Month: February 2020

On Average, How Long From Inversion To Recession?

On Average, How Long From Inversion To Recession?

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Let’s take a look at the last six recessions. How long did it take from inversion to recession?

10-Year to 3-Month Inversions

In this post, we are analyzing the recession lead time from yield curve inversions as measured by by the 10-year yield minus the 3-month yield.

An inversion occurs when the result is negative, i.e. the 10-year note yield is lower than the 3-month T-Bill yield.

Let’s kick this discussion off with a Tweet from Jim Bianco.

Cause or Symptom?

Bianco says “the yield curve does not predict a recession, it causes it.”

This is a subtle point of difference, but I respectfully disagree.

The yield curve does not “cause” anything. After all, the yield curve has no decision-making ability or input. Rather, an inverted yield curve is a market “reaction” to Fed policy, government fiscal policy, or both.

Thus an inverted yield curve is a “symptom” that something is wrong or about to go wrong, not a cause of anything. Pragmatically speaking, the difference may not matter, but let’s put the blame where it belongs.

And the blame for the next recession does not go to the yield curve!

I believe we all know where it goes: Fed bubble blowing policies coupled with poor governmental fiscal policies.

With that distinction out of the way, let’s hone in on some charts.

December 1969 Recession

The recession was about a year from the first inversion. Bianco tracked 10-day sustained inversion.

November 1973 Recession

Heading into the 1973 recession you had about a 5-month lead-time warning.

Jan 1980 Recession

Congratulations! You had a long lead time on this one.

July 1981 Recession

This double-dip recession whipsaw gave you a warning of about 9 months.

March 2001 Recession

The inversion signal for the March 2001 recession gave you 8 months warning, perhaps.

But many technology stocks started their collapse in early 2000.

From an investment standpoint, there was no warning at all for many issues.

Great Recession

There was plenty of warning for this one. The stock market peaked in November of 2007. The Great Recession started the next month.

One of the more amusing aspects of the Great Recession is that in March, three months after the recession started, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke denied a housing bubble and a recession.

Also in March of 2008 the ECRI called it a recession of choice, insisting the Fed could have prevented it.

Yet, the ECRI insists it called that recession correctly.

Flashback November 2007 ECRI Vol. XII, No. 11: Weakness In Leading Indicators Not Yet Recessionary

Please consider the following image snip. Highlighting is mine.

ECRI:

“The difference this time is that, even though the shocks have arrived, good leading indicators like the USLLI are not showing recessionary weakness … This is a key reason why the economy is not yet in a recession. …. weakness is not pronounced, pervasive and persistent enough to be recessionary. …. leading indexes are still holding up sufficiently for a recession to be averted.“

Window of Opportunity

Friday, January 25, 2008
ECRI Says There Is A Window of Opportunity for the US Economy

The U.S. economy is now in a clear window of vulnerability, given the plunge in ECRI’s Weekly Leading Index (WLI) since last spring. Yet there is a brief window of opportunity within that window of vulnerability to avert a recession. That is why ECRI has not yet forecast a recession. ….

This is why, having correctly predicted the last two recessions in real time without crying wolf in between, we are not forecasting one yet.

ECRI Denial

The ECRI laid it on pretty thick, openly mocking the “best advertised [recession] in history” while claiming “This is why, having correctly predicted the last two recessions in real time without crying wolf in between, we are not forecasting one yet.“

The irony is the recession was about 2 months old at the time.

Recession of Choice

Friday, March 28, 2008
ECRI Calls it “A Recession of Choice”

The U.S. economy is now on a recession track. Yet this is a recession that could have been averted. In January, given the plunge in the Weekly Leading Index, we declared that the economy had entered a clear window of vulnerability. Yet we emphasized the brief window of opportunity within that window of vulnerability for timely policy stimulus to head off a recession.

It is a somewhat different story with regard to GDP, because the cyclically volatile manufacturing sector still accounts for 36% of GDP. A mild downturn in that sector should limit the decline in GDP in this recession.

Poor Calls

The ECRI did NOT call that recession and it has since called one that did not happen. I am not picking on the ECRI, just setting the facts straight.

I have made a number of poor calls, including two recession calls that have not happened. On one of them, I sided with the ECRI on coincident indicators. That was a mistake.

It is not easy to get these calls correct and many who claim to have done that, didn’t, to put things politely.

