Author: admin

Trump Reportedly Told Subordinates To Break Laws in Order To Build His Border Wall Before 2020

President Donald Trump is determined to build a wall on part of America’s southern border, and he’s not willing to let silly things like property rights or federal laws get in the way.

That’s the main takeaway from an explosive report published Tuesday night by The Washington Post, which alleges that Trump has ordered aides to “aggressively seize private land” for the border wall. The president also “has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly,” the Post reports, citing current and former administration officials.

The Post‘s report paints a disturbing picture of a president not only condoning the use of eminent domain to seize private land from Americans, but also suggesting that government employees are free to violate laws in pursuit of that objective and will be shielded from prosecution if their actions lead to criminal charges. If this report is true, Trump has blatantly undermined the rule of law for political gain.

Despite what the president’s anti-immigration supporters say, the border wall isn’t an effective way to stop illegal immigration. Even Trump has admitted that scaling his proposed wall would be as easy as using a ladder and rope.

But Trump promised that he would build a border wall, and he’s already shut down the federal government once in an attempt to get Congress to appropriate funds for the project. He’s declared a “national emergency” when one doesn’t really exist. He’s re-routed funding from other Pentagon projects to pay for the border wall. He’s yanked $270 million in disaster relief funding from Puerto Rico—which might take another direct hit from a hurricane later this week—to put towards the wall.

What’s he gotten for all that? Not much. In June, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) said it had received enough funding for about 200 miles of new border barriers, but less than 60 miles of new fencing has been built during Trump’s tenure, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. Remember, Trump promised a 1,000-mile wall during the 2016 campaign.

It’s understandable, then, why Trump would be frustrated at the lack of construction. But frustration with the legal process of taking land from private citizens—to say nothing of the difficulties of engineering a wall to cross the difficult terrain along much of the U.S.-Mexico border—is no reason for a president to order his subordinates to break those laws.

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

Trump Reportedly Told Subordinates To Break Laws in Order To Build His Border Wall Before 2020

President Donald Trump is determined to build a wall on part of America’s southern border, and he’s not willing to let silly things like property rights or federal laws get in the way.

That’s the main takeaway from an explosive report published Tuesday night by The Washington Post, which alleges that Trump has ordered aides to “aggressively seize private land” for the border wall. The president also “has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly,” the Post reports, citing current and former administration officials.

The Post‘s report paints a disturbing picture of a president not only condoning the use of eminent domain to seize private land from Americans, but also suggesting that government employees are free to violate laws in pursuit of that objective and will be shielded from prosecution if their actions lead to criminal charges. If this report is true, Trump has blatantly undermined the rule of law for political gain.

Despite what the president’s anti-immigration supporters say, the border wall isn’t an effective way to stop illegal immigration. Even Trump has admitted that scaling his proposed wall would be as easy as using a ladder and rope.

But Trump promised that he would build a border wall, and he’s already shut down the federal government once in an attempt to get Congress to appropriate funds for the project. He’s declared a “national emergency” when one doesn’t really exist. He’s re-routed funding from other Pentagon projects to pay for the border wall. He’s yanked $270 million in disaster relief funding from Puerto Rico—which might take another direct hit from a hurricane later this week—to put towards the wall.

What’s he gotten for all that? Not much. In June, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) said it had received enough funding for about 200 miles of new border barriers, but less than 60 miles of new fencing has been built during Trump’s tenure, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. Remember, Trump promised a 1,000-mile wall during the 2016 campaign.

It’s understandable, then, why Trump would be frustrated at the lack of construction. But frustration with the legal process of taking land from private citizens—to say nothing of the difficulties of engineering a wall to cross the difficult terrain along much of the U.S.-Mexico border—is no reason for a president to order his subordinates to break those laws.

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

Who The Oil & Gas Industry Supports In 2020 US Elections

Authored by David Blackman via OilPrice.com,

In the July 31 Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden gave this reponse to a question about whether he would continue to support the production of domestic coal, oil and natural gas resources: “No. We would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated, and no more subsidies for either one of those, period.” Note the word “eliminated.” Not limited, not regulated, not discouraged – eliminated.

In a speech on August 22, fellow candidate Bernie Sanders had this to say: “Fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused.” Sanders could have said those executives “should” be prosecuted. He could have said they “might” be prosecuted.  Instead, reading from a pre-written script, he said they “should” be prosecuted. And not in a civil case, mind you, but “criminally” prosecuted.

These two blanket, pointed, unqualified statements by the two leading candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination raise the specter of an all-out war on the oil and gas industry during the next Democratic presidential administration, regardless of who that Democrat happens to be. This is especially true since every other candidate for the nomination has issued similar statements of hostility directed at fossil fuels.

Given the party’s near-unanimous adoption of various climate change plans based off of the “Green New Deal” proposed by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, this really should come as no surprise to those who pay close attention to national politics.

But you can bet many industry executives, most of whom don’t pay close attention to national politics but pay employees whose job it is to do so, were somewhat taken aback by the Biden and Sanders statements. This would be especially true since industry executives as a class overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race based largely on the advice given to them by those employees.

The fact that neither Biden nor Sanders has made any effort to walk their comments back as of this writing raises a legitimate question about which party’s candidate these executives will support with hundreds of thousands of their personal dollars next year. In 2016, most were glad to support the Democrat nominee for a variety of reasons: Many did not approve of candidate Trump’s personal behavior in the past and present; many didn’t like his Tweets, a Trump practice that has only become amplified with time; and pretty much none of them believed Trump had any chance of winning, in part because that was what they were being advised by those employees they paid to pay attention to such things.

Luckily for them and their companies, President Trump didn’t hold a grudge. The Trump plan for “Energy Dominance” was and has continued to be a key centerpiece of his economic and international policy agenda, an agenda that he has aggressively implemented. Through a series of executive orders and regulatory actions too numerous to detail here, the Trump Administration done much to enable the ongoing domestic oil and natural gas boom, despite the industry’s failure to support his 2016 campaign in any meaningful way.

Now comes the 2020 campaign and another choice:

Will these executives throw their support to the incumbent who has done so much to stimulate their industry even though they disapprove of his personality and tweets?

Or will they once again pour large parts of their personal fortunes into the campaign of the nominee of a political party that seems to be hell-bent on putting their companies out of business?

An equally interesting question is what will the government affairs employees advise them to do this time around? From a logical standpoint, this would not seem to be a very difficult choice.

But hey, when has logic ever been determinative in the world of U.S. politics?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ua27mH Tyler Durden

Furious League Urges Supporters To Take To The Streets As Five Star, Dems Form New Ruling Coalition

After more than a week of increasingly fraught negotiations that nearly blossomed into a full-blown political crisis, the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Democratic Party (PD) have reportedly struck a deal to form a new coalition government with Giuseppe Conte as prime minister, according to Italian newswire ANSA.

Earlier this month, League leader Matteo Salvini tried to dissolve the government by withdrawing his support for the coalition in an effort to try and call for new elections. However, he was thwarted when his former coalition partner, M5S leader Luigi di Maio, and his party engaged in negotiations with the centrist Democratic Party. On Wednesday night, the two parties finally reached an agreement to form a new coalition, with Conte – who had quit the government last week – returning to reprise his role as prime minister.

Salvini’s hope was that the country would hold new elections in which he would likely be named prime minister, at the head of a hard-right coalition.

The coalition will now be tasked with the responsibility for leading Italy through what’s expected to be difficult budget negotiations with the EU.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that the League, Salvini’s party, is furious, pointing out that his party wont 34% of the national vote in May’s European parliament elections, and that it was polling as high as 39% as recently as earlier this month. Salvini affirmed that he would stay on as Interior Minister and Deputy PM in the lame duck government – members of his party urged supporters to take to the streets to protest the party. Salvini held back from calling for his people to march in the streets, saying he was “not interest” in “popular insurrections.” “Those happened back in 1848,” he quipped.

“Let’s hope that if a Democratic Party-Five Star government is formed, the people will rise up as soon as possible,” said Alessandra Locatelli, a League minister.

“They’re stealing the government by preventing Italians from going to a vote,” she said.

Salvini was similarly critical.

“A government made up of Five Star and the Democrats will not correspond to the sentiment of the people,” Salvini said. “If you make deals that are against nature, in the end the people will kick you out. Sooner or later, the judgement of the people will be heard.”

Since the new coalition has been formed, Italy will manage to avoid heading to new elections in the fall. Italian President Sergio Mattarella gave the coalition the mandate to former the new government.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Pn2USq Tyler Durden

How to become a billionaire in five easy steps

Every morning here in Puerto Rico, I wake up around 6am as the sun rises over the ocean in front of my house. And I pretty much head straight to the gym.

Once there, one of my favorite medieval torture devices is a fairly new exercise bike called a Peloton.

In case you haven’t used one before, a Peloton is like any other stationary exercise bike. You pedal a lot, and it sucks.

The key difference is that Peloton bikes are connected to the Internet, and the company live streams classes directly to the integrated monitor on your bike.

So instead of going to a spinning class, you can simulate being in a class and having someone yell at you from thousands of miles away.

You might be thinking– can’t you get the same experience on a regular stationary bike while watching some YouTube videos?

Why yes, that would pretty much be the same experience.

But Peloton prides itself on building wellness, connectedness, and happiness– all the ‘ness’s’ that Millennials love. So it’s pretty popular.

And following in the footsteps of WeWork, Peloton formally filed paperwork yesterday to go public on the NASDAQ under ticker symbol PTON.

The company anticipates a share price that will value the company at roughly $8 billion.

Yet according to its filing, the company lost $195 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. That’s four times worse than the company’s $48 million loss in Fiscal Year 2018.

It’s normal for early-stage businesses to lose money at first. Rome wasn’t built in a day. But usually management can provide guidance about the light at the end of the tunnel.

Not Peloton.

Just like WeWork, Peloton expects to continue losing money for the foreseeable future, and acknowledges that they may never achieve profitability.

Peloton also provides the most absurd statements as its company mission. Just like how WeWork aims to ‘elevate the world’s consciousness’, Peloton claims that it “sells happiness”.

It’s SEC filing also contains a bunch of fluffy graphics showing off their diversity, community, and interconnectedness.

Then they go on and on talking about how they’re a technology company because they live-stream cycling classes.

After that comes Peloton’s financial statements… their awful, gruesome financial statements… that show no path to profitability.

And then the fine print: it turns out that, just like WeWork, Peloton is selling a different class of shares that come with limited voting rights.

Specifically, the founders and key insiders will have TWENTY TIMES the voting power as new investors who will own shares post-IPO.

It’s worth mentioning that these same founders and key insiders have handsomely rewarded themselves at shareholder expense.

Despite quadrupling losses in Fiscal Year 2019, founder/CEO John Foley paid himself a whopping $21 million in total compensation. That’s more money than the CEOs of Ford, Home Depot, and Cisco (an ACTUAL tech company) to name a few.

Peloton’s President/COO received another $21 million. And the company CFO earned nearly $11 million.

So, Peloton, while pretending to be a technology company, lost $195 million last year, yet paid its top three executives more than $50 million (up from $17.9 million in Fiscal Year 2018).

Those same executives have no plan to turn a profit. Yet they expect to sell shares to investors at an $8 billion valuation… while simultaneously limiting those investors’ voting rights.

I know what you’re thinking: SIGN ME UP!!

Seriously, this absurdity has become almost formulaic now. We’ve seen it over and over again. So anyone out there who wants to become a billionaire, just follow these simple steps:

Step 1: Find a product that people love… then make a slightly better version of it, and price it WAY BELOW your cost so that you lose money on every unit sold.

Step 2: Create a ridiculous mission statement. It doesn’t matter what you’re selling– your real mission is things like consciousness, happiness, and community. And use the word ‘technology’ a lot. No matter what you’re producing, always pretend that you’re a tech company.

Step 3: Raise money from investors at an obscene valuation on the basis that you’re a visionary tech company. Don’t bother forecasting profits and creating conservative pro-forma statements, from which investors can derive a sensible valuation of your business. Instead, let the investors imagine how profitable your company can eventually become.

Step 4: At a minimum, double your losses every year. And, as you continue to burn through investor capital, raise even more money at progressively higher valuations.

Step 5: At the peak of the stock market bubble, take your company public at twice your last valuation.  Reward these gullible investors with limited voting rights, and consolidate your power over the company as you steer it towards greater and greater losses while showering yourself with gigantic compensation packages.

Congratulations. You’re now a billionaire.

In some respects I have to hand it to these Peloton guys.

They’re selling a product that (a) is prone to intense competition over very fickle and fad-oriented consumers; and (b) few people will buy in a recession.

They probably recognize that there are multiple recession threats looming (which could easily threaten the entire company). And they can see that the stock market is still at its peak.

So what better time to cash in on peak investor insanity than right now? Get in before the market declines, before the recession hits. Their timing couldn’t be better.

Yet amazingly enough, this is what passes as an actual investment these days.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/2ZqcWH9
via IFTTT

Alt-Coins Lead Sudden Collapse In Cryptos

Bitcoin is falling back towards $10k…

Source: Bloomberg

But it is the rest of the crypto-space that is really getting hit hard…

Source: Bloomberg

Interestingly this sudden plunge occurs as CoinTelegraph reports that the pro-democracy, anti-government protest movement in Hong Kong is spurring wider adoption of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

Yahoo! Finance reported on Aug. 28 that the political upheaval in the city — which has now entered its 12th week — is prompting several local businesses and individuals to switch to using non-sovereign and decentralized digital currencies.

Apolitical, borderless money for the pro-democracy movement

On Aug. 26, Hong Kong department store Pricerite announced it would begin accepting Bitcoin, Litecoin (LTC) and Ether (ETH) at its fourteen locations in Hong Kong. 

Yahoo Finance! notes that the store has indicated it will be able to swiftly convert the crypto into Hong Kong dollars using the Bitcoin network’s scalability layer, Lightning Network.

Alongside traditional retailers, cryptocurrency firm Genesis Block has been operating 14 crypto ATMs across the city. 

In July, Genesis Block — which trades under the name “CoinHere” — distributed water to protestors that had been paid for using international donations in Bitcoin Cash (BCH), as well as umbrellas — a symbolic reference to the city’s 2014 Umbrella Revolution.

The surge in interest in cryptocurrencies comes against a backdrop of other forms of economic activism. Earlier this month, protestors initiated an action to withdraw as much money as possible from their bank accounts, or convert their local currency into US dollars. 

This had a twofold purpose, serving both as preemptive protection of their personal assets and sending a sharp warning to Chinese authorities. 

As early as June, moreover, it was reported that a numver of Hong Kong’s tycoons — a city which counts 853 individuals worth more than $100 million — had begun to move their wealth offshore.

Bitcoin trades at a premium in Hong Kong

Should the protest movement fail to prevent China’s controversial extradition bill from becoming law, mainland Chinese authorities will have the right to demand that Hong Kong courts freeze and confiscate assets related to crimes perpetrated on the mainland.

Bitcoin trading volumes in Hong Kong soared in June amidst the turmoil, and the coin continues to trade locally at a several hundred dollar premium on peer-to-peer exchange LocalBitcoins.

*  *  *

One can’t help but wonder what Chinese authorities will do to prevent Honkers citizens from getting their cash out of dodge.

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

Israelis & Saudis Trying To Preempt Trump Bid For Meeting With Rouhani

President Trump has made it less and less a secret that he is pushing for new talks with Iran to “negotiate a better deal” after previously pulling out of the JCPOA. He and French President Emmanuel Macron at the close of the G7 on Monday actually spoke as if a potential meeting with Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani would be “soon” in the works. 

Though The Washington Post hours after those statements cited a source saying Rouhani was “open” to such renewed talks, Tehran hours later poured cold water over the prospect by saying its ballistic missile program is “non-negotiable” and that face-to-face talks are conditioned on the White House biding by its prior commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal; however, Iranian officials were said to have reacted positively to Macron’s idea of a $15BN credit line should Iran refrain from breaching uranium enrichment caps under the prior terms of the JCPOA.

Now with media speculation rampant that Rouhani and Trump might sit down at the same table, both Israel and Saudi Arabia are reportedly stepping up efforts to preempt such a dialogue.  

Trump said at the close of the G7 summit in France that he doesn’t want regime change and is “open” to meeting with Iran’s Rouhani, via LA Times.

Israeli press and officials are expressing extreme concern, per a recent Haaretz article: 

The fears in Israel, which for now are only being expressed in completely off-the-record conversations, are that Trump, eager to make his mark on world affairs and prove he can achieve a better deal than his predecessor, will find himself in a room with negotiators much wilier and more knowledgeable on the issues than he is. Convinced that he is the grand master of the art of the deal, Trump could swiftly come to an agreement with the Iranians that may sound preferable to him, but in reality will be much worse.

Israel’s intelligence and defense community are said to be strongly lobbying against such a renewed Trump engagement with Tehran after the president told reporters there’s “a really good chance” the meeting would happen.

It’s not the first time the White House has hesitantly invited Iran to the table following a summer of escalating “tanker wars” and boiling point tensions in the Persian Gulf, and amid a US military build-up in the region. 

It was recently revealed that last month Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif had rebuffed a secret invitation to meet with President Trump in the oval office, which involved the mediation of Rand Paul. Just days following this, the US Treasury announced unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian top diplomat.

Currently, the Saudis are also jumping into the fray increasingly as Israel’s unlikely junior lobbying partner on all things “countering Iran”.

It’s been no secret that Riyadh and Tel Aviv, despite never having official diplomatic relations, have developed an intelligence sharing relationship as a result of the common cause to oust Assad in the years-long Syrian proxy war. 

This week Riyadh dispatched Deputy Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman – the younger brother of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – to Washington to specifically express “common concerns” over Iran. Khalid is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Wednesday afternoon where he’s expected to argue against any US engagement with Rouhani. 

Deputy Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman and younger brother of MbS, via Saudi embassy in the US.

Given that by all appearances the Saudis and Israelis are doing everything in their power to stymie direct US-Iran talks, the fact that Israel just conducted airstrikes on multiple Arab countries within 24 hours over the weekend in a dramatic escalation is deeply significant, given the curious timing for such brazen aggression.

Could it have been a desperate Netanyahu bid to ensure tensions with Iran and its proxies remain as high and “on the brink” as possible?

If the attacks – one of which was on a Hezbollah site in Beirut for the first time since 2006 – was toward telegraphing and provoking an Iranian response, Israel can then present the case to Washington that Iran is “on the offensive” and therefore cannot be engaged diplomatically. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Zy3j4i Tyler Durden

BMO: “We Just Got Another Recessionary Indicator… As If More Were Needed”

While most US traders were deep in REM sleep, at precisely 3:30am ET, we noted yet another historic moment for the US yield curve: the yield on the 30Y Treasury dropped to an all time low.

And indeed, as BMO’s rates strategy duo of Ian Lyngen and Jon Hill notes, an extension of the grinding bid for duration was the primary development during the overnight session and it was one which has brought 30-year yields to new record lows.

With 1.907% now representing the lowest rate ever for the long bond, we remain biased for a break even lower as the final week of August continues to unfold. Similarly, the local low in 10s at 1.444% is likely to be challenged given the bullish backdrop that remains well in place for Treasuries.

This, as BMO notes, bodes well for an ongoing flattening of the yield curve, which was further observed after today’s very strong 5Y auction.

But back to the outperformance of the long bond, which as Lyngen points out “has been remarkable on a number of levels and the overnight move adds even more to the bullishness.” Additionally, as has been the case for much of the past month, the strong bid emerged in Asia – as Japanese and Taiwan lifers rushed to bid up the paper – and was then extended in London, suggesting a variety of pockets of demand for 30-year Treasury yields below 2.0%.

And here an important aside: as the BMO analysts point out, the 30s are now yielding less than the S&P500’s dividend yield of 1.98% – for first time since 2009 and represents “yet another potential recessionary indicator, as if more were needed to stoke concerns of a meaningful slowdown.”

And while the move in yield may not sound like much, as a result of the convexity of the ultra long-dated paper and the massive duration, the move means that a typical 30Y bond has now returned 25% in cash terms YTD, making it one of the best performing assets in the world.

Returning to the most recent leg, BMO notes that “the bid has been accompanied by a constructive cross in stochastics which indicates there remains ample room to press the move. In addition, with overnight volumes at 1.4x the norms and an impressive 8% marketshare for 30s, we’ll suggest a 1-handle is more sustainable than a late-summer’s bounce might imply.”

So does the Canadian bank think that more gains are on deck? You bet. First, it’s the fact that the rally took place without any actual catalyst:

We’re certainly cognizant that today’s absolute dearth of economic data doesn’t offer much in the way of incremental trading direction; this is in part supportive of our logic for an extension of the flattening bid for Treasuries. Call it the path of least resistance and a world of yield inertia.

Then, there are the seasonals:

Given the relevance of the constructive seasonals thus far this summer, we’re content to anticipate the rally continues as the real challenge to this historical pattern doesn’t materialize until late-September when higher yields become the norm.

Also notable, the month-end moves, which were expected to be bond bearish, did not materialize; quite the contrary:

Let us not forget the month-end considerations; after all August did see new 10s and 30s and despite the Fed’s return to outright purchases in the Treasury market there are plenty of natural buyers needing to simply stay neutral to the benchmark.

Meanwhile, growing geopolitical concerns will only make the flight to safety more acute (even as stocks inexplicably ramp higher on what appears to be pension month end rebalancing and/or a last gasp of stock buybacks before the buyback blackout window closes):

The British question continues to plague the global economic outlook; to put it mildly. PM Johnson’s attempt have parliament prorogued (aka suspended, who knew?) from mid-Sept to mid-Oct has been seen as an overt effort to orchestrate a no-deal Brexit and was yet another reason to chase the flight-to-quality that has rebased all US rates well below 2.0% at this stage. With limited insight into the inner workings of the UK political machine; the October 31st deadline does point toward an entirely different character of our annual Día de Muertos celebration.

It’s not just Brexit: Italian politics, the trade war, a stumbling global economy, and the Fed’s ‘uncertainties’ all remain essential to the bullish underpinnings in the Treasury market, according to Lyngen/Hill.

And while the duo would like to assume there will be a resolution on one or all of these issues in the near- or medium-term, the trajectory evident in the current environment would suggest otherwise.

With this in mind, we remain very much in the buy-the-dip mode ahead of the looming month-end and suspect this proves prudent even as September gets underway.

But the biggest reason why yields are likely to keep drifting lower is that virtually all experts are either pressing their shorts, or convinced that any minute now will be the “right time to short”, which simply means that wave after wave of shorts will continue to get stopped out.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PjeP3J Tyler Durden

Houston Police Union Finally Stops Backing Cop Who Instigated a Deadly Drug Raid With a Phony Affidavit

What does it take for police unions to reconsider their reflexive support for officers accused of wrongdoing? We may be finding out in Houston, where a deadly no-knock drug raid based on a false search warrant affidavit recently resulted in felony murder charges against the officer who instigated it.

After Houston narcotics officers invaded the home of a middle-aged couple and shot them dead on January 28, 2019, the president of the Houston Police Officers’ Union lashed out at critics of such law enforcement practices. “We are sick and tired of having dirtbags trying to take our lives when all we are trying to do is protect this community and protect our families,” Joe Gamaldi angrily proclaimed at a press conference hours after the deadly drug raid at 7815 Harding Street, during which four officers were wounded by gunfire that started when they broke into the house and used a shotgun to kill a dog. “Enough is enough. And if you’re the ones that are out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy, just know, we’ve all got your number now. We’re going to be keeping track of all ya’ll, and we’re going to make sure that we hold you accountable every time you stir the pot on our police officers.”

Gamaldi’s divisive, inflammatory rhetoric was too much even for Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, who described the officers who killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas as heroes but nevertheless chided Gamaldi for his “over-the-top” remarks, saying, “Joe Gamaldi’s emotions got the best of him.” Yet even after his emotions cooled, Gamaldi continued to back the officers who carried out the raid.

Gamaldi did not offer a retraction after police found no evidence that the “dirtbags” killed by police that day were actually selling heroin, as the affidavit for the no-knock search warrant claimed. And after Acevedo revealed, at a February 15 press conference, that Gerald Goines, the narcotics officer who wrote the affidavit, had described a fictitious heroin purchase by a nonexistent confidential informant, the union that Gamaldi heads stood by Goines, paying his legal fees “for months” after the raid, according to KPRC, the NBC station in Houston.

That means the union was still paying for Goines’ lawyer even after Gamaldi publicly expressed unease about the allegations against him. “Obviously, the accusations are very, very serious, and it is very, very disturbing, but it is not a reflection of the 5,200 brave men and women of the Houston Police Department who go out there and earn the trust of the community every time they interact with them,” Gamaldi told KTRK, the ABC station in Houston, the day that news of the falsified affidavit broke. “Allegations this serious, where someone has falsified a warrant, is absolutely a crime and if the allegations are true, he’s looking, at minimum, [at a charge of] falsifying a document.”

Now that Goines has been charged with two counts of felony murder in connection with the raid, however, the union is no longer paying his lawyer, KPRC reports. It’s not clear from the KPRC story exactly when that decision was made, but it is long overdue. You might think Gamaldi and his union would have had second thoughts about backing Goines after he admitted, within weeks of the raid, that he had lied in his affidavit, or after it emerged that such dishonesty was part of a personal pattern.

The union is continuing to cover the legal fees of Steven Bryant, a narcotics officer who backed up Goines’ story about a “controlled buy” that never happened. Bryant faces a charge of tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison. Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said Bryant lied in an offense-report supplement about confirming that the “brown powder substance” a confidential informant supposedly purchased from Tuttle was black-tar heroin and lied about recovering more of the same from the Harding Street house after the raid.

On Monday, a union official told KPRC “they need to examine the charging documents carefully before making a final determination” regarding Bryant’s legal fees. Yesterday, “a union official said that Bryant’s legal fees will be taken care of until the very end.”

The union’s continued support for Bryant—who, like Goines, retired from the Houston Police Department after the raid and is now collecting his pension—is consistent with the way Gamaldi has portrayed this fiasco: as an isolated incident that can be blamed on a single rogue cop. “We believe, truly, this is only one person who has caused the issues with this case,” Gamaldi told KTRK in February, “and there is only one person who is facing these types of allegations right now.”

That is no longer true, and the list of defendants may expand further. Ogg has said a Harris County grand jury will consider whether there is evidence to support criminal charges against other officers involved in the raid. “We are interested in figuring out whether the officers in the stack that were sent in by Gerald Goines were innocent players,” she told KPRC. It seems fair to surmise that Gamaldi does not share her curiosity.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HJYf71
via IFTTT

The Libertarian Case for Term Limits

“Congress has given us $22 trillion in debt, the longest war in American history, a broken health care system, a broken immigration system, a tax code written by lobbyists, and an explosion of money in politics. Worst of all, too few here have the courage to address these problems because the only focus is on reelection.”

That’s a quote from the June Senate testimony of Nick Tomboulides, the executive director of U.S. Term Limits, a group that believes the last, best hope for shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government is kicking senators out of office after a maximum of two terms and House members after three.

In today’s Reason Podcast, Tomboulides tells Nick Gillespie that over 80 percent of voters (including former President Barack Obama, President Donald Trump, and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke) support term limits, that shortening political careers will lead to better candidates running for office, and that a grassroots movement is pushing state legislatures to amend the Constitution to include term limits. The 30-year-old Tomboulides also recounts his journey from a traditional Republican political operative to a libertarian activist in the wake of both the disastrous Iraq War begun under George W. Bush and the presidential campaigns of former Rep. Ron Paul.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Links:

U.S. Term Limits home page.

U.S. Term Limits’ Twitter feed.

Listen to No Uncertain Terms, a weekly podcast featuring Tomboulides and U.S Term Limits’ president, Philip Blumel.

“How Beto O’Rourke would address term limits for lawmakers,” Politico, June 5, 2019.

“The Effects of Term Limits on State Legislatures: A New Survey of the 50 States,” by John M. Carey, Richard G. Niemi, Lynda W. Powell, and Gary F. Moncrief, Legislative Studies Quarterly, January 7, 2011.

Reason on term limits.

Tomboulides’ Senate testimony from June 21, 2019:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2L3eu0E
via IFTTT