People with mental health issues are more likely to be trapped with insurmountable debts than those without such conditions, a new study suggests.
Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, an independent charity focused on finance and mental health, conducted research that revealed the missing link between financial difficulty and mental health disorders.
The institute is expected to present a Consumer White Paper to the government in the United Kingdom and lobby Members of Parliament to make sure people with mental health disorders get more protection from debt collection agencies.
The institute analyzed data from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, which had responses from 7,500 people in England. The analysis showed:
1.5 million people in England are currently struggling with both problem debt and mental health problems at the same time.
People with mental health problems are three and a half times more likely to be in problem debt than those without mental health problems.
46% of all people in problem debt are also experiencing a mental health problem.
The explained that people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder were six times more likely to have financial troubles. People with bipolar disorder or depression are five times more likely to encounter debt problems than clinically sane people.
“When you’re struggling with your mental health it can be much harder to stay in work or manage your spending, while being in debt can cause huge stress and anxiety — so the two issues feed off each other, creating a vicious cycle which can destroy lives. Yet despite how connected these problems are, financial services rarely think about our mental health, and mental health services rarely consider what’s happening with our money.”
The government has an opportunity to use its upcoming Consumer White Paper to introduce minimum standards that people with mental health problems can expect across essential services like energy and banking, to ensure that they get a fair deal. That should include help to avoid problem debt, and better protection from aggressive debt collection practices when it does happen.”
“And ensuring that money advice is routinely offered to people using mental health services would increase recovery rates, as well as improving the financial wellbeing of the 1.5 million people currently dealing with this terrifying combination of problems,” Helen Undy, Chief Executive of Money and Mental Health, said.
Earlier this year, Britain’s household debt reached a new record high. According to Trades Union Congress, UK households now owe an average of $20,358 to credit card companies, financial institutions, and other lenders. In 2017, academic Johnna Montgomerie called it “one of the biggest problems facing the United Kingdom’s economy and society.”
While the new study suggests about 2.27% of UK consumers have crippling debts due to mental health issues, that number could be much higher consider household debt has recently hit a new high.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TE9zEs Tyler Durden
Bayer AG has lost a second trial over claims that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer – and has been ordered by a San Fancisco jury to pay compensatory damages of $5.3 million and punitive damages of $75 million to a 70-year-old California man, Edwin Hardeman, who was diagnosed with cancer after spraying the herbicide on his property for decades.
The plaintiff’s attorneys said he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after 26 years of regularly using Roundup to tackle weeds and poison oak, according to the Wall Street Journal. The active ingredient in Roundup and Ranger Pro is glyphosate, a herbicide.
Wednesday’s verdict follows a similar decision last August in which a former school groundskeeper was awarded $289 million after claiming that Roundup gave him non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
German Bayer AG acquired the Roundup brand of glyphosate weed killers in its $66 billion purchase of Monsanto in June of last year.
Responding to the verdict, Bayer said in a statement “We are disappointed with the jury’s decision, but this verdict does not change the weight of over four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic.”
Bayer’s full statement on the jury’s verdict today in California glyphosate multi-district litigation trial to be posted shortly. Link to follow. pic.twitter.com/KhXxfcu9Af
“You can’t keep trying case after case after case and keep losing and say, ‘We’re not going to settle,” said Thomas G. Rohback, a trial lawyer at Axinn in New York quoted by Bloomberg, who adds that if Bayer continues to lose at trial, it “has to put the possibility of a settlement of these cases into the mix.“
Wednesday’s case is considered a “bellwether” trial for hundreds of other plaintiffs in the US with similar claims, which means the verdict could affect future litigation and other cancer patients and families. Monsanto, now owned by the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, is facing more than 9,000 similar lawsuits across the US.
In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long assessment. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement – warning that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Others have suggested that Bayer’s defense team simply sucks.
Bayer has yet to figure that It’s defense team sucks.
As the New York Times noted in 2017,internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.
A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”
Unsurprisingly, Monsanto’s lawyers argued in last year’s trial that the comments above have simply been taken out of context…
Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation.
“There is a standing confidentiality order that they violated,” said Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto. He said that while “you can’t unring a bell,” Monsanto would seek penalties on the firm.
“What you’re seeing are some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” Mr. Partridge said. “But the substance and the science are not affected by this.”
Glyphosate – Roundup’s main ingredient, was first approved for use in weed killers in 1974, and has grown to become the world’s most popular and widely used herbicide.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FGykwo Tyler Durden
There’s at least one company that does not buy into the overly optimistic market forecast from JPMorgan’s head quant Marko Kolanovic, who expects the S&P to keep rising until 3,000 and sees several more months of consistent buying. JPMorgan itself.