Where to Now?

We are still on a recession track IMO. But you have six models to pick from.

One of them is that we are in a recession now, and no one even realizes it.

Feeling lucky like November 2007? Even if so, will you recognize the recession when it hits?

The worst scenario is not that the recession has started, or is about to, but rather this is now like March of 2000 or November 1978 with stocks tanking well in advance of a recession.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 16:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UlpnQL Tyler Durden

‘It’s Not Going To Be Great’: Biden Allies Crestfallen As Expectations In Iowa Lowered

‘It’s Not Going To Be Great’: Biden Allies Crestfallen As Expectations In Iowa Lowered

Allies of former Vice President Joe Biden have lowered their expectations for the Iowas caucuses Monday night, with some campaign aides expressing apprehension about how things will go, according to The Hill.

“Most [aides] feel it’s not going to be great,” said one longtime Biden ally.

Biden’s aides and allies said they were hoping to place in the top three. But even if they fall short, the campaign is “built for the long haul,” one Biden confidant said.

Biden said in an interview with NBC that “my gut tells me things are going well.” Still, he added, that the results would be “close.”

The latest poll in the state by Emerson College and Channel 7 News Iowa showed Biden trailing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by 7 points, 28 percent to 21 percent. Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., came in third with 15 percent. –The Hill

On Monday, Biden was asked during a surprise stop at a Des Moines field office if his campaign can survive if he doesn’t win in Iowa, to which he replied – while apparently being led around by the arm – that it will “survive all the way through the whole thing.”

Earlier Monday, Biden told NBC News‘ Savanah Guthrie “I’m the only one with broad support,” however a poll by CBS News and YouGov revealed that Biden and Sanders are tied at 25%. 

And, according to The Hill, if other Democratic candidates exceeds expectations in Iowa, it could set Biden up for a serious uphill battle.

“If Amy or Pete does better than expected and is getting a ton of buzz going into New Hampshire, that’s really bad for Biden,” said one Democrat, who has raised money for Biden. “The longer there are more moderate candidates fighting over table scraps while Bernie gains strength, the more narrow the path gets for him going forward.”

Biden does appear to have the luxury of underperforming in Iowa, as his allies can credibly argue that Biden’s core constituency of black voters will be there to turn out for him in South Carolina and in the more diverse Super Tuesday states, such as Texas, North Carolina and Virginia.

“The Iowa caucuses are totally up in the air, especially this year with so many candidates running and the weird way that voters will realign and the different ways the results will be reported,” said one Democrat who has raised money for Biden. “If Biden wins Iowa, that’s great. If not, he’s got big plans for other states and has made that clear for a while. The campaign still thinks they have a great shot at winning this thing no matter what happens in Iowa.” –The Hill

Still, Biden acolytes have kept the faith.

“No matter what happens in Iowa, he’ll be competitive moving forward,” said Kelly Dietrich, a veteran Democratic fundraiser and the CEO of the National Democratic Training Committee.

“No matter what happens in Iowa, he’ll be competitive moving forward,” she said, adding “He’s the most well-known and only candidate in this race that nearly every Democrat has voted for twice as vice president. There’s a lot of undecided people still and so many ways this could play out, but Biden will be in it regardless.”

 


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 16:40

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GRzXXS Tyler Durden

To Defend Trump, Ken Starr Invokes Martin Luther King

One of President Donald Trump’s lawyers invoked Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial today, accusing the House of failing to follow the rules and urging the Senate to reject all charges on the grounds that the U.S. stands for “freedom and justice.”

“The nation is about freedom,” said Ken Starr, the ex-independent counsel whose report led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. “And we hear the voice of Martin Luther King Jr. and his dream-filled speech about freedom, echoing the great passages inscribed on America’s temple of justice, the Lincoln Memorial, which stood behind Dr. King as he spoke on that historic day.”

But King’s words weren’t just about freedom, Starr continued. They were also about justice. “In his speeches, [King] summoned up regularly the words of a Unitarian abolitionist from the prior century, Theodore Parker, who referred to the moral arc of the universe”—an arc that “points toward justice.”

That justice, according to Starr, must be borne out by authenticity, which is only made possible by strict adherence to the rules. “It’s why we don’t allow deflated footballs,” he said, a reference to the NFL’s “Deflategate” scandal, “or stealing signs from the field,” alluding to the Houston Astros controversy.

