Trump’s agents are lobbying Ukraine to smear his political rivals Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.”

    “Giuliani is trying to get Ukraine to pursue two investigations: one against the last Democratic presidential nominee, and another against the leading candidate to be the next one,” NY Mag continues.

    Although claims that Trump had his eyes set on going after Biden aren’t new, there is new information that allegedly Trump administration officials sought to take over a Ukrainian gas giant Naftogaz and direct its money-flow back to their own pockets, Associated Press reported.

    According to the news agency, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer Giuliani were involved and their aims were profits not politics. This group’s plan was then to steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by the Trump allies.

    Trump’s attorney Giuliani is in the crosshairs of the investigation in multiple ways. Recently, Ukrainians who helped Giuliani’s efforts to investigate Democrat Joe Biden were arrested for campaign finance violations. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were alleged to be a part of a conspiracy to funnel foreign money into U.S. elections according to prosecutors, Wall Street Journal reported.

    Besides the CIA whistleblower and another unknown official, additional government employees are debating coming forward to testify against Trump in favor of the impeachment efforts, according to reports.

    Business Insider reports the full alleged transcript of the conversation Trump had with Ukraine President Zelenskyy:

    Donald Trump: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.

    President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following; the first time, you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

    Donald Trump: [laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

    President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

    Donald Trump: Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.2

    President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only. 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

    Donald Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it3. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

    President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that. purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have, friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

    Donald Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.4 The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

    President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation6 to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one, who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President: well enough.

    Donald Trump: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.

    President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.

    Donald Trump: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

    President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

    Donald Trump: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

    President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.

    Donald Trump: Congratulations on a fantastic job you’ve done. The whole world was watching. I’m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.

    President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

    If Trump did hold money over Ukraine’s head, like Biden did, he should be impeached and prosecuted for quid pro quo the same as Biden should be. It seems that for whatever reason the mainstream press is making this only about Trump, while ignoring the corruption of Biden. However, Biden is not innocent and scrutiny is warranted on his son’s investments in both Ukraine and China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Further, if Biden and his son Hunter should be prosecuted for quid pro quo, so should Donald Trump and his kids from  who Ivanka Trump and her husband alone profited $82 million last year according to reports. One such mention is the comparison of Ivanka’s Chinese relationship to Hunter Biden’s own deals with China during his father’s vice presidency. Ivanka is said to have a an estimated 39 trademarks in 2018 and 2019 alone that were accepted by China.

    Ivanka’s clothing line is produced in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, according to Teen Vogue magazine which looked into her businesses. In 2017, a Chinese labor activist was arrested and two others vanished after investigating alleged labor abuses at a factory called Huajian known to make shoes for several brands — including Ivanka Trump’s, NPR reported.

    In July 2018, Ivanka shut down her company; despite this, she received 16 trademarks in China and her business dealings are completely shrouded in secrecy, as CBS reported in 2017. Those trademarks pertain to everything from bags to umbrellas to sausages, Business Insider reported.

    Two months before, in May, Ivanka’s brand received approval for another seven trademarks. This was coincidentally the same month Trump announced that he had reached a deal with China to lift a U.S. ban on telecom giant ZTE. If that’s not enough, on the same day she dined with Chinese president Xi Jinping, her business received another three trademarks, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW.)

    NBC reports that in 2018 alone by the end of November, Ivanka had a strikingly high number of 34 total Chinese trademarks. Then in 2019, Ivanka was awarded another additional 5 trademarks according to Fortune magazine.

    All of the trademarks were said to be filed in 2016-2017 and last until at least 2028, according to numerous reports.

    Before this report was about to go to press, Hunter Biden stepped down from the board of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. a Chinese-backed private equity firm, NY Post reported.

    On the flip side, if Trump administration officials really did try to run a scheme in Ukraine they, too, should be prosecuted; corruption is corruption and isn’t restricted by political gang colors exempting individuals like the media tries to do with Biden.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 23:45

  • Are US Presidents Getting Older?
    Are US Presidents Getting Older?

    With three front-runners over the age of 70 and one heart attack suffered by candidate Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail, the presidential primaries for 2020 have been putting presidents’ ages on the agenda.

    President Trump, who is running for re-election in 2020, is himself the oldest president ever to be inaugurated (he was 70 at the time), and as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, all three democratic frontrunners (Warren, Biden, Sanders) would break that record still.

    But taking a look at all presidents’ ages at the time of their inauguration since 1789, the trend only extends to the four individuals already mentioned.

    Infographic: Are U.S. Presidents Getting Older? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Before Trump and the 2020 line-up, recent presidents’ ages were actually below average. Barack Obama took office at 47 years and 169 days, according to Potus.com, making him the fifth youngest president at the time of inauguration. Bill Clinton, who was 46 when he took over, was the third youngest.

