Companies In The Super-Saturated Chinese EV Market Are Going Public To Avoid Going Bankrupt Tyler Durden
Mon, 07/27/2020 – 20:05
The competition in the EV market – especially in China – is starting to become super-saturated. But rather than actually allow the market to consolidate and eliminate some of the smaller players, Chinese EV companies are taking another route to stave off going under: going public.
After all, what better way to put a company that’s not meant to survive on life support than to sell shares of it to a public that doesn’t know how to read financial statements?
Hozon New Energy Automobile is the latest name to launch an IPO, Bloomberg points out in a recent article, saying it wants to list in Shanghai next year. WM Motor Technology Co. is also considering a listing, potentially this year. They will join names like Nio, Tesla and Li Auto in competing in the world’s largest auto market.
Hozon is trying to capitalize on lower priced vehicles, offering an electric SUV for less than $10,000. The company has already shipped more than 16,000 vehicles. WM Motor is seeking a valuation of about $4.3 billion and is backed by names like Baidu and Tencent. Li Auto is seeking an IPO in the U.S. that could raise up to $1 billion.
And it has been the public market performance of names like Tesla and Nio that has paved the way for smaller names to go public. Both stocks have more than tripled this year.
Robert Cowell, an analyst at Shanghai-based private-equity firm 86Research Ltd. told Bloomberg: “The strength in Tesla and NIO shares is creating a window for new EV startups to list. The current conditions provide an attractive opportunity to raise funds, which can help some of these smaller startups sustain the investments necessary to compete effectively.”
This has given hope to the dozen or so EV names that have been able to raise money in China. They have emerged from a group of nearly 100 EV startups, all helped along by the government’s promise of subsidies for the industry. But its likely that out of the dozen that will make it to the public markets, not even all of those candidates will be successful.
Charley Xu, managing director and partner at Boston Consulting Group in Shanghai concluded: “This industry by nature requires huge investment in product development and manufacturing. Financing from the public market can further boost its development.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2X5kj3A Tyler Durden
Most people realize that 2020 has thrust two game-changing trends upon us that will change the world for years to come.
The first is Covid.
In less than six months, this virus has created extreme global hysteria and economic devastation.
Countless businesses have gone bust or are teetering on the edge. Tens of millions of jobs have been lost.
Government debt around the world has exploded higher. And their heavy-handed abuse of power has been astonishing… often incomprehensible.
Politicians and public health officials have suspended many of our most fundamental freedoms, threatened to come into our homes and take our family members away, and even banished us from our own private properties.
We’ve also seen a breakdown in basic social conventions.
Family and friends have stopped gathering together in person out of fear that someone may be a carrier. Weddings and funerals are virtual. And a simple handshake is practically considered an act of biological terrorism.
And, just like 9/11 nearly two decades ago, many effects of Covid will never return to ‘normal’.
Then there’s the social justice movement… which tore onto the world stage two months ago with a desire to make important cultural changes.
At its core, the movement is virtuous. After all, it’s supposed to be about freedom.
But it has quickly become divisive, menacing, and pointlessly violent.
Everything is offensive. Intellectual dissent must be immediately squashed. People lose their jobs, receive death threats, or are censored, merely for expressing completely valid (and even supportive) opinions.
And some of the largest corporations in the world have all submitted to the Twitter mob, like Nazi collaborators in France who began goose-stepping with the Wehrmacht the moment Hitler took Paris.
History is being rewritten. Vocabulary is being replaced. And any civil discourse results in persecution.
Just like lingering Covid effects, this social turmoil will also be with us for years. Don’t fool yourself into believing it’s some some flash in the pan that will be over in a few weeks.
But what I wanted to tell you today is that there is a THIRD, major trend brewing right now. And it could prove to be even bigger than Covid, bigger than the social justice movement.
It’s not one that evokes the same emotion. So you won’t see too many people marching in the streets or cowering in fear in their homes. There’s no hysteria.
This third major trend is rational. And that’s why it’s largely been ignored. But its impact could be far bigger and longer lasting.
I’m talking about conflict with China.
Over the past several months we’ve witnessed a minor trade dispute between the United States and China escalating into a major diplomatic conflict, and now, into full-blow Cold War.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo left no doubt about this when he essentially declared cold war against China’s communist party in a speech late last week:
“If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.
General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.
Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that ‘the world cannot be safe until China changes.’Now it’s up to us to heed his words.
Today the danger is clear. And today the awakening is happening.
Today the free world must respond. We can never go back to the past.”
It’s pretty incredible how China has already managed to get most of the world to bend to its will.
There are so many examples of this; major US airlines like Delta and American, have scrubbed references to “Taiwan” on their websites so as not to offend the Chinese communist party.
Hollywood, despite constantly thrusting its woke social justice politics in everyone’s faces, refuses to utter the slightest criticism of China, simply so they can squeeze out more box office revenue there.
And the National Basketball Association squashed an executive for Tweeting support to Hong Kong protesters last year.
Even the league’s biggest and most outspoken star, Lebron James, meekishly told reporters that China has “a complicated issue with racial, socioeconomic and geopolitical layers” and that he saw “little upside in speaking up” against the Chinese communist party.
Comparing sports team owners to ‘slave owners’ is perfectly fine. But don’t say anything bad about China!
In addition to Pompeo’s speeech, the US-China conflict escalated last week when the US government ordered the Chinese to close its consulate in Houston, Texas.
The Chinese government retaliated by closing a US consulate in China.
This is after months of sanctions, asset seizures, tariffs, arrests, expelling of foreign journalists, and plenty of tension about the Coronavirus.
I know there’s a lot of fear that an actual shooting war will break out between the US and China. And that is a possibility.
I’m probably biased as a West Point graduate, but I’m convinced that the US Marine Corps and Army Rangers are the most proficient fighting forces in the world.
But the reality is that China has a bigger army. It’s better equipped with newer, better technology. Its tanks are superior, and it has more of them.
China has also been investing heavily in its Navy and Air Force; it already has more ships than the US Navy, and it has also rolled out a fifth-generation fighter jet, the J-20, to compete head-to-head against the US military’s F-22 and F-35.
But that’s just conventional warfare. The next war will be highly unconventional… and the Chinese are dominant in “system destruction warfare”.
They could take down the US power grid, hack multiple defense and intelligence networks, and remotely disrupt key US command and control elements, before a single shot was fired.
This is not my assessment; the Pentagon has been wargaming conflict between the US and China for years. And in the words of one researcher who has participated in these scenarios, the US “gets its ass handed to it.”
Fortunately, a shooting war is unlikely. Why would China want to invade the US and deal with 400 million guns in the hands of the civilian population?
Why would the US want to invade China and deal with another Vietnam war?
War doesn’t benefit either nation, and on that basis it’s possible… but not probable.
What is likely is a total reset in the global financial system.
The current “Bretton Woods” financial system in which the US economy and US dollar are at the center of the global economy is decades old.
The US has derived extraordinary wealth and prosperity from this system for years.
Bretton Woods is the reason why the US national debt can be nearly $27 trillion (over 100% of GDP) without the dollar collapsing in value.
It’s the reason why the Federal Reserve can conjure trillions of dollars out of thin air and keep interest rates at 0% for years, but still be taken seriously.
Losing this advantage would be nothing short of catastrophic for the US economy.
And continued conflict with China is the one thing that is practically guaranteed to make it happen.
That’s why this trend– conflict with China– could be the biggest thing happening right now.
It’s not as scary as Covid, it’s not as emotional as social justice… but the effects may be permanently devastating.
From the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, Indiana Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion # 1-20, just posted on Westlaw; recall that Indiana judges, like the judges in most states, run in elections:
In light of recent events, a number of judicial officers have sought advice about whether, consistent with their ethical obligations under the Code of Judicial Conduct, they may attend and participate in marches, demonstrations, vigils, protests, and other public events aimed at addressing various social issues….
When judicial officers seek to speak out publicly by participating in demonstrations, vigils, protests, or marches, two countervailing interests are at play: the First Amendment rights of the judge versus the state’s interest in preserving the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. As this Commission recognized in Public Admonition of Letsinger (Ind. 1997):
“Judges are not forbidden from making public comments; in fact, they should be encouraged to engage in temperate and judicious speech on any subject, so long as the speech does not compromise the high ethical standards by which judges, unlike other citizens, are held. Judges do not lose entirely their rights to free speech, but it is well established that the preservation of the integrity and of the public perception of the judiciary justifies certain infringements on a judge’s right to speak out (emphasis added).”
Similarly, preservation of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary equally justifies certain infringements on a judge’s right to speak out publicly….