In that vein, Starr argued that the House should be “called to account” for its alleged failure to ensure “fundamental fairness” throughout Trump’s Senate trial. “Did the House Judiciary Committee rush to judgement in fashioning the articles of impeachment?” he asked.

Starr noted one rule he claimed was broken: House Republicans did not receive a full day to call witnesses during Trump’s initial impeachment inquiry, alluding to Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI. “Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter,” it states, “the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.”

Did Democrats in fact break that rule? Not so, says Casey Burgat of the R Street Institute. “It’s not an entire day, and majority still gets to decide when, who, and where, and can even dilute minority chosen witnesses by naming 1 (or 100) of their own,” he told CNN a few weeks ago. “Plus, rules say the witnesses and testimony have to be relevant.”

While House Republicans did not receive a full day dedicated to their witnesses, they did indeed call several individuals to testify during the impeachment inquiry. Among them were Kurt Volker, Tim Morrison, David Hale, and Jonathan Turley. Democrats rejected their pleas to have Hunter Biden and the whistleblower testify, but Burgat says that House rules permit this.

Starr also made mention of precedent set in trials past. “Are we to countenance violations of the rules and traditional procedures that have been followed scrupulously in prior impeachment proceedings?” he asked. But no two impeachment trials are the same; the process is more like a game of Calvinball where lawmakers make up the rules as they go along. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) strayed from his assurance that Trump’s proceedings would follow the Clinton impeachment model. Would Starr object to that?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36PEWmg
via IFTTT

To Defend Trump, Ken Starr Invokes Martin Luther King

One of President Donald Trump’s lawyers invoked Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial today, accusing the House of failing to follow the rules and urging the Senate to reject all charges on the grounds that the U.S. stands for “freedom and justice.”

“The nation is about freedom,” said Ken Starr, the ex-independent counsel whose report led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. “And we hear the voice of Martin Luther King Jr. and his dream-filled speech about freedom, echoing the great passages inscribed on America’s temple of justice, the Lincoln Memorial, which stood behind Dr. King as he spoke on that historic day.”

But King’s words weren’t just about freedom, Starr continued. They were also about justice. “In his speeches, [King] summoned up regularly the words of a Unitarian abolitionist from the prior century, Theodore Parker, who referred to the moral arc of the universe”—an arc that “points toward justice.”

That justice, according to Starr, must be borne out by authenticity, which is only made possible by strict adherence to the rules. “It’s why we don’t allow deflated footballs,” he said, a reference to the NFL’s “Deflategate” scandal, “or stealing signs from the field,” alluding to the Houston Astros controversy.

In that vein, Starr argued that the House should be “called to account” for its alleged failure to ensure “fundamental fairness” throughout Trump’s Senate trial. “Did the House Judiciary Committee rush to judgement in fashioning the articles of impeachment?” he asked.

Starr noted one rule he claimed was broken: House Republicans did not receive a full day to call witnesses during Trump’s initial impeachment inquiry, alluding to Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI. “Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter,” it states, “the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.”

Did Democrats in fact break that rule? Not so, says Casey Burgat of the R Street Institute. “It’s not an entire day, and majority still gets to decide when, who, and where, and can even dilute minority chosen witnesses by naming 1 (or 100) of their own,” he told CNN a few weeks ago. “Plus, rules say the witnesses and testimony have to be relevant.”

While House Republicans did not receive a full day dedicated to their witnesses, they did indeed call several individuals to testify during the impeachment inquiry. Among them were Kurt Volker, Tim Morrison, David Hale, and Jonathan Turley. Democrats rejected their pleas to have Hunter Biden and the whistleblower testify, but Burgat says that House rules permit this.

Starr also made mention of precedent set in trials past. “Are we to countenance violations of the rules and traditional procedures that have been followed scrupulously in prior impeachment proceedings?” he asked. But no two impeachment trials are the same; the process is more like a game of Calvinball where lawmakers make up the rules as they go along. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) strayed from his assurance that Trump’s proceedings would follow the Clinton impeachment model. Would Starr object to that?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36PEWmg
via IFTTT

Zerohedge’s Twitter Account is Permanently Banished

Most of you reading this will be aware that Zerohedge’s prolific and highly popular twitter account with over 670,000 followers was on the receiving end of a lifetime ban by the Twitter politburo. This post won’t focus on the details of this specific ban, but if you want to read more about it, see the following: Zerohedge Suspended On Twitter.

