Author: admin

Authored by Sam Jacobs via Ammo.com,

If you’re under the age of 40 and you’re reading this, chances are very good that your interest in the liberty movement was sparked by three-time presidential candidate and veteran Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul inspired an entire generation of Libertarians, Constitutionalists and limited-government Conservatives with his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

It might surprise you to learn that Paul is not originally from Texas, but Pittsburgh, where he was born to a dairy farmer and his wife. He graduated from Gettysburg State College in 1957, with a degree in biology. He earned his medical degree from Duke’s School of Medicine in 1961. From 1963 to 1965, he was a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force, before moving over to the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. Upon discharge, he relocated to Texas to start a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology.

While he had been reading Austrian economics and Libertarian political philosophy for years beforehand, he finally decided to run for Congress when President Richard Nixon took the nation off of the gold standard in 1971. He lost his first attempt at public office in 1974, but won a special election in 1976, losing the regular election later that year by a mere 300 votes. He defeated his opponent in 1978, serving until 1985, then again from 1997 to 2013.

The Beginning of Ron Paul’s Political Career

While in Congress, Paul spoke in favor of a return to the gold standard with Senator Jesse Helms, as well as against a reinstatement of the draft favored by President Jimmy Carter and the majority of Republicans in Congress.

He retired from Congress in 1984 to run for Senate, losing the Republican primary to Phil Gramm.

After his time in Congress, he focused on the private promotion of liberty, publishing the Ron Paul Survival Newsletter and the Ron Paul Freedom Report with Lew Rockwell, who had previously been his congressional chief of staff. He also sold precious metals under the auspices of Ron Paul Coins.

In 1988, he made his first run for the presidency as a Libertarian, defeating Native American activist Russell Means (who had previously seconded Larry Flynt in his bid for the Libertarian Party line) and coming in third nationwide. He considered running again in 1992, but instead decided to back Pat Buchanan’s campaign against President George H.W. Bush.

Coming Back to Congress

Paul returned to Congress after a 1996 election with a huge assist from friends Nolan Ryan, Steve Forbes, and Pat Buchanan.

However, it was his 2008 presidential campaign that began to change the world of liberty. There is arguably no one more responsible for the spread of the liberty movement than Ron Paul, whose 2008 campaign electrified young people who would likely have largely been Democrats previously. The average Ron Paul supporter in 2008 was not the country club Republican or movement Libertarian one might have pegged, but more likely to be a tech-savvy college kid than anything else.

Thus, throughout the 2008 primary season, the acolytes of Ron Paul dominated political debate on the Internet and social media, the latter of which was still in its infancy at this point. Ron Paul’s campaign was the most searched for and his YouTube channel had even more followers than Barack Obama’s.

None of this translated into a terribly successful campaign. His highwater mark was a 25 percent second-place showing in Montana. He chose not to enter the general election as a third-party candidate, but did not endorse the eventual nominee, John McCain. Paul often claimed that he did not run as a third-party candidate because he had signed a binding agreement preventing him from doing so. He chose instead to endorse the four major third-party candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Bob Barr (this despite his previous role in Ruby Ridge), the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin, and independent Ralph Nader.

In 2012, Ron Paul was still considered an outsider, but had considerably raised his national profile since 2008. He remained hot on the heels of front-runner Mitt Romney throughout the entire Republican primary, but once again came up short of the nomination. Much like in 2008, he refused to endorse Mitt Romney and even refused to give a speech at the convention because it would have to be vetted by Romney’s team.

Ron Paul’s Criticisms of the Republican Party

While Paul was a life-long Republican, he was often highly critical of the party and its leadership. Indeed, he was one of the only Republicans to vote against Ronald Reagan’s 1981 spending bill, despite being one of the first elected officials to endorse Reagan in both 1976 and 1980. He even had some extremely harsh words to say about Reagan while running for president in 1988. He called the Reagan administration “a dramatic failure,” continuing by saying that “Reagan’s record is disgraceful. He starts wars, breaks the law, supplies terrorists with guns made at taxpayers’ expense and lies about it to the American people.”

Since retiring from elected office and the presidential race, Ron Paul has become a fierce critic of the NSA and surveillance, as well as a supporter of Edward Snowden, whom he considers to be a great hero and champion of freedoms for Americans. He also founded the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity underneath the broader umbrella of his Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. He offers the Ron Paul Curriculum (developed by Gary North) free for homeschooled children from K-5 and paid for 6-12.

The Ron Paul Liberty Report has received more than 17 million views as of April 2019.