    Some of the oldest presidents hail from past centuries. William Henry Harrison was 68 at his inauguration in 1841 (he died a month later of typhoid and pneumonia), making him the third-oldest president ever. James Buchanan, who took office in 1857, was the fourth-oldest president at 65.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 23:25

    Tags
    Politics

  • The NBA's China Problem Is Due To Political Control Over Markets
    The NBA’s China Problem Is Due To Political Control Over Markets

    Authored by Richard Ebeling via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    The news and sports media have been focused on the recent confrontation between the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the Chinese government due to a tweet by the general manager of the Houston Rockets about recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong that brought down the wrath of China. While many commentaries have focused on the NBA’s attempt to placate the Chinese authorities in the face of losing millions if not billions of dollars in lost revenues in the Chinese market, less attention has been given to what lies behind it all: a government’s ability to shut down commercial dealings between willing participants by simple command. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It all began when Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey posted a personal tweet that said, “Flight for freedom, stand for Hong Kong.” For several months massive and sometimes violent demonstrations have been going on in the former British colony of Hong Kong. When the British Union Jack was lowered from the last flag pole in Hong Kong in 1997, there was an agreement between London and Beijing that for several decades Chinese authority within the former colony would not interfere with many if not most of the freedoms that people had enjoyed for a good part of the time since 1842, when Hong Kong came under British jurisdiction. 

    China’s Threats to Freedom in Hong Kong

    The arrangement was known as “One Country, Two Systems,” meaning that on the Chinese mainland, the Communist Party ruled with their existing authoritarian power, while in Hong Kong, many of the internal affairs of the territory would remain untouched by Beijing. But especially in recent years, the Chinese government has been attempting to eat away at the freedoms enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong, including freedom of speech and the press, which has often taken the form of harsh commentaries on Chinese government domestic and foreign policies.

    What set off the demonstrations early in the summer of 2019 was a proposed law that would more easily compel the extradition to China of those accused of illegal acts against Chinese law. The extradition proposal itself was really less than it was made out to be, given other Chinese encroachments on Hong Kong freedoms. It was more like a straw-that-breaks-the-camel’s-back that sent waves of people, weekend after weekend, into the streets of the city. The demonstrators’ demands have been not only a withdrawing of the extradition legislation, but demands that the Chinese government respect the freedom of the people of Hong Kong in general, with even some voices calling for Hong Kong’s independence.

    China’s Domestic Authoritarianism and Global Imperialism

    Chinese President Xi Jinping has not only been tightening the authoritarian screws at home against any and all dissent against him or his government, he has been far more aggressively nationalistic in his foreign policies, insisting on reestablishing a global place in the sun for China through a grand mercantilist-type vision of growing Chinese influence and power over many other parts of the world. (See my article “Economic Armaments and China’s Global Ambitions.”)

    Many if not most territories “lost” by China in past centuries are often expressed as fair game to once more bring back into the administrative fold of those in Beijing. Thus, the Chinese government insists that a good part of the South China Sea is “historical” Chinese territory, on which they have been building a series of artificial islands and demanding that other nations stay out of these newly established territorial waters without their permission. 

    It is equally on this basis that Beijing says that Hong Kong as well as the self-ruling island of Taiwan is part of China. It is the reason the Chinese government opposes “separatist” talk concerning Tibet or among the Muslim Uighur population in the huge western region of Xinjiang, where from all accounts the Chinese authorities have incarcerated upward of a million Uighurs in “re-education camps” that others call mass detention centers; reportedly harsh and even brutal treatment is experienced by those who challenge those who rule over them in these camps. (See my article “Freedom and the Right of Self-Determination.”)

    A Tweet Brings China Down on the NBA

    So, given the direction of Chinese domestic and foreign policy, when Daryl Morey tweeted his support for the Hong Kong demonstrators and their cause, this immediately set off the ire of the Chinese government. All media and public broadcasting of Houston Rocket basketball events were banned from the Chinese airwaves. Rockets team sportswear and paraphernalia were banned from sale in China. This was followed by the end to a wide variety of business and other commercial relationships between the NBA in general and Chinese businesses, including the threat of breaking endorsement and other ties between leading American basketball players and Chinese companies. 

    Millions, if not billions, of dollars of revenues were now at risk of being lost, all because of a tweet and the hesitation by the NBA and individual team owners and representatives to unequivocally distance themselves from the Houston Rockets, or the Rockets’ own partial apologies for offending the “Chinese people.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the United States, conservative and “progressive” politicians and pundits lambasted the NBA for not standing up to the Chinese government and its attempt to hinder the freedom of speech of NBA administrators and team members. The NBA was told by voices all across the U.S. political spectrum that their reluctance to tell the Chinese authorities “Hell, No” demonstrated that the NBA and the individual teams placed the fear of lost profits above the political principle of freedom of speech. It showed the decadence of “capitalism” and the greed of those interested only in money. 

    Some of these pundits pointed out the hypocrisy of the NBA, which has heralded the right and freedom of its players to publicly speak out against “social injustice” and the policies of the current president of the United States, but which now kowtowed to a foreign government threatening its financial bottom line from lost business in China. 

    China’s Reaction to the NBA and the Importance of Economic Liberty

    What has been missed in all this, I would suggest, is the important institutional dilemma when any government has the power and authority to dictate with whom its own citizens do business and on what basis and terms of exchange. That the day after Morey’s tweet suddenly all of the leading Chinese media outlets and enterprises doing business with the Rockets and the NBA in general announced that they were halting or cancelling their dealings with the Americans makes it very clear that this was not a “spontaneous” series of acts by private Chinese citizens simultaneously upset with the words and deeds of their American business partners.