Acording to CityWire, the largest US bank is cutting hundreds of jobs across its asset and wealth management division, with the layoffs mainly affecting support staff and the company’s wealth management business.
JP Morgan has over 26,000 employees within its asset and wealth management division and the latest round of redundancies follow similar cuts the group carried out in its asset management division in August last year, which impacted around 100 employees, CityWire adds.
A spokesman for JP Morgan confirmed the jobs cuts, and gave the following statement:
“It is normal course of business for us to review our staffing annually to ensure appropriate levels, and adjust as necessary. We continue to invest in our business and talent, including hiring top advisors in key markets and expanding our product and service offering.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FwyrsV Tyler Durden
West Virginia State Police closed Interstate 68 near the Maryland border for several hours after a man made threats to kill President Trump and blow up the Pentagon.
A 42-year-old man was arrested after he was pulled over for speeding at around 10:30 Wednesday morning, according to WDTV. During the stop, authorities found a firearm and explosive powder.
“As a result of the investigation based on a traffic stop that occurred earlier this morning, it had been discovered that threats were made to kill the President of the United States and to blow up the Pentagon. A search of the vehicle revealed a firearm and an explosive powder. A 42-year-old male has been detained for questioning. -West Virginia State Police
The FBI, Secret Service and State police are investigating the plot.
Scanner reports indicate Secret Service personnel arrived on the scene, an agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was en route and “apparatus” from Hagerstown, Maryland has been dispatched.
Continued: “Whatever this is, must be HUGE in importance. The federal government has multiple AIRCRAFT engaged in a search pattern in that area of West Virginia/Maryland as shown by the radar tracking patters below:” pic.twitter.com/tU48r0m0pg
“Man, this is crazy,” said Truck driver Adam Heiser of Oklahoma, who was caught in the unexpected shutdown. “I’m just trying to get down the road here to the Love’s truck stop. I don’t know what’s going on that’s got this whole thing shut down like this, but I’d say somebody is in some trouble.”
The interstate was reopened at around 2:30 p.m.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HW5PfB Tyler Durden
During my son’s junior year of high school, he was taught by his U.S. history teacher that the electoral college is unfair and should be abolished.
How do I know? My husband and I had made a habit out of asking him what he learned in school each day over dinner.
And so over a plate of chicken enchiladas, our then-16-year-old son told us about how his public school teacher had bemoaned and decried the electoral college as an outdated and unjust system that subverts the will of the people.
Needless to say, we quickly explained to him how the electoral college is the best presidential voting method for our republic, as it helps protect states’ rights, ensures checks and balances, and defends against tyrannical majorities.
But my point here isn’t to cheer the electoral college, it’s to warn parents that the indoctrination starts in high school.
We were already on high alert over my son’s U.S. history teacher. The educator had also shown several Michael Moore documentaries and Young Turks video clips in class. On the flip side, he never showed Dinesh D’Souza films or PragerU videos in class as a balance. We, as parents, viewed the latter with our son, because we understood he was only getting one side of the story in class.
It’s not a stretch to suggest my son’s experience in U.S. history was not an anomaly. Teachers in high school can often be just as guilty as pushing an agenda as their peers in the professoriate.
To be fair, my son’s government teacher his senior year of high school was conservative, and it was a breath of fresh air.
But the point is, if my husband and I had not offered a counter-argument to my son’s high school teacher that the electoral college is a good thing, would he have sought out the other side of the argument? Or would he, like so many young people today, have graduated high school with the misguided notion that the electoral college is doing damage to this country?
Make no mistake, that’s an important question to ponder. Consider that the electoral college has now been thrust into the spotlight as Democrat presidential hopefuls trip over themselves to suggest the electoral college should be abolished.
And if a generation of young people are being taught in high school that very same thing, it’s not impossible to believe they will cheer Democrat legislators’ efforts to revamp the system to support a popular vote. Indeed, such efforts are already underway.
The moral of the story is that we, as parents, must take a proactive role in teaching our kids about the foundations underpinning our country in order to protect and preserve it.
We taught our son the other side. How many kids nowadays get the same?
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JLkcWx Tyler Durden
Google CEO Sundar Pichai probably would have preferred to keep Wednesday’s meeting with President Trump quiet, but the president had other plans.