In 2016, Ron Paul became the oldest person to ever receive an electoral vote when a faithless elector in Texas voted for him.

Veterans of the Ron Paul rEVOLution are active in the liberty movement today. And how great is it that a man who has never smoked a cigarette in his life inspired a generation of pot-smoking techies to join the fight for liberty?

You can bet your last Ron Paul Dollar (remember those?) that Dr. Paul will be speaking hard truths, bucking the system and standing his ground until the day he dies. Libertarians will likely never find a champion quite like him.

President Trump took a swipe at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a pair of Saturday tweets, accusing the “deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA” of delaying human vaccine trials by “making it very difficult for drug companies to get people” (test subjects) so that trial results aren’t known until after the 2020 election.

“Must focus on speed, and saving lives!” Trump concluded, tagging FDA Commissioner Stephen Hawn, who he appointed to the role.

The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives! @SteveFDA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2020

Trump also slammed the FDA, rubbing the agency’s nose in their June decision to revoke its emergency authorization of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of COVID-19. 

“Many doctors and studies disagree with this!” tweeted Trump – resurrecting a June 15th ‘Twitter moment’ noting the revocation.

Many doctors and studies disagree with this! https://t.co/fpLVJZMvHS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2020

Hydroxychloroquine – used by many countries as both a front-line early treatment and a prophylactic against COVID-19 – saw sharp pushback from public health officials and Democrats after President Trump recommended it, almost as if the need to prove him wrong and push new treatments was more important than exploring whether HCQ was indeed effective if used early, particularly in conjunction with zinc and the antibiotic azithromycin.

Indeed, the first wave of studies on HCQ focused on mid-to-late stage COVID-19 infections, and found marginal improvement – or in one study, harm, from the use of the popular antimalarial drug. Since then, studies have emerged that HCQ is extremely effective when used early –

In July, the state of Ohio withdrew their ban on the use of HCQ to treat COVID-19.

he anti-HCQ push has infected Silicon Valley as well – as tech giants have been labeling pro-hydroxychloroquine content as ‘misinformation’ – most recently banishing a press conference by a group of doctors touting the drug from just about every platform.

To that end, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch has accused Dr. Anthony Fouci of waging a “misinformation campaign” against the drug – appearing on “Good Morning America” in late July where he further downplayed the drug – claiming that “the overwhelming prevailing clinical trials that have looked at the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine have indicated that it is not effective in [treating] coronavirus disease.”

Wrong.

Several new studies have shown efficacy if used early, while countries that have deployed HCQ in just that manner have significantly fewer deaths per million residents (via c19study.com, which tracks HCQ studies).

HCQ’s efficacy was known by mid-July, when the FDA removed its authorization:

It’s not perfect as HCQ was also used in Belgium and Spain and later in Italy, but the idea is that Western Europe as a whole never embraced the ‘treat early and often’ strategy. Mostly they tried it with sick patients, didn’t work..moved on

They mainly followed the WHO position

— Gummi Bear (@gummibear737) July 16, 2020

Meanwhile, over 700 physicians from all 50 states have called on President Trump to issue another Emergency Use Authorization on HCQ. 

The physician signatories specialize in the following kinds of medicine:

Emergency: 47
Surgery: 74
Anesthesiology: 48
Cardiology: 20
Dentistry: 3
General/Family/Internal: 371
Neurology: 12
Pediatrician: 28
Psychiatry: 44
Radiology: 24
Women’s health: 30
Alternative: 20

— Jenny Beth Martin (@jennybethm) August 22, 2020

Dr. Fauci’s NIH is suppressing #Hydroxycholoroquine. @RealDonaldTrump should ask Dr. Fauci about NIH’s refusal to conduct or support real research on HCQ despite the likely efficacy of this safe drug as a #coronavirus treatment and preventative.

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) August 22, 2020

 

Via Priceonomics.com,

The Coronavirus pandemic has upended the real estate market so far in unexpected and varied ways. Record low mortgage interest rates combined with people spending most of their time at home has caused a boom in home buying many housing markets despite widespread unemployment.

Not only that, but people are moving and considering new locations. Office closures mean that many people are working from home and some employers have suggested this may be a permanent trend. All these trends are conspiring together to cause people to consider moving to new places across America.

Along with Priceonomics customer RefiGuide.org, we decided to perform an analysis for people looking to buy a home based on affordability. If you are tired of living in a place where homeownership is out of reach because of high prices compared to incomes, where else should you consider living?