    This was a command coming from the Beijing government authorities to whom all those Chinese enterprises — public and private — are absolutely answerable for their existence and financial survival. Even think of disobeying, and literally “heads would roll” in terms of being fired from state enterprises and having your legal ability to operate threatened in your nominally “private” enterprise. 

    It should have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that however much China has been praised for its four decades of economic reforms in a direction permitting degrees of individual initiative and private business, the entire Chinese economy remains under the microscopic control and command of the government. If and when businesses are left alone by the Chinese government, it is when those directing and managing those enterprises are doing what is explicitly or implicitly in the directions the Chinese authorities wants them to be moving. 

    And when those doing the central planning of the Chinese economy, starting with President Xi at the top, want any or all of those enterprisers to do different things differently, they are instantly at the beck and call of those holding the power of life and death over them and their businesses. This is the meaning of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Others might call it economic fascism, under which businesses may nominally be in private hands, but it is the government that ultimately determines and dictates how those in charge of their businesses go about doing business. In other words, economic fascism is simply socialism with nominal (and not real) private-enterprise characteristics. 

    Beijing Regularly Threatens American Businesses 

    The Chinese government has used this power to strong-arm American companies doing business in China numerous times over the years, including being at the service of the communist authorities in their attempt to surveil everyone in the country and dictate the type of political, social, economic, and historical information that will be accessible to citizens of China. In other instances, it has concerned an American company sharing proprietary technology with a Chinese enterprise with which it wants to do business. And at other times, it has been more crassly materialistic, with the expectation that a U.S. company will give a bribe or appoint some government higher-up’s son or nephew to a well-paying position in a joint U.S.–Chinese enterprise 

    In this latest instance concerning the NBA, it is demanding that a group of American sports teams either keep their collective mouths shut on political matters dear to the Chinese government or parrot the Communist Party ideological line, after giving the necessary public and groveling apology for daring to challenge anything said or done by the rising global power of the 21st century. 

    In the hysteria of an American political election season, the worst thing that could happen would be if politicians and pundits now propose to legislate or regulate the response by the NBA or the Houston Rockets to the Chinese government. With all the chatter about the Chinese attempting to abridge the freedom of speech of Americans through the weapon of financial intimidation if they want to do business in China, it then would be the U.S. government dictating what those sports teams and their NBA representatives could say and agree to in trying to salvage their growing business in China.

    The U.S. authorities would be merely doing a political variation on the same commanding-and-controlling theme that the Chinese government is accused of doing. Plus, the establishment of such a precedent would only reinforce the degree to which the U.S. government already regulates, controls, restricts, and commands American enterprises in far too many ways and directions. 

    Donald Trump Cannot Dictate People’s Words or Actions

    Those who have suggested hypocrisy in the NBA, in that domestically it encourages players to publicly express their political and social views on a variety of American policy-related issues, but cowers in fear before the Chinese government over a tweet, forget an important difference: the U.S. government cannot just shut down those teams and destroy their financial viability. 

    There is much made of President Donald Trump’s huffing and puffing about football players who kneel during the national anthem at the beginning of a game, or that he says how the mainstream media are out to get him and declares much of what they print and say to be “fake news.” His critics accuse him of trying to intimidate those who wish nothing more than express their views under the First Amendment to the Constitution and speak their minds as citizens of a democratic society. 

    There is one important difference in the words and actions of Donald Trump and those of President Xi Jinping and his government in China: Donald cannot command that all companies doing business with the NFL in terms of products, media coverage, or endorsement contracts are to stop doing so until every football player who has kneeled during the national anthem publicly apologize for “offending the American people” and promises to happily stand and sing along at the start of every game from now on. 

    Nor can the president of the United States order the firing of the heads of CNN or MSNBC, or command that Fox News get back in line never criticizing anything he says or does, like as good Trumpians they used to always do. The strength of freedom of speech in the United States is demonstrated by the fact that no matter how much Donald Trump may rant and rave, the mainstream media continues to report and editorialize just the way they want, no matter how much they say that he is a friend of fascism and an enemy of freedom. 

    Freedom Requires Separating Markets From the State

    Why and how can they do this? Because in spite of the degree to which the government influences and regulates much in the American marketplace, it still remains institutionally grounded in an important and respected degree of personal freedom, private property, and freedom of enterprise outside of Chinese-style heavy-handed central planning. It is precisely because of the remaining degree of free enterprise in the United States, again, even with the existing interventionist and regulatory intrusions and controls, that sports teams and their members can make public statements of disagreement without being shut down, driven out of business, or arrested as “enemies of the people.” And the same applies to conflicting and competing news reporting and editorializing in the various forms of mass communication. 

    The essential lesson that should be drawn from this recent dispute between the National Basketball Association and the communist government of China is not that administrators and players in the NBA are being intimidated to make public apologies and toe the party line, but that this is why friends of freedom should always be concerned about and argue against government involvement and regulatory oversight and control over private enterprise and the free market. 