It’s imperative not to overly focus on the individual victims of tech giant bans, and instead zero in on the bigger picture. Rather than debating whether or not you like Zerohedge, or whether you think it crossed a line, I want to highlight the dangerous implications of dominant social media companies wielding permanent bans as a weapon on freedom of speech in practice.

This post will cover three main issues. First, the fact that Twitter and other social media companies have essentially created a caste system when it comes to engagement on their platforms. Second, the question of whether or not a lifetime ban from social media platforms is an ethical concept. Third, the dangers of Twitter essentially throwing the entire timeline of a banished account into the memory hole.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg https://ift.tt/2uZlaYf
via IFTTT

Google Tumbles After Revenue, Profit Miss; Breaks Out YouTube, Cloud For First Time

Google Tumbles After Revenue, Profit Miss; Breaks Out YouTube, Cloud For First Time

After the stellar earnings reports from Apple, Microsoft and Amazon (lets ignore Facebook for now), investors were expecting nothing but great news from the world’s biggest search engine, Google, aka Alphabet, despite reports earlier today that DOJ officials are meeting with state attorneys general reps tomrrow afternoon to discuss their antitrust investigations of Google.

Alas, it was not meant to be, and moments ago Alphabet reported Q4 earnings that while beating on the bottom line, missed on revenues, operating margin and operating profit, to wit:

  • Q4 EPS of $15.35 beat Est. $12.50
  • Q4 total Revenue $46.08BN missed Exp. $46.94BN
  • Q4 Revenue Ex-TAC $37.57B missed Est. $38.40B
  • Q4 Oper Margin 20% missed Est. 24.7%
  • Q4 Oper Income $9.27B missed Est. $9.79B

Also of note: for the first time ever, Google broke out its YouTUbe and Cloud revenue, and reported it generated $15.15BN in YouTube revenue and another $8.92 billion in Cloud. As Bloomberg notes, “breaking out Cloud and YouTube revenue is monumental for Wall Street.” YouTube revenue nearly doubled from 2017, where it was $8.15 billion, and while some investors had expected overall YouTube sales for 2019 to be as high as $20 billion, they will probably take $15BN.

Meanwhile, on the cloud side the business also more than doubled since 2017, from $4.1 billion to $8.9 for the full year 2019, which while solid still lags the market leader, Amazon Web Services, which reported $9.9BN in just Q4 revenue last week. That said, Google’s cloud business grew 53% Y/Y, far above the 34% growth rate posted by AWS.

Visually:

Meanwhile, Alphabet’s “other Bets” – from self-driving cars to its biotech units – continued to bleed cash, losing $2.03 billion during the quarter on $172 million in revenue.

Despite the revenue miss, revenue growth was still a solid 18%, although with the stock soaring in the past year, it – like the rest of its FAAMG peers – was priced beyond perfection, and investors were not happy, especially as a result of the sharp jump in TAC or traffic acqusition costs, which rose by $1BN in Q4 compared to a year ago, suggesting that Google’s ads business is getting more costly. And, as shown below, Google has never paid more in comp: Alphabet now employs 118,899 people, up more than 20,000 from a year ago.

There was a silver lining on the cost side: overall CapEx fell year-on-year to $6.05 billion, with almost all of the spending going to Google, not the “Other Bets” companies like Waymo and Verily.

On net, while the business continues to post solid growth, concerns about rising costs, and a miss on the top-line and profit margins left a sour taste in investor’s mouths, and as a result GOOGL stock, with its 27x forward PE…

…  dropped sharply after hours, tumbling as much as 5%, before stabilizing slightly below 3% lower.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 16:26

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GWI8ln Tyler Durden

Crude, Copper, & Credit Crushed As Stocks ‘Dead-Bat-Bounce’ (Again)

Crude, Copper, & Credit Crushed As Stocks ‘Dead-Bat-Bounce’ (Again)

Another day, another ‘dead-bat-bounce’ on absolutely nothing…

Makes you wonder eh?