We found that the most affordable housing markets in America were uniformly located in the South and Midwest. The most affordable place we looked at in America was Youngstown, Ohio where the median household income in one year is more than the typical purchase price of a home. On the other hand, almost all the least affordable places to buy a home were in California. Of all the markets we examined, Newport Beach was the least affordable market in the country.

***

Before diving into the results, it’s worth spending a moment on the methodology and data. In this analysis, we are primarily interested in affordability of housing in an area.  To do so, we compared two metrics – income and the cost of a house. How far will the prevailing median household income go toward the purchase price of a home in the city. All income data is derived from the US Census 2018 data and housing data from Zillow’s June 30, 2020 market estimates. We looked at the 609 largest “places” (a designation in the US Census for cities and towns) in America.

Below are the top 50 most affordable places in America. To calculate the affordability we took median annual income as percentage of home prices in the area.

Chart via RefiGuide.org

The most affordable place in America is Youngstown, Ohio, followed by Jackson, Mississippi. In both places, the median household income is higher than the purchase price of a house! Every single city on the most affordable list is located in the South or Midwest. Of the 609 places in America, only 50 places have an affordability score over 36%. The vast majority of places in America are much less affordable.

Next, let’s look at the least affordable housing markets in America. The following chart shows the places where the local income does not go particularly far toward a home purchase:

Chart via RefiGuide.org

The least affordable place in America is Newport Beach, California, followed by Santa Monica, California. In these places, the typical annual income covers just 5.3% of a home’s purchase price. In fact 24 out of the top 25 places on the least affordability list are located in California. A few cities in New York, Colorado, Hawaii and Florida also make the list that’s generally dominated by California.

From the two above charts, it seems clear that there is a geographic pattern in affordability. Next, let’s look at the average affordability of all the places in a given state taken together.

Chart via RefiGuide.org

The most affordable state in America for homebuyers is Mississippi, followed by Ohio and Oklahoma. Each of the top 12 most affordable states are in the South and Midwest. The least affordable states are Hawaii, Washington DC, and California. The least affordable places are all in the West and East of the country.

Lastly, let’s look at the 50 largest housing markets according to Zillow. These places tend to have the most job opportunities and largest economies, which can be a major factor in the long term affordability of a city, even in the area of remote work.

Chart via RefiGuide.org

Of the largest 50 housing markets in America, Detroit, Michigan is the most affordable where a household’s salary covers 83.4% of the home’s purchase price. Each of the top 5 cities are in the South or Midwest. San Francisco is the least affordable major city in the country, followed by Los Angeles and Oakland. The top 6 of the top 10 cities are in California with New York, Honolulu, Boston and Miami also making the least affordable major cities list.

***

Housing affordability has long been a hot button issue in America. Over the last decade housing prices have increased at a tremendous rate and made homeownership beyond the reach of many Americans.

A couple of different forces are affecting the housing market as a result of the pandemic. On one hand many people are laid off, meaning many people in the economy are housing insecure. On the other hand, many Americans are using the pandemic to reassess where they want to live. To assist those that are considering a move, below is a data sheet for the housing prices, median income, and affordability rate of over 600 places in America.

***

Note: If you’re a company that wants to work with Priceonomics to turn your data into great stories, learn more about the Priceonomics Data Studio. 

DARPAtv live-streamed AlphaDogfight Trials Competition on Thursday (Aug. 20), which featured an AI-controlled virtual fighter jet beating a human pilot in a series of simulated dogfights.

The AI-system, developed by Heron Systems, a Maryland-based defense contractor, beat one of the Air Force’s top General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots, reported Breaking Defense. 

Fully-autonomous fighter jets are years away, but the Air Force and DARPA appear to be honing in on the possibilities of integrating artificial intelligence systems into combat flying machines. The live event was streamed on several platforms, including YouTube and Zoom, which shows AI systems have the ability in 2020 to operate an aircraft with skill and in a one-on-one combat scenario, out-gunning a human pilot, even though it was in a simulation. 

One of the hosts during the simulated dogfight noted the AI system has “superhuman” shooting capabilities that produced an edge over the human pilot. 

Video: AlphaDogfight Trials Final Event

Timothy Grayson, director of the Strategic Technology Office at DARPA, described the simulation as successful and said it’s a victory for humans and machines to team up for combat:

 “I think what we’re seeing today is the beginning of something I’m going to call human-machine symbiosis… Let’s think about the human sitting in the cockpit, being flown by one of these AI algorithms as truly being one weapon system, where the human is focusing on what the human does best [like higher order strategic thinking] and the AI is doing what the AI does best,” Grayson said. 