    It is not only that government regulation over business misdirects how and what private enterprises do, which deflects them away from competitively trying to find the best ways of satisfying consumer demands as the means to earning profits. That is certainly true. 

    Equally if not more importantly in terms of freedom in society, it is that every introduction and extension of government control, command, and regulation over the private affairs of the marketplace threatens the liberty of the citizenry. How you manage and direct your enterprise as a businessman; where and at what type of work you will be able to earn a living; and with whom you may do business and under what terms. All these become more and more dependent not on your free choices and voluntary associations with others on mutually agreed-upon terms, but upon the fate and favors of those in political power, and their goals and agenda to which you must conform or suffer potentially devastating consequences.

    It is not just classical liberal ideologizing about the importance of separating the marketplace from the state, private enterprise from political control. The dilemma that the NBA and its affiliates find themselves in with the Chinese government is the latest example of why a free society is not sustainable without a functioning free market that is widely free and independent from the power of those in political authority. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 23:05

    Tags
    Politics

  • Satellite Images Reveal China's Aircraft Carrier Factory
    Satellite Images Reveal China’s Aircraft Carrier Factory

    The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has given Reuters never before seen high-resolution satellite images of China’s aircraft carrier factory.

    The images were taken last month of the Jiangnan shipyard, located in Shanghai, China. The satellite photos show the progression of China’s first domestically built aircraft carrier and the rapid construction of infrastructure at Jiangnan.

    CSIS analysts said the aircraft carrier’s hull should be completed by fall 2020. The images show pre-fabricated sections, bulkheads, and other parts of the aircraft carrier.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CSIS told Reuters that much of Jiangnan shipyard was farmland last year, has since been transformed into an industrial powerhouse, with large structures for manufacturing ship components.

    “We can see slow but steady progress on the hull, but I think the really surprising thing these images show is the extensive infrastructure buildup that has gone on simultaneously,” said CSIS analyst Matthew Funaiole.

    “It is hard to imagine all this is being done for just one ship,” he added. “This looks more like specialized space for carriers and or other larger vessels.”

    Singapore-based military analyst Collin Koh said the newly constructed shipyard could lead to a rapid modernization effort for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CSIS said PLAN had shifted focus to larger surface warships, “adding to the sense that Chinese naval-capability development may be entering a new phase.”

    Reuters notes that the PLAN hasn’t announced plans for a third carrier, but state media has suggested that the carrier is under construction.

    Funaiole told Reuters that satellite images show China’s next aircraft carrier would be between 42,000 to 100,000-tons.

    Washington is closely tracking the development of China’s aircraft carrier factory. President Trump has recently called President Xi Jinping the “enemy” as it becomes increasingly clear the trade war between the US and China isn’t actually about trade but a great power competition.

    China already has two carriers, though they’re not classified as “supercarriers.”

    It’s believed that by 2030, China will have six carriers in operation — likely safeguarding the Maritime Silk Road and South/East China Sea.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 22:45

  • The Holy Grail For Our Rulers: Making The Truth Irrelevant
    The Holy Grail For Our Rulers: Making The Truth Irrelevant

    Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

    Our rulers believe their Holy Grail is in sight.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “But there’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”

    – Ellsworth Toohey to Peter Keating, The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand, 1943

    What do the follies of Russiagate and the Ukraine impeachment controversy accomplish?

    Truth is always the enemy of power. Exposure of power’s motivations, depredations, and corruption never serves power’s ends. Truth is often suppressed and those who disclose it persecuted. Any illegitimate government (currently, all of them) that fails to do so risks its own termination.

    What if, instead of suppressing the truth, a regime could render it irrelevant and not have to worry about it? That prospect is the Holy Grail for those who rule or seek to rule.

    Imagine an announcement to the populace: We rule you and every aspect of your life. Your wishes, desires, and plans are immaterial to us. You will do as we tell you or you will be severely punished or eliminated. Our sole end is power and we will be its corrupt and criminal beneficiaries. You are our slaves. Imagine that the announcement was not met with outrage and resistance, only quiet acceptance, even approval. The regime has disclosed the horrifying truth about itself, and nobody protests or cares. It has rendered the truth irrelevant. What future disclosure could threaten it in any way?

    That is the purpose of Russiagate and now the Ukraine impeachment controversy—they are part of a long running project to render the truth about our rulers irrelevant. That project is well advanced. Contrary to Toohey’s admonition, let’s examine the follies to understand what’s happening and what they accomplish.

    The key assertion upon which Russiagate rested was that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server was hacked by Russian operative named Guccifer 2.0, who then turned the data obtained over to Wikileaks. In that data were DNC emails that indicated the DNC’s strong pro-Clinton bias. Wikileak released the emails three days before the Democratic convention in 2016.

    Hack in this context means that the DNC server was accessed over the Internet, its cyber-defenses penetrated, and information was transmitted back to the hackers over the Internet. After Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks would be publishing “emails related to Hillary Clinton,” but before those emails were released, DNC contractor CrowdStrike claimed it had found malware on the server and evidence that it was put there by Russians.