In a series of tweets Wednesday afternoon, Trump said his meeting with Pichai had gone well, and that the Google CEO is “totally committed to the US Military, not the Chinese Military.” He added in a second tweet that the two had discussed “political fairness and various things Google can do for our country” (presumably Google’s practice of discriminating against conservative news organizations, part of the company’s crusade against “fake news”, as well as its active support for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election)
Just met with @SundarPichai, President of @Google, who is obviously doing quite well. He stated strongly that he is totally committed to the U.S. Military, not the Chinese Military….
Trump concluded by saying the meeting went “very well.”
The claim about Google’s commitment to the US military might seem puzzling, however, during a Senate hearing earlier this month, Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accused the company of “indirectly benefiting” the Chinese military via Google’s work in China (which may soon include a censored search engine).
“We watch with great concern when industry partners work in China knowing that there is that indirect benefit,” Dunford told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at a March 14 hearing. “The work that Google is doing in China is indirectly benefiting the Chinese military.”
Pichai was also scheduled to meet with Dunford on Wednesday.
No word yet on whether Trump mistakenly referred to Pichai as “Mr. Google.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JJKTe4 Tyler Durden
The outpouring of anger, disbelief, and frustration over Jussie Smollett’s release debacle has brought many sides of the political spectrum together in questioning just WTF happened and how does a 16-count felony indictment get resolved with the lightest of wrist slaps? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel fumed:
With all eyes focused on State’s Attorney Kim Foxx:
1/ Cook County @SAKimFoxx must show us several other cases from her office in which 16 felony charges were dropped post indictment on non-celebrity defendants as she did for #JussieSmollett
If she cannot, there must be an investigation into her misconduct.
WATCH: @SandraSmithFox spoke with Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President Kevin Graham as Chicago prosecutors face backlash for dropping all charges against Jussie Smollett #nine2noonpic.twitter.com/iFGj8K3tIT
And even David Axelrod took to Twitter to express his disgust: “Unless some better explanation surfaces, here’s the lesson of this weird turn in the Smollett case: You can contrive a hate crime, make it a national news, get caught and-if you are a well-connected celebrity-get off for $10K and have your record expunged and files sealed.”
Hate crimes are loathsome. Faking them is insidious and shouldn’t be excused. Despite Smollett’s denials, nothing the prosecutor said in dismissing the case supports that. If prosecutors have evidence that contradicts the indictment THEY brought, they should share it today.
“The fact that (Smollett) feels that we have exonerated him, we have not. I can’t make it any clearer than that.” So says the lead prosecutor in Smollett case. So why allow Smollett to get off for $10K and have his records expunged and case files sealed?
Smollett repaid the city $10k, ostensibly as an offset for the investigation his phony charges ignited that cost the City of Chicago in the millions.
It really is outrageous.
Few things are more fundamental to democracy than the perception that the criminal justice system operates without taint or slant, that decisions as to how to protect the public and who to send to prison are made regardless of political or personal considerations.
Unfortunately, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx – a self-styled “reformer” who gained office largely by riding the wave of justified outrage over the Laquan McDonald scandal – appears to have pretty much botched that task in her office’s handling of the high-profile Jussie Smollett case. By first intervening with police on Smollett’s behalf and now allowing her top assistant to dismiss a 16-count felony indictment against the tall-tale-telling “Empire” actor with the lightest of slaps on the wrist, Foxx has endangered her political future and, more important, faith in the local justice system.
“The office owes the public an explanation,” former Foxx chief deputy Eric Sussman told me in a phone interview late today.
“I agree with the mayor. It looks like a whitewash.”
It sure does.
The Smollett case has been worldwide news since January. The country and city were rightly horrified by the actor’s story that he’d been accosted by two MAGA hat-wearing attackers he didn’t know who put a rope around his neck, poured a toxic chemical on him and yelled racist and homophobic slurs when he went out for a late-night snack in Streeterville.
Police always suspected something was not right with that story. So did I. What are the odds that an urban resident would be stupid enough to walk through an empty viaduct and just happen to run into two people in a relatively well-to-do neighborhood of Chicago who not only know him but happened to hate gays and would be Donald Trump fans to boot?
So, police went all out to find out what happened, assigning what I hear is a mind-boggling 12 detectives full time for weeks to scour tape from remote cameras and other clues. Police finally concluded that the whole thing was a fake and that Smollett’s attackers were actually two body-building acquaintances who’d been hired to do their own acting job. Foxx’s office charged him with 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct, counts that came in the form of a grand jury indictment.
By that time, the case already had taken another strange turn.
Without detailing why, Foxx recused herself from the case, turning over the matter to her top aide, First Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph Magats. Her recusal came after reports that, after receiving calls on Smollett’s behalf from former top Barack and Michelle Obama aide Tina Tchen, Foxx called Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and urged him to turn over the case to the FBI.