While fully autonomous fighter jets conducting dogfights are years outs, if not at the end of the decade, what’s more, plausible, in the next five years, is AI integrating into the flight systems of fighter jets, especially stealth ones, to assist pilots during complex combat situations. 

Authored by Megan Fox via PJMedia.com,

Governor Cuomo has become Reverend Shaw Moore from the movie Footloose after issuing a new set of commands for New Yorkers that includes a ban on dancing.

This is not a joke. Syracuse.com reported the story.

There is no dancing allowed in New York’s bars and restaurants, even at a wedding reception, according to the New York State Liquor Authority.

To control the spread of the coronavirus, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s liquor authority has also specifically banned darts, pool, cornhole, karaoke and exotic dancing.

Bar owners are already struggling to stay open after being shut down for months. The new rules are causing a lot of anxiety as business owners are being threatened with their licensing if they don’t comply.

The intent is to reduce the number of people congregating in bars. If you go to a bar, you must sit at a table or move along, according to the liquor authority’s guidelines.

“I don’t let people dance,” said Dan Palladino, who owns Heritage Hill Brewhouse in Pompey. “I think it’s kind of sad, but I don’t want to risk my license.”

I’ve already been to an illegal wedding where there was a lot of dancing— and they’re becoming more popular. People having weddings in New York have to hide the location until the last minute and keep all signs of partying out of sight. It’s kind of exciting in a speakeasy sort of way but also extremely stupid. You cannot keep people from living their lives. And if you try to outlaw fun, they’re just going to break those laws and do it anyway.

Not only has dancing been outlawed, but pool, darts, cornhole, and karaoke are also off-limits. How much longer do the dictators in charge really think they can keep this up? I never thought I’d see the day when Democrats became pulpit-pounding puritans keeping the kids from dancing, but here we are.

And is it necessary? It sure doesn’t seem so with coronavirus deaths plummeting all over the country. But what do we know? We just pay the bills here. Let’s all leave the hard stuff to the crooked politicians, who have been wrong about everything, to figure out. I heard someone on the radio today ask, “how much more will we take?” and the answer is “a whole lot more.” New Yorkers may be rebelling privately, but publicly they’re all on board 100% — “for our safety” — and making sure everyone knows it.

I went to Mass for the first time and people really didn’t sing! I couldn’t believe it. There is nothing that New Yorkers won’t do when told to do it. If we were told that crawling on the sidewalk would protect us from coronavirus I would expect to see a majority of people around here wearing kneepads and inching along to the grocery store.

I don’t expect that this new string of asinine directives will motivate anyone to vote against Governor Cuomo. Democrats in New York seem to hate Democrat policies yet continue to vote them into office, no matter what they do.

Does anyone know when we’ll be allowed to dance again? #Coronavirus #nodancing #manchester #manchesterlockdown #Footloose pic.twitter.com/HPpTafmDf4

— Melissa Manchester (@MelissaBingham) August 10, 2020

What we need here in New York is the spirit of Ren McCormack to take the mic.

Colleges that are reopening campuses this fall understand outbreaks of COVID-19 are certainly possible on school grounds and in the surrounding communities. To safeguard students against the virus, Albion College, located in Albion, Michigan, is requesting all students to download a smartphone app that tracks their location to create a “COVID-bubble.” 

According to The Washington Free Beacon, Albion College’s COVID-bubble will require students to stay within a 4.5-mile perimeter of the school. If students violate bubble rules, such as stepping outside the bubble, the app will automatically notify school officials who could slap the violater with a “temporary suspension.”

The move to track students comes as college, health experts, and government officials have been in several months of disputes about reopening for the fall semester. Many schools are opting for remote courses to mitigate the spread of the virus, though such actions will be disastrous on enrollment and school budgets. 

Readers may recall a higher education bust is underway, one where the virus pandemic accelerated the trend (see: Higher Education Bust – Vermont College Goes On Auction Block With $3 Million Bid). 

So far, not everyone is thrilled about Albion’s reopening plan to maximize a contact tracing app. Students and parents had this to say: 

A father of an Albion student said that he is upset that he must choose between keeping his daughter home from school or signing off on a university-sanctioned “invasion of privacy.”

“The school wants my daughter to sign a form consenting to specimen collection and lab testing,” he told the Washington Free Beacon on condition of anonymity. “I have a ton of concern with that…. Why is the state of Michigan’s contact tracing not enough?”

Though students are required to remain on campus, professors and administrators are not. When asked about this potential loophole in its “COVID-bubble,” the school declined to comment.

Rising senior Andrew Arszulowicz said that he is upset with both the mandatory use of the app and the manner in which students are being treated. “I feel like I am being treated like a five-year-old that cannot be trusted to follow rules,” Arszulowicz told the Free Beacon. “If the school believes masks work … why are we not allowed to leave if they work? It does not make sense to me.” -The Washington Free Beacon

Albion’s courses will only be offered in-person, and students who reject downloading the tracing app will be deferred to the spring semester. 

Does this sound Orwellian to you?

Authored by attorney Shipwreckedcrew via RedState (emphasis ours),

John Brennan’s long-time advisor Nick Shapiro put out a statement yesterday at the conclusion of Brennan’s eight-hour interview with John Durham and his investigators.

It might all be true.  All I have are opinions on the text and circumstances.

But I also know that the CIA is an institution designed to engage in manipulation using lies and deception — in a good way.  It’s how they accomplish their mission in defense of the country.

John Brennan is an embodiment of the CIA — it’s all he’s ever known.  Its ethos oozes from his pores.

John Brennan wanted to send a message to the world yesterday after he finished his interview with John Durham. Oddly, he chose to do it through Nick Shapiro, and not himself. Nothing about Brennan or his history suggests Shapiro’s message needs be credited with being truthful.

There are several reasons to read this message with a “jaundiced eye” and to recognize the ulterior motives for it.

First, it’s not Brennan’s statement. Shapiro issued the statement to Obama Administration scribe Natasha Bertrand at Politico — guaranteed to dutifully publish anything requested of her by a former Obama era intelligence official now living in fear. Shapiro then posted a string of eight Tweets on Twitter with the same text.

Both are devoid of any words actually spoken by Brennan — there are no quotations — nor is there any support offered for Shapiro’s claims by anyone actually in the room, such as Brennan’s attorneys.

Since when has Brennan been shy about saying anything on Twitter?  Why would Brennan go “third person” and have his thoughts about the interview expressed only in the words of someone else? The most obvious reason is the statements are not going to be exactly accurate. Running them through a third person builds in a level of “deniability” on Brennan’s part. Shapiro wasn’t in the room for the interview. Shapiro is only putting out for public consumption what was told to him, and by phrasing it in the “third person” the way he has, it’s not a statement “by John Brennan” nor is it endorsed by Brennan’s counsel in the room. It is put out by a guy who has historically been in the role of misleading and misdirecting the press and the public on John Brennan’s behalf. Yesterday’s mission was no different.

Second, conducting the interview at the CIA facility is an interesting decision. Why not question him at DOJ or FBI HQ? The CIA is not a law enforcement agency. John Brennan no longer works for the CIA. Any CIA records that may have been needed over the course of the interview could have been made available in a secured facility at both those locations.

But that “records” excuse may have been the very justification given for the selection of the CIA HQ as the location for the interview.

DOJ and the FBI HQ are in Washington DC. CIA Headquarters is in Langley, Virginia.

If you are geographically challenged, you can read the distinction as “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” v. “United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.” If John Brennan offered any false answers to the investigators during the interview, the venue for that “false statement” crime is in the EDVA, not in DC federal court.

Third, Shapiro’s statement claims that Brennan was told by Durham that he is neither a “target” nor “subject,” and that he is only a witness to events under review. Maybe that’s true, but it does not sound true to me. And the statement does not say that comment was made to Brennan yesterday before the interview took place.

I can say that I had several occasions during my career as a prosecutor where criminal defense lawyers asked me similar questions about their client in response to an interview request. I can’t say that I always refused to answer, but as a general matter my response was something that I learned when I was starting out from more experienced federal prosecutors —

“Counsel, this interview today is voluntary. Your client is free to leave right now, and answer none of the questions we have. He’s free to stop answering questions at any time while the interview is underway. He’s free to ask to take a break, step outside the room with you, and then return to answer the question or not answer the question.  What does he want to do?”

John Brennan could have been questioned before a grand jury, without the presence of his attorney in the room. That would be true IF, as suggested by Shapiro’s statement, Brennan was only a “witness”.

To explain that, let’s take a moment to address the whole “Target” v. “Subject” v. “Witness” construct the press is so happy to report about.

Labeling an individual a “target” has a clear meaning in federal criminal prosecutions.  It refers to someone about whom the prosecutor believes there is already sufficient admissible evidence to seek an indictment from a grand jury, and obtain a conviction at trial.  The investigation is ongoing, but the grand jury already has identified a “target” for eventual prosecution.