    Guccifer 2.0 stepped forward the next day and claimed responsibility for the hack. With that, the actual content of the emails was virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Instead, there was a never-ending drumbeat of stories about Russia’s “hacking” of the 2016 election, which either implied or asserted as fact such hacking cost Hillary Clinton her rightful victory. That drumbeat has gone on for over three years, diminished but not completely quieted by Robert Mueller’s report and widely panned congressional testimony.

    The crucial problem with the hacking narrative is that there was no hack. The Veteran Intelligence Agents for Sanity (VIPS) performed an analysis of the metadata—information about a computer’s operations—linked to that alleged hack. A report on the analysis was published at the consortiumnews.com website about a year after the alleged hack.

    The Key Event

    July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

    It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.

    Consortiumnews.com, “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence,” July 24, 2017

    VIPS has impeccable credentials. As its name states, all of its members are intelligence professionals, including William Binney, formerly with the NSA and Co-founder of its Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center. The FBI or NSA could have performed the same analysis as VIPS, but didn’t do so. They never even tried to take possession of the server to examine it. Both agencies accepted DNC contractor CrowdStrike’s conclusions at face value.

    This glaring failure to investigate bolsters VIPS’ conclusion: the DNC was not hacked, its email files were obtained by a much faster download than was possible by hacking, a download onto an external storage device, perhaps a thumb drive, by someone who had physical access to the server. In other words, it was an inside job. Speculation has been that the download was by DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose murder not long afterward has never been solved.

    With this one fact the entire Russiagate narrative should have collapsed. That it ultimately did collapse with the release of the Mueller report and his testimony can be regarded as a failure by Trump’s many enemies. However, from the standpoint of the ultimate mission—rendering the truth irrelevant—it has been a shining success.

    The promoters kept a narrative balloon afloat for two years after it was decisively punctured and they endlessly harassed Trump. Not only that, but even after the Mueller report and testimony fiascos—admissions the story was groundless—almost half the populace still believes it and the mainstream media continues to circulate it as if it were true!

    Which is why the Democrats feel they can get away with an attempt to impeach President Trump over a phone call he had with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

    Ostensibly, Ukraine is a minefield for Democrats. In 2014, the US sponsored a coup against Ukraine’s duly elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who had aligned the country with Russia rather than the EU. That coup has not worked out well for the US. Russia quickly annexed Crimea, which had been part of Ukraine, and has aided a eastern Ukrainian separatist movement that favors Russia and bitterly resents the coup.

    The puppet Ukraine government has been a corrupt money pit for Western aid, loans, and loan guarantees, featuring, among many questionable characters, a coterie that reveres Nazi Germany and the role it played in World War II. The Ukrainian government is a loser, but it’s our loser and Trump has doubled down on Obama’s failure, backing monetary aid and weapons shipments to the beleaguered nation.

    Russiagate was launched by Ukrainian officials who disseminated rumors in 2016 that Trump was in league with Russia and later, openly questioned his suitability for the presidency. The DNC dispatched a contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, to Ukraine to search for compromising material on Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman. In other words, the Democrats sought information from a foreign power to influence the 2016 election, precisely what they groundlessly accuse Trump of doing.

    CrowdStrike, the firm that investigated the server the DNC wouldn’t let the FBI or NSA touch, was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow of the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank, and funded by a fanatically anti-Russian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk, who donated at least $25 million to the Clinton Foundation before the 2016 election. CrowdStrike never even produced a final report on its Russian hacking investigation, and had to revise and retract statements it used to support its conclusion.

    That conclusion was based in part on purported telltale Cyrillic characters it said it found when it examined the purported hack, left on the server by the purported hackers. In March 2017, WikiLeaks released Vault 7, which detailed the CIA’s own hacking capabilities, among which is the ability to disguise its hacks and make them look like they came from somewhere else, like Russia. The Cyrillic characters could have been put on the server by the CIA. Or they may only exist in CrowdStrike’s imagination, as nobody else has been allowed to look at it.

    In his phone call with President Zelensky, President Trump elliptically mentions CrowdStrike, from which it can be inferred he wanted CrowdStrike investigated: “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike.” He implied that Ukriane might have the DNC server: “The server, they say Ukraine has it.” It was in this context that he first mentioned having Ukrainian officials work with Rudy Guliani and Attorney General William Barr. Only later in the call did he turn to the Bidens.

    The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.

    Transcript, Trump-Zelensky call

    Joe Biden did what the Democrats accuse President Trump of doing—interfering in Ukraine’s investigative and judicial processes for political benefit. He threatened to withhold US aid to Ukraine if then president Petro Poroshenko didn’t fire Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General. Shokin was investigating Burisma, an energy company that had given Biden’s son, Hunter, a seat on its board of directors that paid him at least $50,000 a month. Hunter Biden had no connection to Ukraine and knew nothing about the energy business. These facts are not in disputer—Joe Biden bragged about what he had done to a Council on Foreign Relations gathering. Poroshenko fired Shokin in May 2016 and replaced him with Yurly Lutsenko.

    A mere recitation of the known, indisputable facts makes out a prima facie case of influence peddling and bribery, and had Shokin been allowed to pursue his investigation, he might well have launched criminal proceedings against Burisma and perhaps Hunter Biden. That would not have redounded to Joe Biden’s benefit, so squelching the investigation was indisputably in his political interest. He may have had another reason for squelching the investigation that strikes even closer to home. A member of Ukraine’s parliament has alleged that Joe Biden received $900,000 as a lobbyist for Burisma.