That’s basically where things stood until today, when in an unexpected and nearly unreported court appearance—the press was tipped by a publicist – Foxx’s office dropped the charges and agreed to seal all of the evidence from public view.
What did Foxx’s office get in return?
Not a confession or even grudging admission of guilt or regret.
In fact, Smollett thanked the state for “attempting to do what’s right” and said he has been “truthful and consistent from day one.” Smollett’s attorney bragged that Smollett’s “record has been wiped clean. . . .He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks.”
How about compensation to the city for the hundreds and maybe thousands of hours of police time—time that was badly needed to solve real crimes? Nope.
Smollett did a bit a community service—a whole 16 hours doing something or other at Operation Push—and forfeited a $10,000 bond. But Smollett’s lawyer suggested the $10,000 was a token price to uncomplicate his client’s life.
In a statement, Magats, the lawyer Foxx assigned to the Smollett case, termed the development “a just disposition and appropriate resolution to the case,” given that Smollett had no prior record. Continued the statement: “We did not exonerate Mr. Smollett. The charges were dropped in exchange for Mr. Smollett’s agreement to do community service and forfeit his bond.”
So then why did Smollett and his attorney dispute that there was any deal, and act as if, as Donald Trump might put it, he was “COMPLETELY VINDICATED”?
Why weren’t city police notified until the last minute? Why is there to be no follow through, no extended conditions to prevent another stunt?
In a later interview, Magats insisted the decision to drop the charges was his and his alone. Further, he says, the judge was required to seal the evidence once the defense so requested, state law generally caps compensation in cases like this at $10,000 and the deferred prosecution Smollett’s case involved does not require a confession of guilt.
I’m not a lawyer. But now we’ll never know all of the evidence police collected in this case because it’s locked up. And we’ll never see how Smollett would have handled himself at trial, what he would have said under oath, or how he would have explained paying the body builders thousands of dollars.
Back to Sussman, who is a lawyer and held Magats’ exact job. (A Foxx press aide pointed out that Sussman, a federal prosecutor, was with the office only two years, compared to Magats’ 29).
“The prosecution says they have rock-solid evidence, and then they just suddenly drop it?” Sussman asks.
“It makes you think there’s some evidence or something that they don’t want out” – perhaps questioning from Foxx about who called her on Smollett’s behalf and what she did about it.
In all his time as first assistant, Sussman says he never saw a multiple-felony case resolved like this.
There you have it.
But the next time police are reluctant to prosecute a case of gay-bashing… the next time people are afraid to testify against someone with clout… the next time average citizens let gangbangers go free because they’re scared to cooperate… the next time police just don’t want to put in extra effort because they think it’s not worth it… the next time people laugh when you say you’re from Chicago… remember this case.
It’s time for Foxx to say lots, lots more about how and why this came down the way it did. I want her to look Chicago in the eye and say justice was served.
But we will give the final word to Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett who asks the question everyone is considering: “None of this is normal – even for Crook County where I was an Assistant State’s Attorney. Educated guess: this hoax implicated someone very important who had pull with the State’s Attorney, and who very badly did not want to be implicated.“
None of this is normal—even for Crook County where I was an Assistant State’s Attorney. Educated guess: this hoax implicated someone very important who had pull with the State’s Attorney, and who very badly did not want to be implicated. https://t.co/HyACqBMGoW
About the only time that love is mentioned in conversations about politics is when a lawmaker gets caught in a sex scandal. Suddenly, the perp starts gushing about how much he loves his spouse, his kids, his constituents, and his country. My guest today on the Reason Podcast wants to change that.
Arthur Brooks’ excellent new book is called Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America From the Culture of Contempt. It’s a call to arms for individuals to change how they approach the sorts of increasingly vicious political disagreements that he argues are tearing apart the country. We talk about his decade-long leadership of the American Enterprise Institute, arguably the nation’s most-influential conservative think tank, and the places where conservatives and libertarians overlap and continue to disagree. In a wide-ranging conversation, we also discuss his decision to step down as AEI’s president and join the faculty of Harvard.
At about 8pm Wednesday night local time a massive blast shook the central Ukrainian city of Kropivnitsky in what is being initially described as a mystery explosion.
Conflicting Ukrainian social media accounts include city residents citing anywhere between four and up to nine blasts, with initial reports of an electrical blackout in the city.
Explosions shook Kropivnitsky in Ukraine at about 8pm local time, Image via Twitter
Among the locations where explosions and a fire were observed in Kropivnitsky, which is the administrative center of the Kirovohrad Oblast, was at a local gas station which may have held fuel storage tanks.
