Ten days without Twitter

On Thursday morning, the New York Times published my much-ballyhooed op-ed. The night before, I resolved not to check my Twitter notifications for the foreseeable future. At the time, I described the pause as a Twitter “detente.” Ten days later, the detent is holding. I still get Twitter direct messages (DMs) from friends, which I read and respond to. And I’ll click on a tweet that is embedded in a news story. I will also post links to my new content. But I do not “scroll” through my timeline. Nor do I check my “notifications.” I broadcast, but do not consume. And I don’t miss it.

For the past few years, my feelings on Twitter have been very mixed. I appreciate the opportunity to share my ideas with a wide audience. If my tweets were retweeted, I could reach hundreds of thousands in a few moments. I also appreciated, in the abstract at least, the chance to quickly respond to others who are writing on similar areas. And Twitter direct messages was a quick and easy way to directly contact someone.

But there were significant drawbacks. Twitter creates an addictive, time-suck. I found myself spending hours every day scrolling through the timeline, constantly refreshing (swipe-down!) to see the latest tweets. And if someone responded (@’ed me), I would go back and forth countless times. Eventually, I stopped engaging with those who replied to me, but I would still those responses. Sometimes I would email the person offline to address the issue, but I would usually take no action.

On several occasions, I considered breaking up with Twitter–you should acknowledge it becomes something of a relationship. But I got cold feet. Why? I worried that I would miss something. That there would be some breaking news story that I did not catch right away. Or that there was some important exchange between professors that I should see. Or I would be out of the loop on some development. That fear is rational, but I think overstated.

Last week, I finally pulled the plug. And it feels great. I think I have regained probably 1 to 2 hours per day of time I didn’t use to have. I no longer worry about the complete waste of time that are Twitter mentions. If you replied to me during the past 10 days, and think it was important, please email me. Otherwise, please presume that threads you sent my way dissolved into the ether.

What about breaking news story? Yes, staying off Twitter puts me at a disadvantage. For example on Monday, the Supreme Court issued a stay in the public charge case. I did not find out till about an hour later when it popped off my RSS feed. There was a point in my career where waiting an hour to learn about a Supreme Court stay order would been intolerable. Now? Who cares. There are reporters who are paid to follow these breaking news stories. I can get to it on my own time. And invariably, if something happens that concerns me, someone tells me. For example, a friend texted me about the 5th Circuit’s en banc order in the Obamacare case.

In short, I don’t miss Twitter. I am grateful for the newfound time I have reclaimed. And I don’t plan to rejoin. I hope others stop chasing the tweety-bird and find much more productive ways to spend their time.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GNeG1a
via IFTTT

Ukrainiain ‘Son Of A Bitch Who Got Fired’ Files Criminal Complaint Against Biden For Abuse Of Power

Ukrainiain ‘Son Of A Bitch Who Got Fired’ Files Criminal Complaint Against Biden For Abuse Of Power

The Ukrainian prosecutor who Joe Biden bragged about getting fired, Viktor Shokin, has filed a criminal complaint in Kiev against the former Vice President for abusing his power, according to French news outlet Les Crises (confirmed by multiple sources according to PJ Media).

Via Les Crises

Shokin writes in his complaint:

During the period 2014-2016, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine was conducting a preliminary investigation into a series of serious crimes committed by the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Mykola Zlotchevsky and by the managers of the company “Burisma Holding Limited “(Cyprus), the board of directors of which included, among others, Hunter Biden, son of Joseph Biden, then vice-president of the United States of America.

The investigation into the above-mentioned crimes was carried out in strict accordance with Criminal Law and was under my personal control as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Owing to my firm position on the above-mentioned cases regarding their prompt and objective investigation, which should have resulted in the arrest and the indictment of the guilty parties, Joseph Biden developed a firmly hostile attitude towards me which led him to express in private conversations with senior Ukrainian officials, as well as in his public speeches, a categorical request for my immediate dismissal from the post of Attorney General of Ukraine in exchange for the sum of US $ 1 billion in as a financial guarantee from the United States for the benefit of Ukraine.