    In 2000, the US Senate ratified a treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration between the US and Ukraine, “Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,” providing, in the words of Bill Clinton, “for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters.” This gave President Trump, charged with executing the law, all the authority he needed to ask Ukraine’s president for assistance in investigating a prima facie case of influence peddling, bribery, and Biden’s pressure on Ukraine’s president to fire the Prosecutor General. That Joe Biden is Trump’s political rival is absolutely irrelevant, unless anyone who announces they’re running against a sitting president somehow becomes automatically immune from prosecution, that is, above the law.

    Suppose it was a Trump crony and his son, not Joe and Hunter Biden, at the center of this farce. If Trump said nothing about the matter to Ukraine’s president, didn’t insist that he investigate the crony, the Democrats would make out a strong case that Trump was not interfering in Ukraine’s judicial and investigative processes for political gain, although he had a Constitutional and legal duty to do so as the president and under the 2000 treaty. That case would be far stronger than the case they’re now trying to foist on the American public.

    One can hardly imagine a more inauspicious set of circumstances for the Democrats to launch an impeachment investigation and potentially a vote by the Democratic-majority House of Representatives to impeach, followed by a Senate impeachment trial. So why are they doing it?

    Because they can, and because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership will try to employ the procedural shenanigans similar to those they used to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote to get an impeachment vote without an adversarial proceeding. Republicans wouldn’t be able to issue subpoenas, question adverse witnesses or call their own; the vote will essentially be based on partisan assertions—hearsay from one, two, or perhaps three whistleblowers whose identities and testimony the Democrats may try to keep secret. So much for the right to confront one’s accusers. Perhaps the Democrats see due process as a white, patriarchal tool of oppression, not the embodiment of an individual right to fundamental procedural fairness in an individual’s dealings with the government. To their credit Trump and his legal team are balking.

    Things will be different in the Senate, but the worst case for the Democrats is the Republicans conduct a short, pro forma trial and vote not to convict.

    Many of the traditional Republican rank and file have an unshakeable belief, firmly held through eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Barack Obama, that if some supposedly decisive swath of the electorate only knew the illicit things those two, and Democrats in general, have done, they would rise up and electorally smite them. It didn’t happen during the Clinton and Obama administrations and it won’t happen now.

    The only thing left of Russiagate is Trump and company’s investigation of its genesis and development, which may result in criminal prosecutions against some of its sponsors. Other than that possibility, which will take years to play out in the courts, the sponsors have paid no price for Russiagate. It was a non-issue for most voters, and those who thought it important were primarily party partisans on both sides, among whom the Mueller report and testimony didn’t change a single vote.

    The Democrats are simply going to rerun the Hillary Clinton email scandal playbook. There, they shifted the focus from what the emails revealed to their phony Russian hacking story of how they were revealed. The switch this time is from the Democrats’ malodorous associations with Ukraine—from their sponsored coup in 2014 to Ukrainian interference on behalf of the Democrats in the 2016 election to CrowdStrike to Burisma and the Bidens—and instead to the perfectly legitimate phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.

    On its face this looks ludicrous, but it worked for Hillary. She is free, hasn’t been indicted, and floats trail balloons about getting into the 2020 race. If the Democrats can generate enough sound and fury about that call, especially in the mainstream media, and draw out the proceedings into next summer, they can divert attention from the Russiagate investigation and perhaps deflect or even stop it all together. Check out their records: Michael Horowitz  and William Barr are savvy Washington political players at best, paid up members of the Deep State at worst (see here for Horowitz, and here and here and here for Barr).

    The brass ring for the Democrats would be a Senate vote to convict, and there may be enough Mitt Romney-type Republican turncoats that the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand. Failing that, the Democrats would settle for winning the 2020 presidential election. They’re hoping the impeachment trial yields dirt they can use against Trump. Articles proclaiming that the impeachment gambit dooms the Democrats next year are wildly premature. Obamacare was supposedly doomed in 2016 after Republicans won the presidency and both branches of Congress and yet, here we are and Obamacare is still with us.

    The Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote once in the last seven elections (2004). The only memorable thing Mitt Romney ever said was his 47 percent comment. Roughly that percentage of the electorate really does draw its sustenance from the government—by now it may be 48, 49, or 50 percent—and it will mostly vote for the party of government. Couple that bought, built-in base with what’s been happening at the margins since the last election.

    No wall has been built and the illegal immigrant flood has not abated. That group is heavily Democratic and may be decisive in Arizona and Florida. Even Texas could be in play. Trump’s base is older, and some of them have died. Democrats are younger, and a substantial percentage of millennials now call themselves socialists. Democratic candidates are falling all over themselves promising freebies, including free college and health care and student loan forgiveness, to win their vote. Trump’s trade war hasn’t gone down well in farm states as agriculture bears the brunt of China’s retaliation. That could cost him Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina.

    Social mood drives both stock markets and politics. Should social mood turn more sour than it already is and the stock market and economy tank, Trump is probably toast, even if he escapes an impeachment conviction.