Anyone who is “not a target” is — “not a target”.  There is no other “classification” of individuals with meaning.  Many people in the business toss around the term “subject”, but that is a “made-up” classification that does not exist.  I have received “Subject” letters from prosecutors on behalf of clients, but those all involve a request to interview my client.

A “Target” letter is different.  When you receive a “Target” letter it advises you that a federal grand jury has already received evidence upon which criminal charges may be issued in the future.  It advises the “Target” that they should seek counsel, and if they cannot afford counsel they should contact the Federal Defender’s Office in their district for legal representation.  Once they have secured counsel, their lawyer should contact the prosecutor to discuss the matter.

The purpose behind a “subject” letter is merely to instill fear in the recipient and to “encourage” them to talk about others before others talk about them — as information from others might push them closer to the “target” category. Unwitting lawyers think there is meaning behind the “subject” designation but there is not.  Fear is a great motivator. “Doing unto others before they do unto you” is sort of a universal maxim among the idiot criminal class.

So if you are not a “target” — meaning there isn’t sufficient evidence at this time to charge you with a crime — then by default you are a “witness.”

But “witnesses” can, and often do talk themselves into being “targets” during such interviews. That was the purpose of the interview, Mr. Brennan, not because you have some wonderful insights to provide Mr. Durham and his investigators to make their job easier.

One important distinction between “target” and “witness” that is not well understood, but might be in play here, is that it is against DOJ policy to issue a grand jury subpoena to someone who is already a “target”.

A grand jury subpoena is a court order, under threat of contempt, to appear and answer questions under oath without the presence of counsel. If a person is already a “Target”, the subpoena intrudes upon their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel while undergoing “custodial” interrogation — they are under subpoena after all. Witnesses before the grand jury are allowed to assert their Fifth Amendment right, but it forces them to assert that right before the grand jurors considering charges against them. The government is not allowed to call a criminal defendant to take the stand in his trial and force him to assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in front of the jury. It is deemed prejudicial, and suggest to the jury that the defendant has something to hide. The same principle applies to calling a “Target” in front of a grand jury and forcing them to assert their right to remain silent in front of the grand jurors without counsel present.

So, if John Brennan isn’t at least a potential “target,” why was he not called to explain historical events to the grand jury?

Finally, John Brennan has many times expressed the belief that any investigation initiated by the Trump Administration into the actions of Obama Administration officials to examine their conduct as it pertains to the investigation of the 2016 campaign, and the aftermath of Trump’s election victory, is illegitimate.  John Brennan has all but declared Trump’s election to be illegitimate — heck, he might have said so outright.

So, it is not surprising at all that Shapiro — not Brennan — would claim:

Brennan questioned why the analytical tradecraft and findings of the ICA are being scrutinized by the Department of Justice, especially since they have been validated by the Mueller Report as well as the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review.

The idea that Brennan “questioned” Durham on this topic does not confirm that Durham had any response to offer to Brennan’s question. I suspect Durham did not react favorably — if it happened at all — to Brennan’s suggestion that Durham’s work was illegitimate or superfluous because of what others might have done, or not done as the case may be.

But John Brennan cannot help himself in this regard. The CIA is rarely put in a position of having to explain or defend its conduct — purposely and by design. But when John Brennan has been in that position in the past, he’s been quite comfortable with lying in his responses. More of the same here.

John Durham and his team did not come to the decision to interview Brennan over the course of eight hours for the purpose of “filling in the blanks” on “events that are under review.”

The purpose of the interview was to get Brennan to confirm or deny information that others have provided up to this point about Brennan, and what he instructed others to do.

John Brennan was placed into a perjury trap yesterday because he’s shown himself willing to perjure himself in the past in order to evade scrutiny.

Yesterday, the ability to avoid the trap was completely within his control — all he had to do was tell the truth.  For the most part, Durham’s investigators knew the truth.

John Brennan doesn’t come from a world of objective “truths” and “lies”. For Brennan, the “truth” is always malleable to fit his needs at any given moment.

That’s CIA tradecraft.  He sees himself as a master of such “dark arts” based on his decades in DC.  Others have long viewed him as a clown.

That’s why, as a prosecutor, you save a liar like John Brennan for last.  He can’t help you because you can’t rely on what he tells you.

So your interview is not done for the purpose of helping your case.

And you do it in Virginia and not DC because of what you plan to do next.

Short sellers betting against Tesla have lost a collective $25 billion so far this year, according to data from S3 partners and Business Insider. 

Those short Tesla are down $25.4 billion mark to market on Tesla in 2020 so far as Tesla stock has rallied nearly 400% on the year. The company now has a fully diluted market cap approaching $400 billion. 

Short sellers are down about $7 billion in August alone and added over $1 billion to their loss tally last Thursday as the stock eclipsed the $2,000 mark for the first time. On Friday, they lost another $619 million as mindless retail buyers drove the stock higher ahead of its upcoming 5 for 1 split. 

Ihor Dusaniwsky, managing director of predictive analytics at S3, said: “Tesla continued steady short covering for over a year as shorts continue to get squeezed.”

But Tesla remains the biggest short in the U.S. market, with $21.31 billion in short interest and 10.65 million shares still shorted. This is about 7.18% of the company’s float, according to S3 data. In July, it became the first company to have $20 billion in short interest bet against it. 

So are short sellers just gluttons for pain at this point? Or are they simply convinced they are riding out what could be the largest stock bubble in the history of human kind?

Even acknowledging the castrated response that regulators have taken toward Tesla thus far, the overwhelming amount of evidence stacked against the company – from faking an $80 billion buyout, to pumping non-existent solar roof tiles, to the Solar City bailout, to lax warranty accounting, to retaliating against whistleblowers, to claiming millions of Robotaxis are coming, to the lack of a General Counsel, to the CEO indemnifying his own board, to charging thousands for a full self driving product that doesn’t exist, to beta testing autonomous driving on unaware participants and to selling ZEV credits to turn a profit – still has us wondering if shorts will eventually have their day.

Or, is Elon truly bulletproof?

Despite the fact that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has delayed his most controversial cost-saving measures until after the November vote, and endured a shellacking at the hands of Senate Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee, House Speaker and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi forged ahead with the help of 26 defecting Republicans to pass a bill calling for $25 billion in financial assistance for the Post Office.

As more states announced plans to hold their elections largely by mail in November (a system that some used for the primaries) the Postal Service announced earlier this month that too much voting by mail could delay the arrival of some votes. Pelosi called a special session of the House during recess and on a Saturday to lend this piece of political theater even more impact.

The vote is the culmination of a Democratic crusade about late mail – literally, a few people complained about their mail being late, a few others posted some context-free photos of mail sorting machines being destroyed, and – boom – Democrats suddenly had an army of twitter trolls shrieking about veterans dying because their medication came a day late. One Connecticut family even complained that USPS had lost the cremated remains of a loved one and veteran (they were found 12 days later thanks to one dedicated worker who supposedly delivered the remains personally). They blamed DeJoy personally for the mistake, and ever since, the state’s AG William Tong has seized every opportunity to draw attention to “out of service” mail sorting machines.

DeJoy is due for round two before the House Oversight Committee on Monday, which should be even more brutal than Friday’s pile-on (at least, for DeJoy’s sake, the Senate is controlled by Republicans).

But in the latest transparent bit of political theater organized by “political mastermind” Nancy Pelosi – and surely this is right up there with her wardrobe choices during the unveiling of the Dems’ police reform bill  – is the victorious vote on Saturday, which has almost no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate.

As we mentioned above, 26 Republicans defected to help Democrats pass the bill 257 votes to 150. In addition to the money, the bill called for reversing certain operational changes imposed under DeJoy. Six states are also suing USPS and DeJoy personally (along with the chairman of the USPS board) claiming these changes infringe on states ability to hold free and fair elections.

House Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, who introduced the bill, has said the postal service should not “become an instrument of partisan politics.”

On Twitter, Trump raged about the vote.

….that they are trying to pull off in violation of everything that our Country stands for. Vote NO to the Pelosi/ Schumer money wasting HOAX which is taking place now. Then fight the $51 million unasked for Ballots. Only ABSENTEE BALLOTS are acceptable!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 22, 2020

Now, get ready for some strongly worded statements from Pelosi when Mitch McConnell inevitably refuses to call it for a vote. The Senate has introduced its own, scaled down, plan to help USPS as part of a proposed COVID relief bill that thanks to Democrats, likely will never become a reality.

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Reality Check

This week the headlines declared the bear market over as the S&P 500 joined the Nasdaq to make new all time highs. A new bull market has begun so the celebratory narratives. It is true these indices have made new all time highs, but the actual market hasn’t. Not even close. These indices have made new all time highs as 6-7 stocks are experiencing the largest and most aggressive market cap expansion in human history distorting everything.

Yet perception is reality and the bullish narratives keep mounting as key tech stocks and their oversized weight are contributing to the main indices relentlessly drifting higher so let me at least provide some perspective as to what’s going on with the larger market.

Firstly note we continue to be in uncharted waters here in terms of the concentration of individual stocks vs GDP as well as the Fed’s balance sheet:

The market cap of just 7 stocks now equals 39% of US GDP.
The balance sheet of the US Fed now equals 36% of US GDP.

— Sven Henrich (@NorthmanTrader) August 21, 2020

The first top 5 stocks now represent 25% of the S&P 500, a concentration in weighting we’ve not seen since 2000. The market cap expansions we see on a daily basis in some of these stocks, such as $AAPL and $TSLA for example, put even the year 2000 bubble to shame.
Just on Friday $AAPL added over $100B in market cap out of thin air on no fundamentally driven news. The stock now having added over $1.1 trillion in market cap since the March lows.

None of this has even a historic approximate reference point and so one must recognize that this market phase is a unique one on its own.

And of course $TSLA is the other popular post child of this era:

1 year ago in August 2019 $TSLA was trading as low as $211, now it’s trading north of $2,000.

— Sven Henrich (@NorthmanTrader) August 20, 2020

None of these companies have produced results that justify these historic market cap expansions in such a short period of time, but they provide cover for the illusion that the bear market is over and that a new bull market has begun. There is little doubt these stocks are in a bull market. I call it a historic bubble, but don’t let anyone tell you the “market” is in a bull market.

It’s not and the value line geometric index shows you this clearly:

While the index made new highs the $XVG produced lower highs versus June and remains far below the 2020 highs or the 2018 highs for that matter.

Even in the almighty Nasdaq the internal picture is atrociously crumbling before our very eyes, be it on new high/vs new lows:

Or be it on the cumulative advance/decline:

Indeed we can observe that the relentless crawl to new highs on the index shows a correction underneath with $NYMO hitting below -50 while $SPX closed the week on a new high with equal weight deteriorating and volume entirely collapsing:

Banks dropped over 10% from the August peak and remain below the December 2018 lows and far below the June highs:

No, it’s all tech, and select tech at that as investors are relentlessly piling into $QQQ, an ETF that has a 56% market cap weighting exposed to just 10 stocks:

No, the “market” is weak underneath and is more reflective of the reality that 7 stocks and relentless artificial liquidity are masking:

This economy is far from recovered, yet markets are now trading at an all-time high of 179% market cap to GDP and the potential fuel of shorts has all but disappeared:

The most valued market in history, everybody long and the shorts are gone.
Have a good weekend!https://t.co/2SriTc7ckf pic.twitter.com/i1BPyoYseM

— Sven Henrich (@NorthmanTrader) August 21, 2020

Next week Jay Powell, who is personally killing it in this market, will speak at Jackson Hole. If there is any conscious recognition on his part as to the historic distortions created by his unprecedented liquidity injections shall remain unknown to all of us. If he has any sense of the enormity of the distortions created he’ll aim to softly try to ease participants off of the dangerous chase into tech stocks for fear that a bursting bubble will cause more damage down the road. But that would require him to not only have cognition of the distortions created, but also take some pain in his personal ETF portfolio. The obvious conflict of interest appears to be a taboo in the financial media for some reason.

Why not ask him: “Mr Powell, how much money have you personally made this year as a result of the liquidity injections you have implemented? In light of these amounts, while over 28M Americans are still claiming unemployment benefits, how can you claim the Fed does not contribute to wealth inequality?” Let him go on record:

Imagine being in charge of deciding unlimited QE while holding this long index portfolio and then saying the Fed does not increase wealth inequality. pic.twitter.com/m73AsAeZwb

— Sven Henrich (@NorthmanTrader) June 12, 2020

I’m sure these 28M Americans would love to know how the Fed is helping them by buying bonds in a $2.1 trillion market cap company.

Bottomline: The larger market is struggling, correcting even as the rotation trade once again was left in the dust of another vertical chase into key tech stocks which are now historically overvalued, technically extremely stretched and at ever higher risk of a violent technical reversion. Month end is again approaching and perhaps the rotation trade may once again be a vehicle of choice as these February gaps remain (see also $DJIA and $VIX).

I’ll leave you with a replay of an 30 min interview I recorded this Thursday evening with the folks over at PeakProsperity with my latest views on the current situation:

* * *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.