Emergency crews are said to be responding, and there are early reports of injuries, with locals noting on social media that initial blasts were so large a mushroom cloud appeared over the city.
Multiple videos uploaded online show explosions over the city reaching many stories high, unleashing fireballs that light up the whole area.
According to Europe-based independent journalist Sotiri Dimpinoudis, who uploaded multiple videos of the explosions:
Eyewitness reports are saying that a gas station with barrels have began exploding one by one at the city of Kropivnitsky in Ukraine, and that other parts of the city were explosions. Who exploded them has yet to be investigated.
Over the past few years a number of ammunition storage facilities have exploded in Ukraine, leading to unproven speculation that such instances could have something to do with the conflict with Russia.
The Hill this week dropped a bombshell report detailing what appears an actual, confirmed case of meddling of massive proportions: in 2016 Obama administration officials sought to suppress a Ukrainian corruption probe into an NGO bankrolled by both the US government and Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros.
When Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office tried to investigate an alleged misallocation of $4.4 million in US funds, which was supposed to go toward anti-corruption initiatives, US embassy officials came down hard to shut down the investigation altogether. “We ran right into a buzzsaw and we got bloodied,” a senior Ukrainian official told The Hill.
George Soros, second left, chairman of Soros Fund Management and founder of The Open Society Institute, speak with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, right, in Kiev, Ukraine, Jan. 13, 2015. via AP/Washington Times
According to the report, Ukraine’s probe was quashed after the US Embassy in Kiev gave Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko “a list of people whom we should not prosecute” as part of the inquiry.
Lutsenko told The Hill he believes Democrats wanted to investigation stopped dead in its tracks because it could expose the party to scandal during the 2016 election.
The Hill report explains this in unambiguous terms while acknowledging the clear hypocrisy of simultaneous FBI probes into team Trump’s alleged business ties with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine, citing Lutsenko’s explosive testimony:
It turns out the group that Ukrainian law enforcement was probing was co-funded by the Obama administration and liberal mega-donor George Soros. And it was collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine.
The implied message to Ukraine’s prosecutors was clear: Don’t target AntAC in the middle of an America presidential election in which Soros was backing Hillary Clinton to succeed another Soros favorite, Barack Obama, Ukrainian officials said.
Lutsenko spells out that top American officials would be further embarrassed if scrutiny were put on just how US tax dollars were being spent in Ukraine: “At the time, Ms. Ambassador thought our interviews of the Ukrainian citizens, of the Ukrainian civil servants who were frequent visitors in the U.S. Embassy, could cast a shadow on that anti-corruption policy,” he said.
The Hill collaborated Lutsenko’s words by citing an email sent to the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office in April 2016, authored by then US embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent, which said, “The investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center (sic), based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced.”
The focus on AntAC — whose youthful street activists famously wore “Ukraine F*&k Corruption” T-shirts — was part of a larger probe by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office into whether $4.4 million in U.S. funds to fight corruption inside the former Soviet republic had been improperly diverted. —The Hill
But The Hill’s findings, based Ukrainian officials’ testimony and internal communication between the US embassy and the prosecutor’s office in Kiev, reveals an alarming and explosive state of affairs that potentially goes far beyond Ukraine.
According to the report, “the AntAC anecdote highlights a little-known fact that the pursuit of foreign corruption has resulted in an unusual alliance between the U.S. government and a political mega-donor.”
The following section of The Hill’s report spells out a Washington and private sector circular arrangement that ensures Soros-funded NGOs continue to be the on-the-ground vanguard of US policy in Ukraine:
After the Obama Justice Department launched its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative a decade ago to prosecute corruption in other countries, the State Department, Justice Department and FBI outsourced some of its work in Ukraine to groups funded by Soros.
The Hungarian-American businessman is one of the largest donors to American liberal causes, a champion of the U.S. kleptocracy crackdown and a man with extensive business interests in Ukraine.
One key U.S. partner was AntAC, which received 59 percent (or $1 million) of its nearly $1.7 million budget since 2012 from U.S. budgets tied to State and Justice, and nearly $290,000 from Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation, according to the group’s donor disclosure records.
The U.S.-Soros collaboration was visible in Kiev. Several senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials and FBI agents appeared in pictures as participants or attendees at Soros-sponsored events and conferences.
All of this comes after in an interview last week Lutsenko noted that he has opened a formal investigation probing whether financial records leaked by Ukrainian officials amidst the 2016 US elections was a covert attempt to sway voters in favor of Hillary Clinton.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OwJExz Tyler Durden