* * *

Shokin says that due to “continued pressure from the Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden to oust me from the job by blackmailing the allocation of financial assistance, I, as the man who places the State interests above my personal interests, I agreed to abandon the post of Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

* * *

In November, the State department released detailed accusations against the Bidens levied by Shokin and his successor, Yiury Lutsenko. In them, Shokin claims:

“He [Shokin] became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola Zlochevsky the former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. The case was opened as a result of Mr. Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky is also the owner of Burisma Holdings.”

“Mr. Shokin stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevesky is listed, with the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following complaints are in the criminal case.

  1. Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
  2. Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
  3. Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million US dollars out of Ukraine without permission
  4. While seated as the Minister he approved two addition entities to receive permits for gas exploration
  5. Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings and gave those companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the sitting Minister.

“Mr Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointments were made in 2014 as follows:

  1. Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
  2. Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
  3. Alesksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
  4. Devon Archer roomate to the Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States Secretary of State

Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Slochevsky in order to protect himself.

Shokin then details how in July 2015, “US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing. On or about September 2015 Mr. Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated correctly and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.”

“Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of multiple people in Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received.

“It is believed that Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission plus one million dollars.”

“President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko [who Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees] told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in US aid to Ukraine.

“Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden told Mr. Poroshenko that he had evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired. Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the US aid was delivered within one and one half months.”

“On a different point Mr. Shokin believes the current Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied his visa to travel to the US. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr. Shokin also stated that there were leaks by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated that there is possible deceit in the Manafort Black Book.”


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 18:00

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ul1jgL Tyler Durden

Ten days without Twitter

On Thursday morning, the New York Times published my much-ballyhooed op-ed. The night before, I resolved not to check my Twitter notifications for the foreseeable future. At the time, I described the pause as a Twitter “detente.” Ten days later, the detent is holding. I still get Twitter direct messages (DMs) from friends, which I read and respond to. And I’ll click on a tweet that is embedded in a news story. I will also post links to my new content. But I do not “scroll” through my timeline. Nor do I check my “notifications.” I broadcast, but do not consume. And I don’t miss it.

For the past few years, my feelings on Twitter have been very mixed. I appreciate the opportunity to share my ideas with a wide audience. If my tweets were retweeted, I could reach hundreds of thousands in a few moments. I also appreciated, in the abstract at least, the chance to quickly respond to others who are writing on similar areas. And Twitter direct messages was a quick and easy way to directly contact someone.

But there were significant drawbacks. Twitter creates an addictive, time-suck. I found myself spending hours every day scrolling through the timeline, constantly refreshing (swipe-down!) to see the latest tweets. And if someone responded (@’ed me), I would go back and forth countless times. Eventually, I stopped engaging with those who replied to me, but I would still those responses. Sometimes I would email the person offline to address the issue, but I would usually take no action.

On several occasions, I considered breaking up with Twitter–you should acknowledge it becomes something of a relationship. But I got cold feet. Why? I worried that I would miss something. That there would be some breaking news story that I did not catch right away. Or that there was some important exchange between professors that I should see. Or I would be out of the loop on some development. That fear is rational, but I think overstated.

Last week, I finally pulled the plug. And it feels great. I think I have regained probably 1 to 2 hours per day of time I didn’t use to have. I no longer worry about the complete waste of time that are Twitter mentions. If you replied to me during the past 10 days, and think it was important, please email me. Otherwise, please presume that threads you sent my way dissolved into the ether.

What about breaking news story? Yes, staying off Twitter puts me at a disadvantage. For example on Monday, the Supreme Court issued a stay in the public charge case. I did not find out till about an hour later when it popped off my RSS feed. There was a point in my career where waiting an hour to learn about a Supreme Court stay order would been intolerable. Now? Who cares. There are reporters who are paid to follow these breaking news stories. I can get to it on my own time. And invariably, if something happens that concerns me, someone tells me. For example, a friend texted me about the 5th Circuit’s en banc order in the Obamacare case.