    A Democratic victory next year would be a giant victory for the truth irrelevance project. Two scandals manufactured out of whole cloth will not only not have cost them anything electorally, they will have further solidified their base, most of whom quit caring about the truth long ago. There’s probably no chance that Horowitz, Barr, and their colleagues would stand against a Democratic tide. Investigations will go to the bottom of their To Do lists, then get tossed down the memory hole sometime after the new president takes office.

    And without saying a word, the Democrats will be screaming to all those who saw Trump as a symbol of their own resistance: YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, BUT WE’VE MADE THE TRUTH IRRELEVANT! The opposition’s demoralization and anger will be off the charts.

    Whether the truth is irrelevant is a metaphysical debate. To skip to the ultimate conclusion: it’s always and everywhere relevant. Whether a political entity or government can act as if the truth’s irrelevant and neutralize or eliminate those who oppose it is a propaganda and tactical issue.

    The US is well down the road to stifling dissent and the truth. The Democrats are disregarding the truth and putting their chips on kangaroo justice. Republicans are rightfully outraged, but what kind of justice has the US meted out to truth-tellers and true whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning? Are there any prominent Republicans who have spoken out in defense of their truth telling or right to fair judicial processes? The truth irrelevance project is bipartisan.

    In 2016, the resistance to Government As Currently Constituted And The Powers That Be got behind Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders got screwed by his own party; Trump won the presidency. Whether Trump is more a symbol of resistance than the real thing is a topic for another essay. The important point is that his voters constructively channeled their frustrations, played by the rules, and voted him into office.

    If House Democrats conduct their kangaroo proceedings and Trump is convicted by the Senate, or if he stays in office but the impeachment and attendant media circus cost him the election, his supporters will stare at three relevant truths:

    1. the government, its string pullers, and its sycophants and toadies in the media, business, academia, Hollywood and elsewhere are completely corrupt;

    2. voting is useless, the only choices allowed are those approved by the powers;

    3. the system will never be reformed from the inside.

    Some of the resistance, disillusioned, will give up. The rest will continue to resist, but they won’t be playing by the rules anymore.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 22:25

    Tags
    Politics

  • China Q3 GDP Growth Disappoints, Slides To New Record Low
    China Q3 GDP Growth Disappoints, Slides To New Record Low

    It’s that time of the month again… when China drops all its heavy-hitting macro-economic data (goal-seeked or not – allegedly) with expectations for slowing industrial production and overall economic growth (but a bounce in retail sales).

    Recent aggregate macro data has been disappointing as China’s credit impulse (despite every effort) has failed to inspire…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The other main figures we had before today were the two manufacturing PMI readings, one of which showed some clear improvement, and the other showed continued deceleration; and both exports and imports contracted, in a clear hit from the trade war. The 8.5% slide in imports was particularly worrying.

    And of course, don’t forget that consumer price inflation is roaring thanks to piggy-driven food-flation…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The point being, no matter how ‘bad’ tonight’s China data is, a broad-based RRR-cut stimulus package is not high on the CCP’s agenda as Xi would prefer the social unrest in Hong Kong does not spread to the ruralities of the mainland as food-shortages spark chaos.

    So, let’s see just how good or bad things are…

    • China GDP YoY +6.0% YoY MISS (+6.2% prior, +6.1% exp)

    • China Industrial Production YoY +5.6% BEAT (+5.6% prior, +5.5% exp)

    • China Retail Sales YoY +7.8% MEET (+7.5% prior, +7.8% exp)

    • China Fixed Asset Investment YoY +5.4% MISS (+5.5% prior, +5.5% exp)

    • China Property Investment YoY +10.5% (+10.5% prior)

    • China Surveyed Jobless Rate 5.2% (5.2% prior)

    China Jan.-Sept. Pork output falls the most on record, and Iris Pang, greater China economist at ING, tells Bloomberg TV:

    “The very strong industrial production number is actually boosted by infrastructure activities.”

    The retail sales gain is the best since June (despite passenger car sales have slid for 14 months), suggesting solid domestic demand has helped offset at least some of the headwinds from trade. But, as Bloomberg reports, ING’s Pang cautions not to get too excited about the retail-sales gain, though. She points out that consumption figures in China aren’t quite comparable with the retail-sales figures you get in economies like the U.S. In China they include things like business consumption of materials used in construction projects, she says.

    Additionally, Pang says she is “a little bit worried” about the dip in fixed-asset investment growth. The pace of infrastructure spending may slow, endangering the 6% growth pace, she says.

    Graphically…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The Chinese goalseek-o-tron appears out-of-order tonight, when moments ago Beijing reported that China’s Q3 GDP rose just 6.0% YoY, below the 6.1% consensus had expected – and the lowest since ‘modern’ records began 27 years ago in 1992, dipping below even the financial crisis low of 6.4%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The initial reaction in markets was unsurprising – US equity futures rallied! because bad news is good news, right…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Perhaps the machines should glance at the inflation chart above before getting all hot and bothered.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 22:08

    Tags
    Business Finance

  • Schlichter: Bad Gaslighting Epidemic Sweeps The Elite
    Schlichter: Bad Gaslighting Epidemic Sweeps The Elite

    Authored by Kurt Schlichter , op-ed via Townhall.com,

    There are three questions that our terrible, terrible ruling class raises whenever it opens its collective kale-hole to lecture us:

    1) Does the elite think we are really, really stupid, or

    2) Is the elite really, really stupid, or

    3) All of the above?