Rule 1.2 requires judges to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. Comments 4 and 6 to this Rule encourage judges to participate in activities that, among other things, promote access to justice for all and to engage in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice.
Rule 1.3 prohibits judges from using the prestige of office to advance the personal interests of the judge or others, or to allow others to do so.
Rule 2.10(A) prohibits judges from making public statements that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a pending or impending matter in any court. Subsection (B) prohibits judges from making pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of a judge’s adjudicative duties in relation to cases, controversies, or issues likely to come before the court.
Rule 2.11(A)(5) specifically requires judges to disqualify if they have made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in a proceeding or controversy. Further, Rule 2.11(A) generally requires judges to disqualify any time the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Rule 3.1 generally permits judges to engage in extrajudicial activities as long as participation: 1) will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties; 2) will not lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; 3) would not appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; 4) would not appear to a reasonable person to be coercive; and 5) does not involve the use of court premises or resources, except for incidental use.
Rule 3.7(A)(4) prohibits judges from being the featured speaker or guest of honor at events sponsored by educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations if the event serves a fundraising purpose.
Rule 4.1(A) prohibits judges from engaging in various political activities (i.e., endorsing or opposing candidates for public office) when not in their election cycle….
Political Organizations
Advisory commissions have remarked that judges should not participate in social-issue marches sponsored by or affiliated with a political organization or in marches supporting or opposing a political party or candidate. See Arizona Advisory Opinion 2018-6; New York Advisory Opinion 2017-38. If the primary purpose of the event is aimed at influencing the actions of a political candidate or party—even when the activity is sponsored by a nonpartisan group—the judge should not participate. See, e.g., Massachusetts CJE Opinion 2016-10 (A judge should not participate in the Women’s March on Washington scheduled the day after the presidential inauguration, as the public and media are “likely to focus on the timing of the event and the organizers’ announced desire to ‘send a message’ to the new President on his first day of office”).
Supporting or Protesting Matters in Active or Likely Litigation
Advisory committees also have warned judges about participating in marches or demonstrations about matters currently the subject of litigation (even if the matter is not in the judge’s court) or that are likely to become a subject of litigation before the judge. See New York Advisory Opinion 2017-38 (A judge may not participate, even without speaking, in a local rally, march, or demonstration sponsored by a grassroots organization in opposition to the “”Trump Muslim Ban,” noting that the event clearly “involves great public controversy, which is also the subject of litigation”); see also Arizona Advisory Opinion 2018-6.
Public Events Sponsored by Frequent Litigants or Advocacy Groups
When an event is sponsored or held by an organization that regularly appears before the judge or that holds an advocacy role within the courts, advisory committees have reached contrary results when interpreting Rules 3.1 and 1.2. Some committees have advised against attending, reasoning that attendance at these events may lead to frequent requests for disqualification as “the judge’s presence and participation ‘create[s] an appearance of particular sympathy toward one side in court’ and necessarily cast[s] doubt on the judge’s ability to be impartial.” New York Advisory Opinion 2017-108 (A judge may not participate in a “Call to Service and Compassion Workshop” to honor child abuse victims and survivors hosted by a local child advocacy center); see also New York Advisory Opinions 2010-59 and 2004-91 (advising judges against appearing at candlelight vigils for those affected by domestic violence and on behalf of victims of crime); see also New Jersey Advisory Opinion 2008-1 (Judges may not participate in a candlelight vigil celebrating the one millionth child served by CASA programs across the country).
Other advisory commissions have taken a more permissive approach, advising judges that they may attend public events sponsored by an advocacy group, if the event serves a nonadvocacy purpose and the judge behaves at the event in a manner that does not cast doubt upon the judge’s impartiality. See Washington Advisory Opinion 1996-16 (A judge may attend a “Day of Remembrance” ceremony to honor victims of domestic violence, but should take care that his or her mannerisms, actions, or speech do not cast doubt upon the judge’s impartiality and should not act as an advocate or in any manner that indicates a predisposition as to how he or she might rule in a domestic violence case); Florida Advisory Opinion 1995-41 (A judge may attend a Mothers Against Drunk Driving candlelight vigil because the event merely recognizes the victims of impaired drivers and does not call for changes in the law); Florida Advisory Opinion 1992-34 (A judge may attend ceremonies held by law enforcement agencies to honor officers killed in the line of duty); see also Massachusetts CJE Opinion 2016-06 (A judge may serve as a guest speaker at a Community Family Day event held by a neighborhood civic association even though a large number of law enforcement agencies are sponsors, but commission set forth several cautions “designed to prevent [the judge] from unintentionally conveying to the public any erosion or blurring of the line of demarcation between law enforcement agencies and the judiciary”).
Conduct Highlighting Judge
Advisory commissions also have warned judges to consider what role the judge is expected to play at an event. The Arizona Advisory Committee cautioned that, “Unless an event is directly related to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, judges should refrain from publicizing their affiliation with the judicial branch when participating.” Arizona Advisory Opinion 2018-6.
A recent advisory opinion issued from Connecticut highlights concerns when a judge is asked to take a featured role in a protest or demonstration. Connecticut Informal Opinion 2020-3. A judicial official from Connecticut sought advice on whether he could participate in “A Silent March of Black Female Attorneys of Connecticut” by meeting the marchers at the steps of the Connecticut Supreme Court and reading Article First, Sec. 2 of the Connecticut Constitution (which sets forth that all political power is inherent in the people) if he is not introduced at the event, does not identify himself by name or title or wear court- affiliated attire, does not permit his name or title to be used in any advertising, does not interpret the constitutional provision he is reading, and does not speak with the media. The invitation to the event indicated that protest signs in support of the cause are welcome, supporters would be distributing “We Can’t Breathe” buttons and voter registrations cards at the event, and marchers are strongly urged to wear all black with black sunglasses to lend support to the message.
The Connecticut Advisory Committee opined that, given the specific facts, the judicial official should not participate in the event because: 1) the judicial official’s participation would unnecessarily insert him into a public controversy in violation of Rule 1.2; 2) although the judicial official’s name and title would not be used, his identity likely could be ascertained since he would be the only male supporter speaking on the steps of the Connecticut Supreme Court and, thus, could undermine the public’s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary; and 3) the judicial official might be called upon to rule on claims of police brutality or abuse, and his participation in the event might appear to reasonable persons to undermine his independence and impartiality in violation of Rule 3.1.
Injudicious Remarks
Even when judges have spoken on appropriate matters of public concern, advisory commissions have cautioned judges to be circumspect in their remarks; and judicial conduct commissions have pursued discipline when judges have made injudicious remarks that undermine the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. See Public Admonition of Letsinger (Ind. 1997) (judge admonished for intemperate remarks about investigation into missing probation funds); Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Wilkerson (Miss. 2004) (judge disciplined for anti- homosexual remarks he made to newspaper when commenting on states that had extended right to sue for homosexual partners); Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferrari (Ohio 1999) (judge disciplined for derogatory remarks made in newspaper about juvenile detention center staff and judicial officials); In re Conduct of Schenck (Oregon 1994) (judge disciplined for writing letters to newspaper criticizing district attorney); But cf. In re Inquiry Concerning Gridley (Fla. 1982) (judge’s letters to editor expressing views against capital punishment protected by First Amendment).
Recommendations for Judges Who Wish to Participate in Public Events Aimed at Addressing Social Issues …
[T]he Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications is of the opinion that, pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may participate in many public events aimed at addressing social issues if the judge can do so in a manner that does not impinge upon the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. When deciding whether attendance and participation at a particular event may impair the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality, the Commission notes that the determination often will be fact sensitive and encourages judges to consult with Commission staff to evaluate the wisdom of participating in certain events. Nonetheless, there are several guiding principles/factors that a judge should consider in his/her evaluation:
The title of the event—The more provocative or advocacy-oriented the title of the event is in promotional materials, the more likely the judge should abstain. See Rules 1.2, 3.1(C).
The purpose of the event—If the event primarily serves an advocacy or political purpose or is a fundraiser (and the judge is a featured speaker), the judge should not participate due to concerns regarding frequent subsequent disqualification requests of the judge and concerns about the appearance of partiality. See Rules 1.2, 3.1(B), (C), 3.7(A)(4), and 4.1(A). Also, if the event touches upon a pending matter currently before the judge, then the judge should not attend (i.e., the protest/march is aimed at raising awareness about police practices, and the judge currently has a civil lawsuit on his/her docket regarding the city’s response to excessive force incidents). See Rule 2.10(A), (B).
The organizers and sponsors of the event—If the event primarily is sponsored or affiliated with a political party or candidate or seeks to influence the actions of a particular political official, the judge should not participate due to impartiality and independence concerns. See Rule 4.1(A). If the event is held by an advocacy group or a frequent litigant in the judge’s court, the judge should carefully weigh the purpose of the event. If it is for a nonadvocacy purpose and the judge can participate in a manner that will not raise public concern about the judge’s impartiality, then the judge may participate. See Rule 3.1. For instance, a judge could attend a march raising awareness about issues with the death penalty (as long as the judge maintains his/her ability to follow the law), but posing in a coffin for the media as part of an anti-death penalty protest1 would raise concerns about the judge’s ability to remain impartial in future cases. See Rules 1.2, 2.10(A), 2.11(A)(5), and 3.1(C).
The details about the event—If the event is being held in a time, place, or manner where participants likely will violate the law (i.e., by not following imposed curfews or by becoming violent), then a judge should not participate. See Rule 1.2. For instance, if there has been a past history of violent eruptions at an event, a judge would be well advised to avoid attendance.
The potential role of the judge at the event—If a judge is requested to be afeatured speaker or guest of honor at an event, the judge should carefully review all invitational materials to determine whether his/her featured presence may cause frequent disqualification or might subject the judge to concerns that the judge is improperly using the prestige of judicial office to further the organization’s goals. See Rules 1.3, 3.1(C). If the matter does not specifically involve matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the judge should not allow his/her legal title to be referenced during the event and should not wear any clothing identifying him/her with the judiciary.
If a judge determines after reviewing invitational/promotional materials that attendance at the event will not impair the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary, the judge should still consider the following while at the event:
Change in circumstances—If circumstances change at the event that cause the judge to believe the judge’s integrity or the impartiality of the judiciary might later be questioned (i.e., the majority of protesters are carrying signs supporting/opposing a political candidate), then the judge should be prepared to immediately leave the event.
Temperate and judicious conduct—The judge should be careful to act at all times at the event in a manner that is temperate and judicious.
Conclusion
A judge may participate in public events aimed at addressing social issues if the judge can do so in a manner that does not impinge upon the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. Judges are encouraged to consult with Commission staff to seek guidance on the wisdom of attending and participating in specific events.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hAU7p8
via IFTTT
I encourage everyone to read Joan Biskupic’s report for CNN. It reveals secrets from “behind closed doors” about the Supreme Court’s term. She relies on “multiple sources familiar with the inner workings of the Court.” This report has become something of an annual tradition for Biskupic. Last September, she provided a peak behind the curtain for the Census Case, and a few other matters. At the time, I asked why sources leaked internal deliberations to CNN.
Why was this information leaked? What is the potentially self-serving purpose for revealing this information?
I pose the same questions here. Why were these specific facts leaked. Let’s take the reports one at a time.
DACA
First, Biskupic tells a very specific narrative about DHS v. Regents. Unlike the Obamacare case and the Census case, Roberts’s vote did not change in the DACA case. From Biskupic’s telling, Roberts cast his vote at conference in November.
She wrote:
Roberts’ June decision saving the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program surprised advocates on both sides and even took some colleagues aback when he had first cast his vote many months earlier in private session, sources told CNN. … But the new reporting reveals that unlike Roberts’ 2012 move to uphold Obamacare and separate 2019 action to ensure no citizenship question on the 2020 census, Roberts’ action on DACA was not a late vote switch. He put his cards on the table soon after November oral arguments in the case and did not waver, sources told CNN. Roberts believed the administration had not sufficiently justified the rescission of the program benefiting some 700,000 young people and had then developed after-the-fact rationalizations.
This seems like a Pro-Roberts leak. It rebuffs the charge from last term with the Census case, that he changed his vote at the last minute. Don’t forget that there was a full Court press on the Chief to consider how rescinding DACA would effect health-care workers during the pandemic. Biskupic reports that Roberts circulated his draft in late March, after the COVID-19 crisis blew up. That means it took him nearly four months to prepare it. (He was distracted a bit with the impeachment trial).
But by the time Covid-19 concerns were at the fore, Roberts was already writing an opinion that would protect DACA beneficiaries for now. He finished his first draft in late March.
Biskupic reports that Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan were happy to join the draft opinion.
Three of the liberals responded enthusiastically to the draft opinion, CNN has learned, and asked for only minor changes.
The specifics were not nearly as important as the outcome. Though if the progressives held together, they could have created a 4-1-4 split that would have left DACA in place without a single rationale. And that fractured ruling would have made it harder for future DACA challenges to proceed on remand. I wonder if the Chief would have retaliated from such a plurality by flipping sides? Does he demand obedience if anyone threatens to write separately? In the end, the troika was willing to don the proverbial paper bag.
Biskupic also confirms that Justice Sotomayor was not so eager to join the Chief’s majority.
The fourth, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held off somewhat. She said she would join Roberts on much of the 5-4 judgment but expressed dismay that the chief had foreclosed a possible equal protection violation based on Trump’s racist comments about Mexican immigrants. She soon sent around a draft opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Finally, Biskupic reveals that Roberts voted to declare DAPA unlawful in 2016. That case split 4-4.
Roberts had generally supported Trump’s immigration policies, and in 2016 had privately voted against a related program for parents, rather than children, who had come to the US without papers, sources said. (That case, United States v. Texas, produced a 4-4 vote behind the scenes, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and no resolution on the merits.)
I had long suspected this vote, but now it is more-or-less confirmed. To reach that result, Roberts thought Texas had standing, that DAPA was subject to APA review (consistent with Regents), and that DAPA was unlawful (also consistent with Regents).
If Roberts still holds these view (who knows?) then Texas’s challenge to DACA has a greater chance of success than I expected. Morever, the reliance interests at play in the Texas case are different. There is no injunction. (And Jonathan Adler observed that Roberts does not like injunctions). This case would appeal from a motion for summary judgment. Stay tuned.
Public Resource
Biskupic provides insights into a fairly minor case on the Court’s docket: Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. The Court held that annotations to the Georgia Code could not be copyrighted. The 5-4 vote in this case was very unusual. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Alito, and joined in part by Justice Breyer. Justice Ginsburg wrote a separate dissent, which Justice Breyer joined in full. This case nearly split along Gen-X/Boomer axis.
At the time, there was some speculation that Justice Thomas lost the majority opinion, and that Chief Justice Roberts flipped his dissent to a majority opinion. Biskupic confirms this scuttlebutt:
Roberts’ winning streak extended to a Georgia copyright dilemma, heard in December, when he was able to turn his dissenting opinion into the prevailing view during the drafting process. He captured the majority from Thomas, who had initially taken control of the case once votes were cast in their private session after oral arguments.
The Georgia case decided in April, testing whether a state can copyright its annotated legal code, was not a high-profile one. But it offered an example of the rare but consequential vote-shifting that can occur behind the scenes and make a difference in the outcome of a case and law nationwide.
The court ruled that federal copyright protections do not cover annotations in a state’s code, based on the general principle, Roberts wrote, “that no one can own the law.”
Biskupic does not tell us who flipped. My money is on Kagan. This seemed like a prudent move to make the Chief feel more powerful on a case that didn’t really matter. In any event, another pro-Roberts leak.
Second Amendment
Biskupic also provides some insights into the Court’s Second Amendment cases this term. In April, the Court issued a per curiam decision in NYS Rifle & Pistol. That opinion held the controversy was moot. Biskupic reveals that Kavanaugh wrote this opinion, but not by himself.
CNN has learned that resolution of that case took many twists and multiple draft opinions. Guided by Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh crafted much of what turned out to be an unsigned “per curiam” opinion — joined by six justices, including Roberts—returning the case to lower court judges.
Wow! “Guided by” As if Roberts was Kavanaugh’s “sherpa.” How demeaning of the Junior Justice? Whoever leaked this fact was trying to make Roberts look powerful, and Kavanaugh look weak. And that “guided by” line looks even worse in light of Kavanaugh’s separate concurrence:
Kavanaugh also wrote a separate statement—this one he signed—suggesting it was time for the justices to resolve conflicting interpretations of Second Amendment rights.
Challenges to other firearms regulations were pending and conservatives who had wanted to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment had to consider whether to bring the issue back to the justices.
In that concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote:
And I share Justice ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.
At the time, I read Kavanaugh’s concurrence as a signal that there were the votes to grant another Second Amendment case. Kavanaugh is savvy enough, and would not have written what he wrote unless he thought the Court would pick up another case. I was optimistic.
In hindsight, Kavanaugh was wrong. Biskupic reports that at the conference, Roberts signaled that he would vote to uphold the gun control laws:
Roberts also sent enough signals during internal deliberations on firearms restrictions, sources said, to convince fellow conservatives he would not provide a critical fifth vote anytime soon to overturn gun control regulations. As a result, the justices in June denied several petitions regarding Second Amendment rights.
It takes four votes to accept a case and five to rule on it, and sources have told CNN that the justices on the right did not believe they could depend on a fifth vote from Roberts, who had in 2008 and 2010 voted for milestone gun-rights rulings but more recently seemed to balk at the fractious issue.
Finally, on Blue Monday, the Court denied review in 10 Second Amendment petitions.
In mid-June, the high court turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws limiting the availability of firearms and when they can be carried in public.
Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of cert. Justice Kavanaugh joined part of Thomas’s dissent. In hindsight, it seems Chief Justice Roberts played Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh thought there were four votes to grant cert, and five votes to reverse. He was wrong. I sensed some hostility from Kavanaugh towards Roberts later in the term–especially in South Bay and Calvary Chapel. There may be some built-up resentment.
Once again, this leak makes Roberts look powerful, and his colleagues meek.
Public Charge Rule
Biskupic’s final substantive report concerns the so-called Public Charge rule.
In January, the same five-justice Roberts majority permitted the administration to proceed with a new income-related test for immigrants seeking green cards. The “public charge” rule denies permanent legal status to those applicants who even occasionally apply for Medicaid, food stamps or certain other public assistance.
In mid-April, the Petitioners asked the Court to lift the stay in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. On April 24, the Court issued twoorders denying the requests. There were no recorded dissents. But both orders included the same concluding sentence:
This order does not preclude a filing in the District Court as counsel considers appropriate.
Of course, this sentence states the obvious. The parties can always seek relief in the District Court. And indeed, the New York Attorney General announced she would seek emergency relief in the District Court. (I am not aware of whether that relief was granted).
Biskupic provides some insights into the internal deliberations:
Three months later, amid a new dilemma over the rules arising from the Covid-19 virus, Roberts took the lead against immigrant interests yet mollified liberals poised to dissent publicly, CNN has learned….
According to sources, liberal justices believed the pandemic had transformed the situation and wanted the administration to clarify its rules to help places like New York hit hard by the virus in the spring. Roberts was unmoved and believed administration guidance was clear that immigrants could obtain Covid-19 care without consequence to their green-card applications. Other conservative justices agreed.
In other words, there were still five votes to leave the stay in place. The liberals considered whether to publicly dissent:
Liberal justices wrestled with how far to go with their contrary view and whether to publicly dissent, CNN has learned from inside accounts. Some justices also worried that if the request were rejected, the high court would appear to be unconcerned about people getting sick from the coronavirus. As liberal justices were again losing the argument, they wanted to offer some signal to the New York challengers that they could keep making their case in a lower court even as the Supreme Court ruled against them.
The Chief Justice wanted to avoid a dissent. So he added the single sentence to mollify the liberals:
Roberts resisted, CNN has learned. But the chief justice had an interest in tamping down the tensions and agreed to a modest compromise that sent the signal the liberals sought in the court’s order and ensured that the challengers were not prevented from pressing ahead.
Again, that sentence didn’t really add that much. It stated the obvious.
And once again, this leak is designed to make the Chief Justice look benevolent but firm.
Telephonic Oral Arguments
Biskupic also sheds some lights on the Court’s proceedings after the COVID-19 shutdown. First, Roberts refused to use Zoom, even for internal meetings.
Roberts’ power over their internal operations increased, too, as the justices were relegated to telephone and email communications. The court declined to use any Zoom-like option for its meetings, according to sources, so for the past four months the justices have not seen one another, even virtually.
And the Chief unilaterally decided that oral arguments would be held over telephone:
Roberts decided they would conduct arguments by phone when in-courtroom arguments were canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.
And Roberts also decided on the format, based on the approach used by the D.C. Circuits. his colleagues vented their “grumbling[s]” to Biskupic’s sources.
That decision caused some internal grumbling, CNN has learned, about the format and over how much time each justice would get to question a lawyer. Roberts ended up allowing each justice three minutes. Roberts carefully outlined the timing for the advocates and justices who would be connected by telephone. The plan was similar to an arrangement used a week earlier by a US appeals court in Washington for a nine-judge hearing.
Indeed, Roberts encouraged his colleagues to be “brief.”
The chief justice thought there would even be sufficient time after justices had taken their turns for a round of open questioning. For that final round, he said, if anyone wanted to ask a question, he or she could try to break in. He encouraged them to be brief. The chief recognized that several justices might jump in at once. If that happened, he said, he would call on one of them to speak. If he mistakenly called on a justice who was not trying to break in, he had a fix for his colleagues: Try to ask a question anyway.
This final leak does not make Roberts look powerful. It makes him look petty, and unconcerned for his colleagues. He made these decisions unilaterally, without taking into consideration the views of the other Justices.
***
I suspect some of the leaks come from the Justices themselves; for example, the grumbling about the format for oral arguments. These topics seem much safer to carp about, and do not concern internal case deliberations. The leaks about the cases may come from Justices, or they may come from law clerks authorized to talk by the Justices. And the tenor of the leaks this term are all consistent with a great and powerful Chief Justice–like Oz! The DACA leak suggests that Roberts was in control from the beginning. The Public.Resource leak suggests Roberts can persuade colleagues to flip. The Second Amendment leak suggests that Roberts played Kavanaugh. And the Public Charge leak suggests Roberts is willing to throw crumbs to his liberal colleagues when he is ready to.
We all find these leaks scintillating. Indeed, I speculated on possible leaks after Bostock. But they need to stop. These internal deliberations should remain private.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3giTL6B
via IFTTT
I encourage everyone to read Joan Biskupic’s report for CNN. It reveals secrets from “behind closed doors” about the Supreme Court’s term. She relies on “multiple sources familiar with the inner workings of the Court.” This report has become something of an annual tradition for Biskupic. Last September, she provided a peak behind the curtain for the Census Case, and a few other matters. At the time, I asked why sources leaked internal deliberations to CNN.
Why was this information leaked? What is the potentially self-serving purpose for revealing this information?
I pose the same questions here. Why were these specific facts leaked. Let’s take the reports one at a time.
DACA
First, Biskupic tells a very specific narrative about DHS v. Regents. Unlike the Obamacare case and the Census case, Roberts’s vote did not change in the DACA case. From Biskupic’s telling, Roberts cast his vote at conference in November.
She wrote:
Roberts’ June decision saving the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program surprised advocates on both sides and even took some colleagues aback when he had first cast his vote many months earlier in private session, sources told CNN. … But the new reporting reveals that unlike Roberts’ 2012 move to uphold Obamacare and separate 2019 action to ensure no citizenship question on the 2020 census, Roberts’ action on DACA was not a late vote switch. He put his cards on the table soon after November oral arguments in the case and did not waver, sources told CNN. Roberts believed the administration had not sufficiently justified the rescission of the program benefiting some 700,000 young people and had then developed after-the-fact rationalizations.
This seems like a Pro-Roberts leak. It rebuffs the charge from last term with the Census case, that he changed his vote at the last minute. Don’t forget that there was a full Court press on the Chief to consider how rescinding DACA would effect health-care workers during the pandemic. Biskupic reports that Roberts circulated his draft in late March, after the COVID-19 crisis blew up. That means it took him nearly four months to prepare it. (He was distracted a bit with the impeachment trial).
But by the time Covid-19 concerns were at the fore, Roberts was already writing an opinion that would protect DACA beneficiaries for now. He finished his first draft in late March.
Biskupic reports that Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan were happy to join the draft opinion.
Three of the liberals responded enthusiastically to the draft opinion, CNN has learned, and asked for only minor changes.
The specifics were not nearly as important as the outcome. Though if the progressives held together, they could have created a 4-1-4 split that would have left DACA in place without a single rationale. And that fractured ruling would have made it harder for future DACA challenges to proceed on remand. I wonder if the Chief would have retaliated from such a plurality by flipping sides? Does he demand obedience if anyone threatens to write separately? In the end, the troika was willing to don the proverbial paper bag.
Biskupic also confirms that Justice Sotomayor was not so eager to join the Chief’s majority.
The fourth, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held off somewhat. She said she would join Roberts on much of the 5-4 judgment but expressed dismay that the chief had foreclosed a possible equal protection violation based on Trump’s racist comments about Mexican immigrants. She soon sent around a draft opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Finally, Biskupic reveals that Roberts voted to declare DAPA unlawful in 2016. That case split 4-4.
Roberts had generally supported Trump’s immigration policies, and in 2016 had privately voted against a related program for parents, rather than children, who had come to the US without papers, sources said. (That case, United States v. Texas, produced a 4-4 vote behind the scenes, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and no resolution on the merits.)
I had long suspected this vote, but now it is more-or-less confirmed. To reach that result, Roberts thought Texas had standing, that DAPA was subject to APA review (consistent with Regents), and that DAPA was unlawful (also consistent with Regents).
If Roberts still holds these view (who knows?) then Texas’s challenge to DACA has a greater chance of success than I expected. Morever, the reliance interests at play in the Texas case are different. There is no injunction. (And Jonathan Adler observed that Roberts does not like injunctions). This case would appeal from a motion for summary judgment. Stay tuned.
Public Resource
Biskupic provides insights into a fairly minor case on the Court’s docket: Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. The Court held that annotations to the Georgia Code could not be copyrighted. The 5-4 vote in this case was very unusual. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Alito, and joined in part by Justice Breyer. Justice Ginsburg wrote a separate dissent, which Justice Breyer joined in full. This case nearly split along Gen-X/Boomer axis.
At the time, there was some speculation that Justice Thomas lost the majority opinion, and that Chief Justice Roberts flipped his dissent to a majority opinion. Biskupic confirms this scuttlebutt:
Roberts’ winning streak extended to a Georgia copyright dilemma, heard in December, when he was able to turn his dissenting opinion into the prevailing view during the drafting process. He captured the majority from Thomas, who had initially taken control of the case once votes were cast in their private session after oral arguments.
The Georgia case decided in April, testing whether a state can copyright its annotated legal code, was not a high-profile one. But it offered an example of the rare but consequential vote-shifting that can occur behind the scenes and make a difference in the outcome of a case and law nationwide.
The court ruled that federal copyright protections do not cover annotations in a state’s code, based on the general principle, Roberts wrote, “that no one can own the law.”
Biskupic does not tell us who flipped. My money is on Kagan. This seemed like a prudent move to make the Chief feel more powerful on a case that didn’t really matter. In any event, another pro-Roberts leak.
Second Amendment
Biskupic also provides some insights into the Court’s Second Amendment cases this term. In April, the Court issued a per curiam decision in NYS Rifle & Pistol. That opinion held the controversy was moot. Biskupic reveals that Kavanaugh wrote this opinion, but not by himself.
CNN has learned that resolution of that case took many twists and multiple draft opinions. Guided by Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh crafted much of what turned out to be an unsigned “per curiam” opinion — joined by six justices, including Roberts—returning the case to lower court judges.
Wow! “Guided by” As if Roberts was Kavanaugh’s “sherpa.” How demeaning of the Junior Justice? Whoever leaked this fact was trying to make Roberts look powerful, and Kavanaugh look weak. And that “guided by” line looks even worse in light of Kavanaugh’s separate concurrence:
Kavanaugh also wrote a separate statement—this one he signed—suggesting it was time for the justices to resolve conflicting interpretations of Second Amendment rights.
Challenges to other firearms regulations were pending and conservatives who had wanted to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment had to consider whether to bring the issue back to the justices.
In that concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote:
And I share Justice ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.
At the time, I read Kavanaugh’s concurrence as a signal that there were the votes to grant another Second Amendment case. Kavanaugh is savvy enough, and would not have written what he wrote unless he thought the Court would pick up another case. I was optimistic.
In hindsight, Kavanaugh was wrong. Biskupic reports that at the conference, Roberts signaled that he would vote to uphold the gun control laws:
Roberts also sent enough signals during internal deliberations on firearms restrictions, sources said, to convince fellow conservatives he would not provide a critical fifth vote anytime soon to overturn gun control regulations. As a result, the justices in June denied several petitions regarding Second Amendment rights.
It takes four votes to accept a case and five to rule on it, and sources have told CNN that the justices on the right did not believe they could depend on a fifth vote from Roberts, who had in 2008 and 2010 voted for milestone gun-rights rulings but more recently seemed to balk at the fractious issue.
Finally, on Blue Monday, the Court denied review in 10 Second Amendment petitions.
In mid-June, the high court turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws limiting the availability of firearms and when they can be carried in public.
Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of cert. Justice Kavanaugh joined part of Thomas’s dissent. In hindsight, it seems Chief Justice Roberts played Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh thought there were four votes to grant cert, and five votes to reverse. He was wrong. I sensed some hostility from Kavanaugh towards Roberts later in the term–especially in South Bay and Calvary Chapel. There may be some built-up resentment.
Once again, this leak makes Roberts look powerful, and his colleagues meek.
Public Charge Rule
Biskupic’s final substantive report concerns the so-called Public Charge rule.
In January, the same five-justice Roberts majority permitted the administration to proceed with a new income-related test for immigrants seeking green cards. The “public charge” rule denies permanent legal status to those applicants who even occasionally apply for Medicaid, food stamps or certain other public assistance.
In mid-April, the Petitioners asked the Court to lift the stay in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. On April 24, the Court issued twoorders denying the requests. There were no recorded dissents. But both orders included the same concluding sentence:
This order does not preclude a filing in the District Court as counsel considers appropriate.
Of course, this sentence states the obvious. The parties can always seek relief in the District Court. And indeed, the New York Attorney General announced she would seek emergency relief in the District Court. (I am not aware of whether that relief was granted).
Biskupic provides some insights into the internal deliberations:
Three months later, amid a new dilemma over the rules arising from the Covid-19 virus, Roberts took the lead against immigrant interests yet mollified liberals poised to dissent publicly, CNN has learned….
According to sources, liberal justices believed the pandemic had transformed the situation and wanted the administration to clarify its rules to help places like New York hit hard by the virus in the spring. Roberts was unmoved and believed administration guidance was clear that immigrants could obtain Covid-19 care without consequence to their green-card applications. Other conservative justices agreed.
In other words, there were still five votes to leave the stay in place. The liberals considered whether to publicly dissent:
Liberal justices wrestled with how far to go with their contrary view and whether to publicly dissent, CNN has learned from inside accounts. Some justices also worried that if the request were rejected, the high court would appear to be unconcerned about people getting sick from the coronavirus. As liberal justices were again losing the argument, they wanted to offer some signal to the New York challengers that they could keep making their case in a lower court even as the Supreme Court ruled against them.
The Chief Justice wanted to avoid a dissent. So he added the single sentence to mollify the liberals:
Roberts resisted, CNN has learned. But the chief justice had an interest in tamping down the tensions and agreed to a modest compromise that sent the signal the liberals sought in the court’s order and ensured that the challengers were not prevented from pressing ahead.
Again, that sentence didn’t really add that much. It stated the obvious.
And once again, this leak is designed to make the Chief Justice look benevolent but firm.
Telephonic Oral Arguments
Biskupic also sheds some lights on the Court’s proceedings after the COVID-19 shutdown. First, Roberts refused to use Zoom, even for internal meetings.
Roberts’ power over their internal operations increased, too, as the justices were relegated to telephone and email communications. The court declined to use any Zoom-like option for its meetings, according to sources, so for the past four months the justices have not seen one another, even virtually.
And the Chief unilaterally decided that oral arguments would be held over telephone:
Roberts decided they would conduct arguments by phone when in-courtroom arguments were canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.
And Roberts also decided on the format, based on the approach used by the D.C. Circuits. his colleagues vented their “grumbling[s]” to Biskupic’s sources.
That decision caused some internal grumbling, CNN has learned, about the format and over how much time each justice would get to question a lawyer. Roberts ended up allowing each justice three minutes. Roberts carefully outlined the timing for the advocates and justices who would be connected by telephone. The plan was similar to an arrangement used a week earlier by a US appeals court in Washington for a nine-judge hearing.
Indeed, Roberts encouraged his colleagues to be “brief.”
The chief justice thought there would even be sufficient time after justices had taken their turns for a round of open questioning. For that final round, he said, if anyone wanted to ask a question, he or she could try to break in. He encouraged them to be brief. The chief recognized that several justices might jump in at once. If that happened, he said, he would call on one of them to speak. If he mistakenly called on a justice who was not trying to break in, he had a fix for his colleagues: Try to ask a question anyway.
This final leak does not make Roberts look powerful. It makes him look petty, and unconcerned for his colleagues. He made these decisions unilaterally, without taking into consideration the views of the other Justices.
***
I suspect some of the leaks come from the Justices themselves; for example, the grumbling about the format for oral arguments. These topics seem much safer to carp about, and do not concern internal case deliberations. The leaks about the cases may come from Justices, or they may come from law clerks authorized to talk by the Justices. And the tenor of the leaks this term are all consistent with a great and powerful Chief Justice–like Oz! The DACA leak suggests that Roberts was in control from the beginning. The Public.Resource leak suggests Roberts can persuade colleagues to flip. The Second Amendment leak suggests that Roberts played Kavanaugh. And the Public Charge leak suggests Roberts is willing to throw crumbs to his liberal colleagues when he is ready to.
We all find these leaks scintillating. Indeed, I speculated on possible leaks after Bostock. But they need to stop. These internal deliberations should remain private.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3giTL6B
via IFTTT
Turkish Lira Goes Berserk As Central Bank Briefly Loses Grip On Capital Controls Tyler Durden
Mon, 07/27/2020 – 19:25
Some time in mid-June, Turkey’s president Erdogan and the central bank which he now de facto controls, decided to do to the Turkish lira what the Fed has done to the bond market, and nationalized it the result being an unprecedented flatlining in the country’s troubled currency which had been collapsing in the months prior and only the government’s ruthless intervention managed to halt the slow-mo collapse.
As shown in the chart below, for the past month the USDTRY was effectively pegged to a level of 6.85, ending the currency’s precipitous decline.
However today, just after 1pm ET, the government and central bank finally lost control of the lira their multiple capital controls failing to protect the currency from the forces of the free market, and the lira crashed 2% against the dollar in the space of minutes – posting its biggest intraday drop since October 7 as the USDTRY spiekd as high as 6.9835 – before the central bank finally regained control, and the currency quickly rallied back to recover most of its losses amid local limits on credit lines and liquidity.
The lira briefly also touched an all-time low the euro, falling as much as 3% to 8.2178 at 1:14 p.m. ET before retreating to trade at 8.0791
“A few theories could be the way domestic banks manage their FX exposures,” Wells Fargo FX strategist Brendan McKenna told Bloomberg. “Turkish banks have all but placed capital controls in place and any time there are some adjustments to regulations they can cause some swings in the lira.”
By “some adjustments”, he probably means that any time something unexpected happens and the capital controls fail to keep the currency pegged to its imaginary value, all hell breaks loose as it briefly did earlier today.
While Turkey has generally kept a very low profile in recent months, suffering from a substantial slowdown in foreign investment hitting its bond market and capital accounts, it has been hit by an escalating geopolitical conflict with Greece; as we reported over the weekend, tensions flared up over the weekend in the Mediterranean region after the government in Ankara said it was sending a ship to carry out a drilling survey in waters contested by Turkey and Greece.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3f6nvSo Tyler Durden
Democrats have fully pivoted on the nightly Portland riots. They’ve gone all-in on blaming the riots on President Trump thus allying themselves with the antifa and Black Lives Matter anarchist and communist mobs. Instead of black bloc balaclavas or masks, the politicians have donned the cloak of civil libertarianism. In doing so, they make a mockery of it.
Democrats, so far as I can find, have never denounced the violent mobs, though New York Governor Andrew Cuomo once wagged a finger at George Floyd rioters while simultaneously explaining that it wasn’t really their fault because “income inequality” led to violence. Indeed, the only remonstrance issued was over people burning down black-owned businesses – their “own house” as he put it, because burning your own stuff “never makes sense.” As denunciations go, it was a rambling nothing-burger. Atlanta’s mayor voiced similar disgust with the arsonists and looters.
In fact, mayors, governors, and prosecutors have fallen all over themselves to support the violent mobs in Seattle, New York, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., and, of course, Portland, often conflating the “mostly peaceful” protesters upset with the killing of George Floyd – remember him? – with the ones looting Louis Vuitton, tearing down statues of George Washington, and trying to burn down federal buildings.
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan ceded a section of the fancy Capitol Hill neighborhood to the mob. She handed over a police precinct to the mob. Two murders, gunshot wounds, assaults, and rapes took place at her pet mob’s little “summer of love” squat. She’s never apologized.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey gave over a police precinct to the mob. Police officers inside thought they’d die that night and if they’d stayed they would have. When rioters weren’t boosting free stuff from the Target, looters and rioters were spectating the conflagration they’d started at the precinct with a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. The mayor later asked President Trump for money to help rebuild it. Trump said hell no.
But this is an election year and time is short. The mobs are deployed to cause chaos and misdirection, as they were in Portland and elsewhere in the months leading up and after the 2016 presidential election. They are cracking heads and cold-cocking Trump rally-goers who dare bring a contra-narrative to one of their riots.
Far from denouncing the violent and destructive nightly arsons and assaults, Democrats embrace the riots to denounce President Trump. They point to the mobs of concerned citizens who have been impelled, catapulted from their spot at the tattoo parlor to join the mob in the streets because how-dare-Trump-send-police-to-defend-a-federal-building that the left is obsessed with bringing down.
It’s a real-time exercise in psy-ops. It’s gaslighting writ large. But they believe you’re dumb enough to believe it.
Instead, follow along on these ten big lies the Left wants you to believe about the Portland riots and learn something.
Lie 1: The Riots Are Committed by Mostly Peaceful Protesters
Everyone knows the riots are a disgraceful dumpster fire of venom and vinegar with green lasers and IEDs thrown at cops to give them that special something. Those of us covering the Portland Professional Protester™ scene for years have seen most of this behavior before.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler allowed the riots to go on in a section of downtown for six weeks before the Trump administration came in to protect its own buildings and roll up the bad guys attacking them.
Acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Ken Cuccinelli, says bringing weapons, gas masks and shields are “preparations for violence. Peaceful protester? I don’t think so.”
Here is a shield and a couple of gas masks from a rioter arrested in Portland. Not a sign with a slogan that someone expressing their first amendment rights might carry, but preparations for violence. Peaceful protester? I don’t think so. pic.twitter.com/0Re1V129ge
— Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen) July 23, 2020
Wheeler’s strategy, if you can call it that, of letting the rioters riot and ruin part of downtown, leaves Oregonians feeling unsafe, police outraged, and the rule of law in tatters. Now Wheeler says Trump’s defense of the federal buildings is somehow breaking the law. The entire Leftist monoculture has coalesced around this absurd assertion.
So certain is Wheeler that the rioters should be viewed as misunderstood arsonists and predators that the mayor/police commissioner took an armed five-person plainclothes police detail with him on his “listening session” photo op to show everyone how safe it was during a Portland antifa and Black Lives Matter street riot.
Wheeler may be a lot of things, but heroic isn’t one. He took a team of men with guns to protect him from the rowdy rioters.
Lie 2: Tear-Gassed Mayor Says It Was a Total Surprise
On his “listening” session at the riots last Wednesday night, Mayor Ted Wheeler stood at the fence line protecting the federal courthouse, which he’s now trying to remove because it’s in the way of a bike lane (side note: there’s only one group of people more beloved than antifa in Portland and that’s bicyclists).
As he stood there staring intently at the IED-pocked, scorched, and graffitied building, there was an “unprovoked” gassing of the protesters. Wheeler was overcome by the fumes, his COVID-19 mask not being enough to keep out the smell. He later pronounced that the feds had no provocation for gassing the crowds—that he had seen nothing which could possibly, remotely, ever, ever cause cops to shoot tear gas canisters.
As protest-watcher Andy Ngo pointed out, “the building had been set on fire and rioters were throwing explosives.”
.@tedwheeler says, “I saw nothing that provoked this response” when asked about his thoughts on federal law enforcement deploying tear gas.
It turns out that the mayor missed a few things—such as the bags of burning garbage, IEDs, assorted other fireworks, and green lasers being shot into the eyes of law enforcement. In fact, this Christian Broadcast Network reporter, who was standing near the mayor, says rioters were given several warnings to get out or they’d be pushed back with crowd-control devices – tear gas. The mayor knew this. The reporter from CBN called the mayor a “liar” for alleging that the federal police response was unprovoked. He thinks Wheeler did it for a photo op.
Lie 3: ‘Moms’ Bravely Leave Children’s Sides to Attend Riots
After Democrats issued the new talking points that federal cops were “Trump’s secret police,” women, some of them known antifa members, took off their black balaclavas to refashion themselves into “moms.” Somehow these individually acting, concerned mothers all knew to get a yellow shirt, riot helmet, and “hey, hey, ho, ho” chant to drive away those bad federal officers.
Incredible scene in Portland right now. A group of Moms are chanting, “Feds stay clear! Moms are here!” at the federal courthouse.
Ngo writes of these “moms,” “I recognize a lot of the so-called ‘moms’ as the same antifa women who dressed in black as recent as a couple days ago. They just put on a yellow shirt now for optics. Most of these people aren’t mothers & many don’t even identify as female. #PortlandRiots”
If you hadn’t figured it out yet, it’s Portland’s version of Pallywood. These are merely actors playing a role.
Lie 4: These Dads With Leaf Blowers Showed Up Out of Thin Air!
Then the “dads” showed up at the riots. Of course, to get “dads” to show up with leaf blowers, which you’ll come to learn are dead-useful at a riot, you must put out a casting call – and bring your gas masks and bring your leaf blower.
A quick look at these grassroots “dads” on Twitter reveals they’ve been around – hold on a second – since July of 2020. Just in time for the riots!
The “Dads,” who look oddly like the rioters from the night before, came with the leaf blowers to blow back at federal officers all the CS or tear gas they’ve deployed, while their “comrades” – yes, they call them “comrades,” lobbed IEDs. Another set of dads were armed with umbrellas to keep the gas out of the faces of the rioters so they could continue to ready their munitions to throw at the federal building.
As you may have wondered, yes, Portland has a leaf blower ordinance ( Leaf Blower Regulations – 18.10.035) banning the use of them in the city after 7 p.m. But, Governor Kate Brown has COVID restrictions on large gatherings too. The duplicitous politicians have agreed that the law doesn’t apply to the Democrats’ pet protesters. Look for more shutdowns after Oregon experiences another spike in COVID cases in the next few weeks from the riots. They’ll cancel church, but not the riots.
Lie 5: Rioters Are Patriotic, Flag-Waving American Veterans!
You’ve heard the saying that dissent is patriotic and it is. Riots, however, are not protected speech. They necessarily conflict with other people’s rights to be left the hell alone and in peace to go about their lives.
People watching Portland’s antifa/Black Lives Matter riots have been appalled by the violence, lawbreaking and head-cracking. The stated goal of both antifa and Black Lives Matter is the destruction of the country of which the flag is a symbol. But now, the same people who spit on, poop on, stomp on, beat up people with, and set fire to American flags are recasting themselves as patriots.
That’s why all of a sudden you’ve seen rioters holding American flags.
The flag waving is a propaganda move for the cameras. They are discussing on Reddit & other places new ways to “change” public perception on the riots. This is a group that beats people carrying flags, burns US flags, & chants for abolishment of the US. pic.twitter.com/FipxGJUxNS
These are people who want to burn down America. Because so many people know they want to burn down the country’s institutions, the Left has formulated another sub-group culled from Central Casting just for these riots.
You thought the Great White Way was closed for COVID? Welcome to Portland, with its white protesters cast for their newly announced production, the “Wall of Vets,” a collection of protesters who now call themselves military veterans. Some of them may be military vets. The idea is to show that rioting to bring down the country and serving to protect this country are totally the same thing. Totally.
“Team Joe” member, Jon Cooper, the “Draft Joe Biden for President 2016” finance chair and former chair of The Democratic Coalition, points to the veteran street theater as a moving event in a cheap attempt to whitewash antifa and BLM’s anti-Americanism.
If you see a media outlet or politico selling this Broadway production-pap, they’ve been had and you need to re-think your news sources.
Lie 6: Portland Antifa Says, Hey, It Ain’t Us Doing These Riots!
Of all the whoppers, Portland’s antifa is stating explicitly that they have nothing to do with the riots in their own city and, in fact, it must be the right-wing doing this.
“We’ve said this before, but to re-iterate: we are not organizing, leading, or otherwise behind the local protests. We are FULLY supportive, but defer to the leadership of the Black organizers who have dedicated themselves to fighting for Black liberation & against state violence.”
We’ve said this before, but to re-iterate: we are not organizing, leading, or otherwise behind the local protests. We are FULLY supportive, but defer to the leadership of the Black organizers who have dedicated themselves to fighting for Black liberation & against state violence.
— Always Antifascist (@RoseCityAntifa) July 22, 2020
Antifa welcomes new rioters coming to town like a host city for a convention. You could argue that this is the Democratic Party’s in-person convention. As my Facebook Friend Kathleen Worman wrote in response to a contest of sorts I’m having to come up with clever names for the riots and rioters, the Oregon woman pronounced them “Demtifa.” Another friend dubs the riots as “Commie-Con.” True that.
Rose City Antifa writes in a tweet:“since we see a lot of new folks coming out to the local protests (welcome!), we’d like to remind everyone of the importance of good cybersecurity…”
A later Rose City Antifa tweet vowed: “we’ve never been more prepared to fight for what we believe in and what is right.”
Rose City Antifa is being sued by Andy Ngo for death threats and attacks and he’s asking for damages. They’ve recently been outed by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas and are most certainly under scrutiny by the feds. Consider their statement their official legal disclaimer, even as they help put together IEDs and source green lasers for rioters.
If they’re not outright organizing it with their Lisa Fithian-like trainers around the country, they’re in it.
Lie 7: Riot Groups Are Not Organized
The media and Leftists, but I repeat myself, often point to the fact that federal charging documents against rioters do not include the word “antifa.” They say it’s proof the group doesn’t exist as an organization.
As my points about the riotous “wall of ____” (insert moms, dads, vets) groups should point out, there is organization. On cue, protests to “support Portland” from Trump’s “secret police” are popping up in cities across America.
Lights! Camera! Action! Quick! “Get down to the Justice Center” for more mayhem.
Stories abound about how “you can help” the organized riots are ubiquitous. Besides bringing your leaf blower and wearing your yellow shirt, you can bring food and water.
So what can we do? Here’s a masterpost from early June, which I just discovered today, and which still seems to roughly apply (but check before donating to anything that the org in question still wants donations).https://t.co/bwWRBTbEQ4
Antifa even has its own food cart in downtown Portland. Now that the antifa hard cider hang out “Cider Riot!” is out of business, you can help out the organized “Riot Ribs” food cart to make food for hungry rioters. Oh, and they’d like your money to buy a mobile food truck to be called “Riot Kitchen” in a Seattle expansion.
Gee, I’m sensing a theme here.
Hey Twitter family, let’s try and get @riotkitchen206 their food truck! They’re so close. They’ve been helping us a ton! Donate to their GoFundMe!
Local and national press argue that only downtown Portlanders are inconvenienced by the riots – as if that’s somehow OK – and that the riots don’t affect anyone else.
I just want to emphasize for the zillionth time that these protests happen in a very tiny part of Portland. I park several blocks away, and often find myself walking by people getting off work or going on a date. I’m wearing chest plates and feel like an absolute alien.
Portlanders know that mobs historically migrate from downtown to the northwest, southeast, northeast, and north sections of town. They know they’re not safe from the rabble.
Whose streets? Their streets. Whose freeways? Their freeways. That’s because the political class of like-minded “public servants” agree with them and let them do it.
Lie 9: What Lasers?
A few days ago federal authorities acknowledged that three police officers defending the federal courthouse may have sustained permanent damage to their eyesight because rioters shone lasers in their eyes. This is the stuff of terrorists and it’s real, as Acting Department of Homeland Security Deputy Ken Cuccinelli says.
These can, and are intended to, cause serious eye damage to law enforcement officers. https://t.co/RGBj2ElQmG
— Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen) July 26, 2020
This was widely scoffed at. But here’s video of the “dads” at the riot providing cover for the laser operators.
Black Lives Matter was formed after Trayvon Martin was killed by a neighborhood watch guy who fought back with a gun.
BLM demanded that the institutional racism they alleged occurred at the local Ferguson cop shop was why Michael Brown, he of the phony “hands up, don’t shoot” big lie, was killed. Three investigations, including one by Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, showed that wasn’t true. At all.
But BLM has soldiered on, recasting the group as being in support of “black lives,” when it’s only blacks killed in connection with a law-enforcement action that they care about.
And, as PJMedia colleague Stacey Lennox reported, BLM has intentionally adopted a more decentralized antifa model, muted their own well-known founders, and are now a much more political organization.
The group and antifa are connected at the hip.
They both want to tear down law enforcement and “defund” police because of high-profile cop killings that bring in big money from Democrats’ online fundraising tool “Act Blue.”
The only freedom they want is freedom from the laws that make a civil society work. That means they can’t take over streets that other people use, commit violent acts against others, and tear down, burn and loot other people’s property.
Democrats, like this “democratic strategist,” cheer them on.
They claim to practice “empathy,” but they’re not about black people whose lives have been snuffed out by abortion, black-on-black crime, or during riots.
Respected Milwaukee community figure, Bernell Trammell, Trump and Black Lives Matter supporter, fatally shot in front of own store. pic.twitter.com/XNLdPWRJUr
They believe there’s no normal, no family, and this is “liberation.” If you don’t agree, you don’t matter and will be canceled By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). See Lies #1 and #8.
After their enemies are vanquished and they get a few more socialists and communists like AOC in place, they’ll be in charge. That’s why these riots are taking place right before the November election.
It’s about power—the power of the collective against the rights of the individual, which is the fundamental precept upon which this country was built.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3g68Zvf Tyler Durden
Q2 Earnings Management Mood: Abysmal Conditions, But Optimism At All Time High Tyler Durden
Mon, 07/27/2020 – 18:45
Heading into second quarter earnings season, it wasn’t a question of if it would be bad – we knew the Y/Y earnings collapse of more than -40% would be the worst since the financial crisis – but what hints management teams would give on the outlook to at least give the impression that things are getting better.
And that’s precisely what is taking place: according to BofA, not only has there been a prevalence of top and bottom-line beats, but when it comes to the future, management teams have never been more optimistic… literally.
Here are the facts: Through this weekend, 127 S&P 500 companies (40% of EPS) have reported, with another 37% set to report this week.
Results are tracking 2% above analysts’ expectations at the start of July, and 2Q EPS is now $23.71 (-43% y/y) after bottoming at $23. More notably, 61% of companies have beaten on EPS and sales, well above the 40% post-Week-2 average. Health Care and Tech lead in beats, but Tech is lower since earnings season began.
Upward revisions last week were driven by better-than expected results in Health Care and Tech. Overall, 77% of companies have beaten on EPS, 73% have beaten on sales and 61% have beaten on both – well above average, where typically 40% have positively surprised on both metrics following Week 2.
With earnings generally better than “macheted” expectations, sales are also beating by a modest 1%. ACcording to BofA, bottom-up sales expectations have risen across most sectors by more than 1% since the start of July, with analysts expecting sales -10% y/y (with declines across all sectors except Health Care and Tech). Meanwhile, FX was a ~1ppt headwind to YoY growth, similar to last quarter. Excluding FX/oil impacts, constant-currency sales growth for the S&P 500 ex. Fins. & Energy is expected to be -6% % YoY 5), vs. +3% YoY in 1Q.
That’s the good news. Now the not so good news:
So far, margins are coming in slightly (~20-30bp) ahead of expectations earlier this month (true for the Tech sector as well), but still slated to decline substantially both sequentially and y/y. Analysts expect S&P 500 non-Financial net margins to collapse to 7.5% (8.5% ex-Energy), 220bp lower than last quarter and 350bp lower than a year ago. The biggest sequential margin declines are expected in Energy (-10ppt), Discretionary and Industrials (both -5ppt). Discretionary is slated to be the biggest contributor to the aggregate decline in S&P margins, followed by Industrials and Tech (where for the latter, 2Q margins are expected to fall ~1.5ppt sequentially).
While margins are slated to collapse, the offset may be job cuts (not that that’s a positive): profit margins, one of the most important factors on watch this quarter, are tracking a hair above expectations, but are still slated to collapse 350bp y/y, led by Energy and Retail, with commentary around employment indicates potential for more cuts: Paychex: “…if [a client] had 20 or 30 employees, they might have 15 or 20 now”; others are “removing layers of management”, offering “voluntary separations” etc.
Weak current conditions…but lots of optimism
Yet despite the overall plunge in top and bottom line, and the collapse in margins, management teams are taking it in stride. In fact, even though so far the tone on earnings calls echoes the broader economic weakness – with the ratio of mentions of “better” or “stronger” vs. “worse” or “weaker” in transcripts is tracking the lowest since 2Q09 – optimism is soaring. Indeed, as the chart below shows, management has never been more optimistic about the future, suggestive of a the expected improvement in profits in subsequent quarters – mentions of optimism on earnings calls are so far tracking at the highest levels in BofA data history (since ’03).
While indicative of a possible inflection point, this soaring optimism may simply mean that managements are overly hopeful of a sharp recovery, and should this record optimism proves wrong the resulting collapse in sentiment will be unlike anything seen before, sending another far more powerful negative shockwave across corporate America.
Tied to this optimism – whether justified or not – BofA concludes that the buyback and dividend suspensions and cuts is likely largely behind us: “Announced buyback programs have dropped off significantly within the S&P 500, with aggregate announced buybacks in 2Q20 the lowest since 4Q17 (Chart 17) and announcements in July so far nearly non-existent.”
But buyback suspensions have also slowed down significantly since last earnings season, with barely any announcements in June/July Overall just under 100 S&P 500 companies suspended buybacks since the start of March, dominated by Consumer Discretionary and Financials (Chart 16).
BofA also thinks S&P 500 dividend cuts are largely behind us, where 64 companies in the index have cut dividends since March, 40% of which are in Consumer Discretionary, but only of those cuts occurred in June/July.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CWatKr Tyler Durden
Silver & Crypto Are Snapping Higher Again Ahead Of Asian Open Tyler Durden
Mon, 07/27/2020 – 18:33
Whether in anticipation of Robinhooders using their soon-to-be-delivered new stimulus checks to lever into precious metals and crypto (or all the reasons in the world a weak dollar and flight to non-fiat), cryptos and PMs are lurching higher once again in the pre-Asian open.
Bitcoin is nearing $11,500…
Ethereum is at almost #335…
And Silver futures tagged $25…
One question remains on Silver’s surge – is this pure levered speculation?
Gold is marginally higher in the early trading.
And the dollar is opening lower in early trading.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/302xLqF Tyler Durden
One silver lining (if one can call it that) to the surging number of COVID-19 cases in the United States is that it provides plenty of scope for testing the many new vaccines that are being warp speeded through development and deployment.
The biotechnology company Moderna just launched the first Phase 3 clinical trial of a coronavirus vaccine in the United States today. In the Phase 1 trial the vaccine was generally well-tolerated by the volunteers and induced an immune response in all of them. The new clinical trial will test for efficacy and safety by enrolling about 30,000 volunteers of whom about half will be injected with the vaccine while the other receive placebo. Both groups will will be tracked to see if those injected with the vaccine were much less likely to get the disease than those in the placebo group.
Moderna’s vaccine is based on a novel technology that uses messenger RNA (mRNA) to trick the bodies of vaccinated persons into making viral proteins that mobilize their immune systems to prevent coronavirus infections. Moderna has received nearly $1 billion in backing from the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Department. If all goes well, the company could deliver 100 million doses by early fall.
Another mRNA candidate vaccine is being developed by the German company BionTech in partnership with the American pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer. The companies announced earlier this month that the vaccine induced a strong immune response among the volunteers in their Phase 1/2 clinical trial in Germany. They will launch their Phase 3 trial for the vaccine by the end of July. They plan to seek regulatory review as early as October 2020. The U.S. government has agreed to pay the companies $1.95 billion upon the receipt of the first 100 million doses, following FDA authorization or approval. The U.S. government also can acquire up to an additional 500 million doses.
The pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has teamed up with researchers at Oxford University to test and manufacture their COVID-19 vaccine. The Oxford vaccine genetically engineers a mild cold virus to include proteins from the COVID-19 coronavirus that will induce an immune defense against the disease virus. The technique has previously been used to develop vaccines that successfully protect against other pathogens, such as the viruses that cause flu, Zika, and Chikungunya.
The Lancetreported last week that the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine proved safe and effective in a Phase 1/2 trial. The Phase 3 trial for the vaccine has already begun in the United Kingdom, Brazil and South Africa. AstraZeneca has a $1.2 billion contract with HHS produce about 400 million doses of the vaccine and the firm has contracted with the British government to produce up to 100 million doses, adding that 30 million may be ready for citizens in the U.K. by September.
Lagging somewhat behind in the COVID-19 vaccine race is the American company Novavax which plans to roll out its Phase 3 trial in October for its vaccine made by sticking viral proteins onto proprietary nanoparticles. The company has not yet reported the results from its Phase 1/2 trials, but has nevertheless teamed up with drug manufacturer Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies to scale up vaccination production to 100 million doses by the end of 2020 using a $1.6 billion warp speed grant from HHS. President Donald Trump visited the Fujifilm factory in North Carolina earlier today where he announced an additional $265 million contract with the company to manufacture the Novavax vaccine.
These are just the four front runners in the race to develop and deploy vaccines against the COVID-19 pandemic The urgency of defeating the coronavirus scourge has finally jumpstarted the cavalierly lethargic regulators at the Food and Drug Administration into action. Shrinking development times for vaccines from more than a decade to perhaps less than a year could save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Full disclosure: I have signed up to be a volunteer in one of the Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trials. I have not yet been picked to participate.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2BFFkKI
via IFTTT