In short, I don’t miss Twitter. I am grateful for the newfound time I have reclaimed. And I don’t plan to rejoin. I hope others stop chasing the tweety-bird and find much more productive ways to spend their time.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GNeG1a
via IFTTT

“Are You Humans Or Devils?” Chinese Woman Lashes Out At Authorities After Relatives Die From Virus

“Are You Humans Or Devils?” Chinese Woman Lashes Out At Authorities After Relatives Die From Virus

Authored by Olivia Li via The Epoch Times,

A local from Wuhan City videotaped herself lashing out at the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for the way it handled the coronavirus outbreak that has killed scores of people in China, including her own relative(s). The video was recorded on Jan. 26 and has since gone viral on Chinese social media.

There are several similar videos circulating on Chinese social media, and this woman is so far the only one who eschewed wearing a mask despite the fact that revealing her face could compromise her identity. But she did not reveal her name in the video.

Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei Province, is the epicenter of the deadly novel coronavirus outbreak.

Speaking in a local dialect, she asked angrily, “Chinese Communist Party, when are you going to step down? You promised us that Chinese people will enjoy ‘moderate prosperity’ in 2020, but what have we attained [from you] so far? We lost our relative(s) [because of you]!”

Because there is no plural form in the Chinese language, it is difficult to determine if she has lost more than one relative.

The term “moderate prosperity” has been used in CCP propaganda since the 2000s, when Hu Jintao was leader of China. At the end of 2019, regime propaganda chief Wang Huning launched a nationwide campaign proclaiming that the country’s 2020 plan is to “secure a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects.”

“Tell me, what does it mean to achieve ‘moderate prosperity’?” the woman said. “What does ‘moderate prosperity’ mean to us when people have lost their lives? What on earth are you doing? What do we need such a government for? I beg you, please go away! Step Down! We need good leaders who can help us live a good life. We don’t need such a corrupt government.”

She pointed out that China’s economic prosperity is an illusion and the coronavirus outbreak could put more pressure on the economy. In fact, China’s GDP growth rate of 6 percent in the second half of 2019 was the slowest rate of growth since 1991.

“The soaring home prices and high cost of living have caused hardships for Chinese residents. And now so many people are dying. Everyone will get to see the economic bubble burst,” she said.

“You should bear the consequences of your actions. Do not implicate us ordinary folk. Now we are bearing the brunt of it, and we are being sacrificed for what you have been doing!”

She then asked, “What on earth are you? Are you humans or devils?”

Her video has been shared by many Chinese Twitter and Facebook users. Followers of her video highly praised her tirade. Some said they particularly liked her last question, saying “What a great question, asking Party officials if they are ‘humans or devils’—it is right to the point.”

Several followers commented, “Do not beg the CCP to step down. Overthrow the CCP.”

One of them said, “I heard people say the CCP is on the brink of collapse. Now I really believe it is true.”

Chinese Authorities’ Response to the Outbreak

The first group of whistleblowers of Wuhan pneumonia alerted their social media network on Dec. 30 and 31, revealing that hospitals in Wuhan had identified several cases of SARS-like viral pneumonia.

Wuhan police ordered those whistleblowers to meet with law enforcers at the local police department and forced them to sign an agreement that said they were “spreading rumors.”

Chinese medical authorities tried to downplay the severity of the outbreak and used statements such as “experts ruled out SARS,” “so far there is no clear evidence that the virus is transmitted by human-to-human contact.”

Even when the first explicit warning was issued on Jan. 20, China’s medical expert downplayed the situation by telling the public “limited human-to-human transmission” was confirmed.

Experts say the virus has a 14-day incubation period.

Between Jan. 1 and Jan. 20, the prime time for containing the coronavirus, residents of Wuhan were busy with holiday shopping and meeting with relatives and friends, in preparation for the Chinese New Year. Migratory populations in the city, nearly 5 million, mostly left Wuhan before Jan. 20 for the holiday.

As of now, the coronavirus has spread to all regions in China after Tibet recorded its first case on Jan. 30. Outside of China, more than 18 countries and regions have also reported confirmed cases of the coronavirus, including the United States, Italy, Germany, Canada, Finland, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 17:30

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

Four Thoughts on Travel Ban 4.0

Yesterday, President Trump signed a new entry ban, which I will refer to as Travel Ban 4.0. I have four tentative thoughts on the new proclamation.

First, Travel Ban 4.0 builds on Travel Ban 3.0, which the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii. Specifically, it articulates specific criteria by which countries would be assessed, and then determines whether a country meets those criteria. This proclamation discusses a lengthy, multilateral process between agencies, that weighed certain domestic and foreign policy considerations. We are far, far away from the slapdash approach of Travel Ban 1.0.

Second, critics of the policy will simply charge, once again, that this elaborate policy is a pretextual ruse. The policy is really motivated by the President’s animus towards Islam. The six new nations on the list have substantial Muslim populations: Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. And advocates will also rely on allegations that the President referred to certain African nations as “shithole countries.” Trump v. Hawaii relied extensively on the President’s public statements and tweets about Islam. In contrast, the “shithole” comment was purportedly made in a private meeting, and was reported subsequently by several attendees. FactCheck treats the statement as “disputed.” I long ago wrote that federal courts should not be in the business of fact-checking political statements.

Third, Travel Ban 4.0 employs a variegated strategy. With Travel Ban 3.0, the remedy was the same for all countries: nationals were banned entry. But for Travel Ban 4.0, the President chose different punishments. Nationals from all of these countries, who already have visas, will be allowed to use those travel documents. No one will be trapped at airports, like with Travel Ban 1.0. Rather, Nationals from four countries will not be allowed to apply for immigrant visas, which permit some sort of permanent residency: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria. Nationals from these four countries will still be allowed to apply for non-immigrant visas, such as as a tourist visas.  Nationals from two countries will not be allowed to apply for the diversity visa lottery program, also known as the “visa lottery”: Sudan and Tanzania. As far as I can tell, nationals from these countries can still apply for immigrant and non-immigrant visas. (I welcome corrections).

Advocates will raise a statutory argument: 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) only allows the President to deny entry. That provision does not allow the President to deny visa applications. I disagree. Trump v. Hawaii largely adopted an argument I advanced since the outset of the litigation: the power to deny entry includes the lesser power to block people from applying for visas. Chief Justice Roberts explained:

In any event, we reject plaintiffs’ interpretation because it ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA. Section 1182 defines the pool of individuals who are admissible to the United States. . . .

Sections 1182(f) and 1152(a)(1)(A) thus operate in different spheres: Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once § 1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility into the United States, § 1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits. The distinction between admissibility—to which § 1152(a)(1)(A) does not apply—and visa issuance—to which it does—is apparent from the text of the provision, which specifies only that its protections apply to the “issuance” of “immigrant visa[s],” without mentioning admissibility or entry.

I expect advocates will also argue that this policy is irrational: if these countries cannot verify a person’s identity, or are so dangerous, then why allow some nationals to enter on non-immigrant visas? Moreover, what does the diversity lottery have to do with national security? The response: the government need not act reasonably, only rationally. And this term of art, at least in the constitutional context, does not require a meaningful fit between the means and ends. There are enough justifications in this lengthy proclamation for the policy to easily meet constitutional and statutory scrutiny. For example, the proclamation offers this rationale to restrict immigrant visas, but not immigrant visas:

Consistent with the January 2020 proposal, I have prioritized restricting immigrant visa travel over nonimmigrant visa travel because of the challenges of removing an individual in the United States who was admitted with an immigrant visa if, after admission to the United States, the individual is discovered to have terrorist connections, criminal ties, or misrepresented information. Because each of the six additional countries identified in the January 2020 proposal has deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal, or identity information, there is an unacceptable likelihood that information reflecting the fact that a visa applicant is a threat to national security or public safety may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved.

Finally, the proclamation has a severability clause. If any one part is declared unlawful, the remainder will stand.

Fourth, some district court judge somewhere will enter a nationwide, non-party injunction, to block the proclamation as to all nationals of these six countries. And, shortly thereafter, I suspect the Supreme Court will stay the injunction. And the policy will go into effect. If five Justices (including Justice Kennedy) were willing to uphold Travel Ban 3.0, then five Justices (with Justice Kavanaugh) will likely uphold Travel Ban 4.0. And if President Trump is re-elected, I expect to see another, much broader travel ban issued. I suspect many more countries will be excluded from the visa lottery, a long time target of President Trump. That policy may ultimately be gutted entirely. The first step is to exclude a handful of countries from its requirements.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2S655Ia
via IFTTT

Four Thoughts on Travel Ban 4.0

Yesterday, President Trump signed a new entry ban, which I will refer to as Travel Ban 4.0. I have four tentative thoughts on the new proclamation.

First, Travel Ban 4.0 builds on Travel Ban 3.0, which the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii. Specifically, it articulates specific criteria by which countries would be assessed, and then determines whether a country meets those criteria. This proclamation discusses a lengthy, multilateral process between agencies, that weighed certain domestic and foreign policy considerations. We are far, far away from the slapdash approach of Travel Ban 1.0.

Second, critics of the policy will simply charge, once again, that this elaborate policy is a pretextual ruse. The policy is really motivated by the President’s animus towards Islam. The six new nations on the list have substantial Muslim populations: Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. And advocates will also rely on allegations that the President referred to certain African nations as “shithole countries.” Trump v. Hawaii relied extensively on the President’s public statements and tweets about Islam. In contrast, the “shithole” comment was purportedly made in a private meeting, and was reported subsequently by several attendees. FactCheck treats the statement as “disputed.” I long ago wrote that federal courts should not be in the business of fact-checking political statements.

Third, Travel Ban 4.0 employs a variegated strategy. With Travel Ban 3.0, the remedy was the same for all countries: nationals were banned entry. But for Travel Ban 4.0, the President chose different punishments. Nationals from all of these countries, who already have visas, will be allowed to use those travel documents. No one will be trapped at airports, like with Travel Ban 1.0. Rather, Nationals from four countries will not be allowed to apply for immigrant visas, which permit some sort of permanent residency: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria. Nationals from these four countries will still be allowed to apply for non-immigrant visas, such as as a tourist visas.  Nationals from two countries will not be allowed to apply for the diversity visa lottery program, also known as the “visa lottery”: Sudan and Tanzania. As far as I can tell, nationals from these countries can still apply for immigrant and non-immigrant visas. (I welcome corrections).

Advocates will raise a statutory argument: 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) only allows the President to deny entry. That provision does not allow the President to deny visa applications. I disagree. Trump v. Hawaii largely adopted an argument I advanced since the outset of the litigation: the power to deny entry includes the lesser power to block people from applying for visas. Chief Justice Roberts explained:

In any event, we reject plaintiffs’ interpretation because it ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA. Section 1182 defines the pool of individuals who are admissible to the United States. . . .

Sections 1182(f) and 1152(a)(1)(A) thus operate in different spheres: Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once § 1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility into the United States, § 1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits. The distinction between admissibility—to which § 1152(a)(1)(A) does not apply—and visa issuance—to which it does—is apparent from the text of the provision, which specifies only that its protections apply to the “issuance” of “immigrant visa[s],” without mentioning admissibility or entry.

I expect advocates will also argue that this policy is irrational: if these countries cannot verify a person’s identity, or are so dangerous, then why allow some nationals to enter on non-immigrant visas? Moreover, what does the diversity lottery have to do with national security? The response: the government need not act reasonably, only rationally. And this term of art, at least in the constitutional context, does not require a meaningful fit between the means and ends. There are enough justifications in this lengthy proclamation for the policy to easily meet constitutional and statutory scrutiny. For example, the proclamation offers this rationale to restrict immigrant visas, but not immigrant visas:

Consistent with the January 2020 proposal, I have prioritized restricting immigrant visa travel over nonimmigrant visa travel because of the challenges of removing an individual in the United States who was admitted with an immigrant visa if, after admission to the United States, the individual is discovered to have terrorist connections, criminal ties, or misrepresented information. Because each of the six additional countries identified in the January 2020 proposal has deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal, or identity information, there is an unacceptable likelihood that information reflecting the fact that a visa applicant is a threat to national security or public safety may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved.

Finally, the proclamation has a severability clause. If any one part is declared unlawful, the remainder will stand.

Fourth, some district court judge somewhere will enter a nationwide, non-party injunction, to block the proclamation as to all nationals of these six countries. And, shortly thereafter, I suspect the Supreme Court will stay the injunction. And the policy will go into effect. If five Justices (including Justice Kennedy) were willing to uphold Travel Ban 3.0, then five Justices (with Justice Kavanaugh) will likely uphold Travel Ban 4.0. And if President Trump is re-elected, I expect to see another, much broader travel ban issued. I suspect many more countries will be excluded from the visa lottery, a long time target of President Trump. That policy may ultimately be gutted entirely. The first step is to exclude a handful of countries from its requirements.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2S655Ia
via IFTTT

Soros Goes All In Against Mark Zuckerberg With Trump-Facebook Conspiracy Theory

Soros Goes All In Against Mark Zuckerberg With Trump-Facebook Conspiracy Theory

Billionaire George Soros is blaming Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg for helping President Trump win the 2016 election – completely ignoring that Trump’s 2016 digital director (and 2020 campaign manager) Brad Parscale simply outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton’s team when it came to social media.

Facebook helped Trump to get elected and I am afraid that it will do the same in 2020,” Soros writes in a Friday New York Times Op-Ed, recounting a private conversation he says he had last week at Davos in which he argued “here is a longstanding law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — that protects social media platforms from legal liability for defamation and similar claims. Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them.”

Soros then claims that there appears to be “an informal mutual assistance operation or agreement developing between Trump and Facebook” in which “Facebook will help President Trump to get re-elected and Mr. Trump will, in turn, defend Facebook against attacks from regulators and the media.

The 89-year-old Hungarian-born billionaire then argues that Parscale’s statement that Facebook ‘helped Mr. Trump’ constitutes “the beginning of a special relationship.”

Parscale, of course, was talking about the Trump campaign’s use of Facebook – not the misleading conspiracy theory Soros is peddling. A quote from Soros’s linked ‘evidence’ reveals just that:

Parscale said the Trump campaign used Facebook to reach clusters of rural voters, such as “15 people in the Florida Panhandle that I would never buy a TV commercial for”.

“I started making ads that showed the bridge crumbling,” he said. “I can find the 1,500 people in one town that care about infrastructure. Now, that might be a voter that normally votes Democrat.” –The Guardian

Soros then points to Zuckerberg’s September, 2019 Oval Office meeting with Trump, and subsequent comments made by the president, as more evidence of collusion.

He then writes:

Facebook’s decision not to require fact-checking for political candidates’ advertising in 2020 has flung open the door for false, manipulated, extreme and incendiary statements. Such content is rewarded with prime placement and promotion if it meets Facebook-designed algorithmic standards for popularity and engagement.

What’s more, Facebook’s design tends to obscure the sources of inflammatory and false content, and fails to adequately punish those who spread false information. Nor does the company effectively warn those who are exposed to lies. -George Soros

Separate of his private conversation, Soros said last week at Davos that “Facebook will work to re-elect Trump and Trump will protect Facebook,” adding “It makes me very concerned about the outcome of 2020.”

Two days later, Hillary Clinton told The Atlantic (from the Sundance Film Festival) that Mark Zuckerberg is an “authoritarian” who “intend[s] to reelect Trump.”

In response to Facebook’s decision to remove a slowed-down video of Nancy Pelosi meant to make her appear drunk, Hillary says: “I said, ‘Why are you guys keeping this up? This is blatantly false. Your competitors have taken it down. And their response was, ‘We think our users can make up their own minds,'” Clinton told the magazine, adding that Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend[s] to reelect Trump.”


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UeaI9X Tyler Durden

What If…?

What If…?

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

What if bears were right all along? What if it’s not different this time?

What if this Fed liquidity inspired rally produced precisely the kind of exuberant final thrust we often see at the end of business cycles? After all, people were really bullish in 2007, people were really bullish in 2000, both final rallies inspired by easy Fed liquidity. In 2000, the Y2k bug, in 2007 giving us the subprime mortgage crisis.

What if this latest rally has produced exactly the same conditions we’ve seen during prior tops?

Be clear: I’m not calling for a top here, that’s a fool’s errand. After all so far all we’ve seen is a minor pullback off of very overbought conditions. Heck, tech hasn’t even begun to correct yet.

But yields keep dropping like a brick, as does the Baltic Dry index, small caps, transports, the banking sector never confirmed new highs, equal weight indicators suggest a major negative divergence inside a market that appears entirely held up by tech, and perhaps by only 5-10 highly valued stocks that are massively technically extended and control more market cap in a few stocks than ever before. At the same time we have a market more extended above underlying GDP than ever and now suddenly a potential trigger nobody saw coming: The coronavirus.

Look, the track record on viruses and diseases over the past 20 years has been clear: Any market impact is temporary and/or minimal at best. Look at SARS in 2003, $SPX rallied over 20% in 2003. But the backdrop was different. The US just came out of a recession and markets had bottomed in 2002. Markets in 2003 were at the beginning of a new business cycle.

This cycle here is old, and one could argue was merely saved again by a Fed going into full easing mode in 2019.

But given the fact that the Fed failed to normalize in the lead up to 2018 and was stopped dead in its tracks because of a 20% market correction and was forced to go back into full easing mode the concern is that the Fed just wasted precious ammunition.

My concern:

These very concerns now suddenly very much echoed at Citi:

None of us can know how this plays out, we can’t know when this virus will be contained and subsides. What we do know is that the economic impact is already real, flights are canceled, businesses are shutting down in China, etc.. To the extend that this is all temporary for a couple of weeks, fine, to the extent it drags on for months and the virus spreads quickly in other countries as well it’s not hard to imagine that a vastly richly valued market finds itself in trouble and with it: The global economy.

Markets, except tech, pretty much gave up all their gains in January with many indices now in the red. The potential good news for investors: Markets are approaching oversold readings and could be setting up for a bounce, and a larger relief rally if the news on coronavirus shows improvement, the bad news: Tech hasn’t even begun to correct and technical patterns suggest more downside risks.

And if bears have been right all along on the macro front, then rallies may well remain selling opportunities. And so far, strength in January has proven to be a selling opportunity on the larger market.

For now it’s a ‘What if” and confirmation remains outstanding and won’t come easy. But clearly some of the major banks are starting to ask similar questions.

For the technical chart review please see the market video below:

Please be sure to watch it in HD for clarity.

*  *  *

To get notified of future videos feel free to subscribe to our YouTube Channel. For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 16:30

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

‘Corpses Taken Directly To Crematorium’ – New Accounts Detail Grisly Operation At Wuhan’s Fifth Hospital

‘Corpses Taken Directly To Crematorium’ – New Accounts Detail Grisly Operation At Wuhan’s Fifth Hospital

Radio Free Asia (RFA) has tweeted a disturbing video on its Twitter account on Saturday morning detailing how those who died of coronavirus in Wuhan, the outbreak area in China, were loaded up on a bus and taken “directly to the crematorium.”

RFA said (in a translated tweet): “[Latest Situation of Wuhan Fifth Hospital] Some Wuhan citizens entered Wuhan Fifth Hospital on February 1st and found many patients who died of pneumonia. The corpses were packed directly to the crematorium. Paramedics are busy rescuing the dying patient.”

RFA’s video is in line with our report from Friday that said those who died of the deadly virus were hauled off to a crematorium in Wuhan by Chinese authorities.

DW News East Asia correspondent William Yang cited a report from the Chinese-language news outlet Initium, which said cremation facilities in Wuhan were receiving bodies directly from hospitals without proper identification and were excluded from the official record. 

“So, there are reasons to remain skeptical about what China has been sharing with the world because while they have been more transparent about certain things related to the virus, they continue to be sketchy and unreliable in other aspects,” said Yang.

“Without properly identifying these patients, which means there are patients who died from the virus but not adding to the official record. That shows the current death toll of 133 that we are seeing is way too low,” he said.

The closet funeral home/ alleged crematorium is right down the street from Wuhan Fifth Hospital.

We noted Thursday night that over 100,000 Chinese had been placed under observation for suspected coronavirus. 

The virus has uncontrollably spread across China, forcing the Trump administration on Friday to restrict entry into the US from the outbreak area. 

Putting the coronavirus in the context of the deadly SARS epidemic, the coronavirus pandemic has now officially exceeded SARS in cumulative cases in just two weeks.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36SGNqh Tyler Durden

Justin Amash Outraises Democratic and Republican Opponents in Fourth Quarter

The fourth quarter 2019 campaign disclosure reports that were due at the end of January brought some welcome news for embattled independent Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.): Despite being abandoned by some of his biggest historical backers, the pro-impeachment libertarian raised more money and has more in the bank than any of the Democrats and Republicans gunning for his Grand Rapids seat.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Amash raised $595,000 over the last three months of 2019, or almost as much as all the Republican contenders for the seat combined. Supermarket magnate Peter Meijer brought in $313,000 ($75,000 of which was a loan to himself), DeltaPlex Arena owner Joel Langlois netted $212,000 ($200,000 of which was a self-loan), and state Rep. Lynn Afendoulis announced $113,000.

In the cash-on-hand sweepstakes as of the end of 2019, Amash led $722,000 to Meijer’s $557,000, Langlois’s $333,000, and Afendoulis’s $200,000.

What about the Democrats competing in MI-3? Social worker and immigration attorney Hillary Scholten raised $124,000, and had $207,000 cash on hand, while former Barack Obama aide Nick Colvin raised $101,000 and has just $60,000. Primaries for both major parties are scheduled for August 4.

The three-way race in this Republican-leaning but hard-to-characterize district has widely been seen by election forecasters as a toss-up or slight lean toward the GOP. When the Cook Political Report in December shifted its rating to lean-R, it cited Amash’s third-quarter cash-on-hand number of $273,000, arguing that that was “far less than the GOP nominee is likely to be able to spend.” Adding nearly a half-million to that pile in just three months might change that calculus.

Meijer and Langlois can indeed self-fund (Amash, in contrast, has not loaned himself any money), and Meijer in particular has last-name recognition due to his eponymous and popular supermarkets, but Amash has now shown that his spigot is not yet running dry. Both major parties are expected to pour money into the contest once the primaries are settled, giving a three-way scrum a chance at being among the most expensive in the country.

Reason has interviewed the self-described libertarian congressman several times over the years, most recently last July just after he left the GOP:

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