China’s cash markets reopened and collapsed as expected…

Source: Bloomberg

European markets were all higher, thanks to a lurch upwards at the US open…

Source: Bloomberg

US markets ramped overnight, ramped more at the open, dipped on CDC headlines, then rebounded after Europe closed…

Big short-squeeze at the open today…

Source: Bloomberg

S&P futs were glued around the 3254 level – the gamma flip…

Momentum and Value continue to diverge year-to-date – rather stunningly serially…

Source: Bloomberg

TSLA went full-retard…surging over 20% today!…

…and up 80% YTD…

Source: Bloomberg

Credit markets refused to play along with the equity bounce today…

Source: Bloomberg

Treasury yields tumbled intraday after rising overnight…

Source: Bloomberg

With 30Y back below 2.00%…

Source: Bloomberg

The yield curve briefly uninverted but pushed back into inversion as the US day session wore on…

Source: Bloomberg

And at the short-end, the market is now pricing in at least 2 rate cuts in 2020… (there is now a 75% chance of a rate-cut in June, up from 8% on 1/20)

Source: Bloomberg

Negative-yielding debt has soared $3 trillion in the last 12 days…

Source: Bloomberg

The Dollar soared back, reversing all of Friday’s losses today…

Source: Bloomberg

Yuan tumbled…

Source: Bloomberg

Huge roundtrip in Cable today…

Source: Bloomberg

Cryptos are broadly higher since Friday, but Bitcoin is the laggard…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin has been hovering around $9200-$9400 for a week…

Source: Bloomberg

Commodities were all lower today as the dollar jumped with oil worst…

Source: Bloomberg

Copper’s collapse relative to gold signal a dramatic decline in yields is due…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI Crude fell below $50 for the first time since Jan 2019…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, we wonder if the market is fearsome of the coronavirus, Fed balance sheet deflation, or Sanders surging into the lead?

Source: Bloomberg

So to sum up – copper, crude, credit, rates, the yield curve, and the yuan are all down today… but US equities are higher.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 16:01

Tags
Business Finance
Technology Internet

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37XMvIX Tyler Durden

The State of Our Union Is…Drunk?

Let’s see, Super Bowl, then the Iowa caucuses, various Democratic presidential debates, impeachment endgame, and…the State of the Union address? Is Dry January destined to be replaced by Binge-Drunk February, at least among people who can’t pry themselves away from C-SPAN?

Such are the questions on today’s episode of the Reason Roundtable podcast, in which Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch share coping strategies, deliver their own private State of the Union addresses, and confess to rooting interests (or lack thereof) in tonight’s big Democratic vote. Also discussed: Shakira’s hips, Joe Biden’s sins, and Katherine’s retracted endorsements.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: ‘Tango de la Noche’ by Wayne Jones

Relevant links from the show:

“Will the Justices skip the 2020 State of the Union?” by Josh Blackman

“The Eternal State of the Union, 2015 Update Edition,” by Matt Welch

“The Ultimate Impact of Trump’s Impeachment Remains to be Seen,” by Ilya Somin

“Lamar Alexander, a Key GOP Senator, Says Trump’s Delay of Ukraine Funds Was ‘Inappropriate’—but Not Impeachable,” by Peter Suderman

“Republican Senators Say the Truth Is Irrelevant in Evaluating the Gravity of Trump’s Misconduct,” by Jacob Sullum

“The Real Problem With Alan Dershowitz’s Position on Quid Pro Quos and Impeachment,” by Jacob Sullum

“Let Us Bury Prof. Dershowitz’ Inane Impeachment Theory,” by David Post

“Team Trump’s Final Defense: He Didn’t Do It, but Even If He Did, It’s Not Impeachable,” by Billy Binion

“Mike Bloomberg Just Lost My Vote With His Super Bowl Ad,” by Nick Gillespie

“Trump Has Fully Embraced the Idea That Deficits Don’t Matter,” by Steven Greenhut

“Republican Deficit Hypocrisy Will Make America’s Debt Problems Much Harder To Solve,” by Peter Suderman

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SbepKS
via IFTTT

Judge Finds That the Houston Narcotics Officer Whose Lies Killed a Couple in 2019 Framed Another Suspect in 2008

When Houston narcotics officer Gerald Goines arrested Otis Mallet in 2008, he described a crack cocaine purchase in which Mallet retrieved the drug from a can inside a truck and handed it to his brother, Steven, whom Goines had paid $200. Thanks to Goines’ testimony, Mallet was sentenced to eight years in prison. But today, the Houston Chronicle reports, Harris County prosecutors joined Mallet’s lawyers in urging a judge to declare him “actually innocent” because Goines “repeatedly lied about nearly every aspect” of the case. The judge agreed.

The handling of Mallet’s case seems to be in character for Goines, who wrote the fraudulent search warrant affidavit for the January 2019 drug raid that killed a middle-aged couple, Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, in their home on Harding Street. To justify the Harding Street raid, which resulted in state murder charges and federal civil rights charges against Goines, the officer invented a heroin purchase by a nonexistent confidential informant. His story about Mallet’s involvement in the 2008 crack deal appears to have been equally fictitious.

“Now we know [Goines] was lying and using the district attorney’s office as a tool to convict people wrongfully as early as 2008,” said Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, whose office is reviewing some 14,000 cases involving Goines and other members of the Houston Police Department’s Narcotics Division. “Anybody who was convicted as a result of Gerald Goines’ testimony, or involvement in a case that is significant or relevant, will now be given a presumption when they file their writ that Goines’ testimony or evidence in their case was false.”

Mallet, who served two years in prison before he was released on parole, has always maintained that Goines framed him. “Goines gave conflicting testimony about why he didn’t use marked bills,” the Chronicle reports. “Mallet’s neighbors disputed seeing him engage in a drug deal or carrying the blue can Goines said he’d handled.” And while Goines claimed in an expense report that he paid $200 to a confidential informant who helped incriminate the Mallet brothers, he testified that he gave that money directly to Steven Mallet.

Goines declined to testify during Otis Mallet’s hearing, citing the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. Ogg said Goines’ silence about Mallet’s case is “compelling evidence that the entire alleged narcotics transaction was a fraud.” Judge Ramona Franklin’s recommendation that Mallet be declared innocent will be reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Ogg said the Mallet case “raises questions about how buy money was being issued by the Houston Police Department’s narcotics division and used by narcotics officers like Gerald Goines, and how drug payouts were being supervised—and audited.” Goines was employed by the department for 34 years before he retired in the wake of the raid that killed Tuttle and Nicholas. If he routinely lied to incriminate people that he arrested during that long career, the fault for such fraud and the resulting injustices cannot be his alone.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/370yMA0
via IFTTT

The State of Our Union Is…Drunk?

Let’s see, Super Bowl, then the Iowa caucuses, various Democratic presidential debates, impeachment endgame, and…the State of the Union address? Is Dry January destined to be replaced by Binge-Drunk February, at least among people who can’t pry themselves away from C-SPAN?

Such are the questions on today’s episode of the Reason Roundtable podcast, in which Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch share coping strategies, deliver their own private State of the Union addresses, and confess to rooting interests (or lack thereof) in tonight’s big Democratic vote. Also discussed: Shakira’s hips, Joe Biden’s sins, and Katherine’s retracted endorsements.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: ‘Tango de la Noche’ by Wayne Jones

Relevant links from the show:

“Will the Justices skip the 2020 State of the Union?” by Josh Blackman

“The Eternal State of the Union, 2015 Update Edition,” by Matt Welch

“The Ultimate Impact of Trump’s Impeachment Remains to be Seen,” by Ilya Somin

“Lamar Alexander, a Key GOP Senator, Says Trump’s Delay of Ukraine Funds Was ‘Inappropriate’—but Not Impeachable,” by Peter Suderman

“Republican Senators Say the Truth Is Irrelevant in Evaluating the Gravity of Trump’s Misconduct,” by Jacob Sullum

“The Real Problem With Alan Dershowitz’s Position on Quid Pro Quos and Impeachment,” by Jacob Sullum

“Let Us Bury Prof. Dershowitz’ Inane Impeachment Theory,” by David Post

“Team Trump’s Final Defense: He Didn’t Do It, but Even If He Did, It’s Not Impeachable,” by Billy Binion

“Mike Bloomberg Just Lost My Vote With His Super Bowl Ad,” by Nick Gillespie

“Trump Has Fully Embraced the Idea That Deficits Don’t Matter,” by Steven Greenhut

“Republican Deficit Hypocrisy Will Make America’s Debt Problems Much Harder To Solve,” by Peter Suderman

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2SbepKS
via IFTTT