    The last week has been eventful, even by Age O’ Trump standards, and the one enduring takeaway is just how bad these people are at gaslighting us with inept lies that demand we disbelieve what’s happening right in front of us. But it should come as no surprise that our alleged betters are no good at gaslighting because they have proven themselves to be no good at anything. 

    Here’s a fun test: can you name something – anything – major in the last two decades that our best and brightest have not screwed up?

    I’ll wait.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gaslighting is their default move because gaslighting is all these losers have. It’s not like they can sit back and let you read their CV of achievements. Iraq, Obamacare, their annoying millennial kids…all disasters. The members of America’s current ruling class are King Midases of failure. Everything they touch turns to suck.

    So, because they have no other way to deal with the damning evidence of their utter incompetence, our elite instead tries to convince us that we are crazy for noticing just how lame they are. That’s called “gaslighting,” the straight-faced denial of what’s happening right in front of you that tries to leverage your politeness and deference to convince you that it’s not the elite that’s rotten. You’re just crazy for noticing, you crazed crazy person of craziness.

    Take the Northern Syrian crisis – please. I generally side with the non-commie Kurds over the Turks, but facts are facts and facts mean something. We keep hearing how we “betrayed our allies,” but who promised the Kurds that we would fight Turkey on their behalf? It’s a big jump from “Let’s both fight ISIS” to “Take that, NATO ally.” But our garbage media, and our garbage politicians, sort of hand wave away the fact that you can’t “betray” someone by not doing what you never promised to do, especially when no reasonable person could ever expect you to do it.

    And then there’s the Kurdish monolith issue – all Kurds are not created equal. There are different Kurd factions and different Kurd groups, and some Kurds are communists. In fact, we’ve designated the very Kurds Turkey says it’s going after (the PKK) as terrorists based on their actual terrorism. Certainly, at the start of the story you probably couldn’t have expected our reporters and our politicians to tell Kurd X from Kurd Y without a program (in a better world, though, we’d expect them to zip it until they could), but when we’re a week-plus into what is allegedly the greatest atrocity ever was (because they think they can pin it on Trump) and they are still pretending that all Kurds are sweet n’ cuddly, they are lying to you.

    How about the response on Capitol Hill? We’ve got a bunch of politicians posing and posturing and prancing about over this border incursion half-way around the world and we’re sitting here wishing they would devote some of that wailing and teeth-gnashing to the incursions over our border. But once again, they act like we can’t see the truth sitting right there. As for the Democrats, well, how long would their support have lasted if Trump had used force against…our NATO ally? “You’re helping Putin!” they would shriek. Of course, they are currently shrieking, “You’re helping Putin!” when Trump doesn’t use force against Turkey.

    And then there are the Republicans who holler and cry, raging over this terrible situation as if there wasn’t some way for our pols to influence events by, oh, I dunno, offering a resolution declaring war. That’s a thing in the Constitution, I hear.

    But taking votes means taking stands, and virtue signaling is no fun if that signal is, “I want you to send your sons and daughters to maybe die to sort out this latest 2000-year-old brawl between this latest bunch of strangers,” and the voters you signal it to are sick of stupid wars that never seem to end.

    And then there’s the phony outrage over some silly meme where fake Donald Trump fights fake logos of the fake news. They insist that this year-old YouTube clip is going to spark terrifying violence against…I guess, CNN and MSNBC logos. Of course, these trademarks have remained unassaulted since this silly, fakey vid was created, but never mind that – this is the worst thing ever! Also, you must ignore the fact that the original movie scene the meme was based upon featured the hero massacring a church full of conservative Christians in Kentucky.

    Weird how that realistic cinematic bloodletting matched the seething hatred of traditional Americans we’ve come to expect from our poisonous popular culture, but the Blue Check Mafia has an explanation about why the Christian slaughter was A-OK. See, in the movie, Beanie and Cecil had a magic crystal and the mind control lasers made it so Zippy and Zoopy were actually good guys and shooting a bunch of Jesus people actually means we love Christians and stuff and don’t you see that when they shoot a church full of Christians it doesn’t mean they are shooting Christians, and that if you think it does you are craaaaaazzzzzyyyyyyy? Just don’t pay attention to the real violence outside Trump’s Minneapolis rally.

    It’s bad enough that they lie to us, directly and by omission, all the time. But what makes it worse is how their lies are such glaringly obvious fabrications and/or dissimulations that the deepest insult is that they think we might believe them.

    Sure, our elite is smoldering garbage, but what if it held unchallenged power? It would be a whole country that is Scat Francisco. See the nightmare play out in my action-packed yet hilarious novels of America torn apart by liberal malice, People’s Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire (plus Book Number IV comes out this November)! Those Bulwark weasels call my books “appalling,” so you’ll call them “awesome!”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/17/2019 – 21:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest