Author: admin

After being confronted by CNN’s Jake Tapper about his department’s refusal to act after receiving a tip about Nikolas Cruz being a potential “school shooter in the making,” Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel insisted that he provided “amazing leadership” to the department after blaming the lapse on an underling.

Israel, who has been a frequent presence on cable news – including during CNN’s gun-control town hall last week – since 19-year-old Cruz shot and killed 16 of his teenage classmates and a gym teacher during a Valentine’s Day rampage, refused to take responsibility for failing to stop Cruz – eliciting an incredulous response from Tapper.

About halfway through the interview, Tapper asked Israel if he would take responsibility for the “multiple red flags” that his department missed ahead of the shooting. Notably, the FBI also failed to “follow protocol” when it received multiple tips about Cruz last year and earlier this year.

Israel insisted that he could only take responsibility for what he knew.

“Are you really not taking any responsibility for the multiple red flags that were brought to the attention of the Broward Sheriff’s Office about this shooter before the incident?” Tapper asked.

“Jake, I can only take responsibility for what I knew about. I exercised my due diligence. I’ve given amazing leadership to this agency—” Israel started.

“Amazing leadership? Tapper asked incredulously.

“Yes, Jake. There’s a lot of things we’ve done throughout this – this is – you don’t measure a person’s leadership by a deputy not going into these deputies received the training they needed – “ Israel said.

“Maybe you measure somebody’s leadership by whether or not they protect the community,” Tapper said. In this case, you’ve listed 23 incidents before the shooting involving the shooter and still nothing was done to keep guns out of his hands, to make sure that the school was protected, to make sure you were keeping an eye on him … I don’t understand how you can sit there and claim amazing leadership.”

Israel said on “16 of those cases,” his deputies did everything right and in the five years he had been sheriff, he’d taken the department to a “new level.”

Perhaps even more galling, Israel insisted that the shooting happened because “one person didn’t do what they should’ve done,” which glosses over the many failures, from background checks failing to prevent Cruz from buying his gun, to law enforcement failing to investigate tips and even letting Cruz off the hook and sheriff’s deputies refusing to enter schools, all of which could’ve stopped Cruz.

“One person didn’t do what he should have done,” Israel said. “It’s horrific. The victims here, the families, I pray for them every night. It makes me sick to my stomach that we had a deputy that didn’t go in because I know if I was there, if I was on the wall, I would have been the first in along with so many other people.”

Notably, Broward County isn’t the only sheriff’s office that failed to stop Cruz. As we highlighted this week, deputies from Palm Beach County decided to let Cruz off the hook after family friend Rocxanne Deschamps called the police to report Cruz for threatening to shoot her. Deputies were called to Cruz’s home 39 times over a seven-year period before Cruz’s adoptive mother died of pneumonia in November.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2CHCaAu Tyler Durden

Via SputnikNews.com,

Former Texas Congressman and leading libertarian thinker Dr. Ron Paul has shared his views on President Trump’s job as president after his first year in office, the situation in Syria and the renewed debate on gun control in the wake of the Florida school shooting.

Trump’s Year in Office

Sputnik: Donald Trump has been in office for over a year. What is your general assessment of his job as president?

Ron Paul: Mediocre; probably not worse than the other options. But I don’t think presidents really have much control. I think the deep state – the people behind the scenes and the shadow government, who control the monetary system, who control our foreign policy and the welfare state, and are connected to the media and the military-industrial complex. – I don’t think the presidency is as important as it’s made out to be. But everybody talks about it; it’s a political thing, and they keep churning the issue and directing everybody to ask ‘is Trump a good guy or a bad guy, and are we going to impeach him or what’s going to happen’, rather than [asking] what kind of philosophy do we have: why do we have this philosophy of welfare-warfare, spend money, run up debt and let the central bank print all that money. 

They don’t even talk about it; the major parties, including Trump, they sign even more controls on us when it comes to FISA courts and spying on us. In spite of the fact that government officials like the FBI and others actually spy on our own president, he supports this; he passes and signs bills on that. So that really raises questions about ‘does the president really have much to say’, and I think he has much less to say than a lot of people believe. I believe that if he had stuck to his guns and had a different relationship with Russia and started bringing troops home and not aggravating things, he wouldn’t have been tolerated. Something would have happened.

Syria and America’s Place in the World

Sputnik: Moving on to the Middle East, in your reports you’ve stated that with so many countries controlling territory in Syria, there’s very little left for the Syrians. Do you think there’s a good chance that government forces can regain control of the country?

Ron Paul: I do. I think there will always be a Syria. What it’s going to look like is the big problem. At the moment, it’s hard to predict and say that the people who have invaded —  the Turks, the Israelis, the United States will leave. They’re going to have to suffer a defeat somewhere along the way. That may occur soon –another defeat like Aleppo. That might make them think differently, but it’s still a hotbed…

Sputnik: There’s an ongoing campaign in the east of Demascus in Eastern Ghouta, with media portrayals of it in the West comparing the ongoing campaign to Srebrenica and what happened in Bosnia. Why do you think this is, and how is the situation being portrayed in the West? Do Americans know what’s actually going on?

Ron Paul: I think this, indirectly, may be a subtle bit of good news…You know Aleppo was seen as a return of Syrian territory, and a lot of people moved back! Everybody said that ‘it’s Assad who wants to kill his people and gas his people,’ and yet they all moved back after the fighting stopped. So maybe this is one of the last desperate stands [for the anti-Damascus forces], at least for the part of Syria where Assad is stronger… 

Sputnik: The UN has been commenting on this to emphasize how bad things are in Syria, and particularly in Eastern Ghouta. But the situation was also really bad in Mosul in Iraq, with recent video footage showing the results of US airstrikes. Where do you think the UN was then?

Ron Paul: Probably cheering them on. We often have a foreign policy, especially in the last several decades, of being the dominant power. We pressure people; if they do what we tell ’em, we send them more money, since we can print the world currency. And if they don’t do what we tell ’em, then we have to participate in a little aggression by bombing and doing these kinds of things. My argument from the day they started, back to 1998 – I argued don’t mess around with sanctions on Iraq, it’ll lead to war. 

Someday, we’ll go broke. I don’t think that we all of a sudden will have a reasonable foreign policy. I think it’s going to be financial. I believe it was the financing of the Soviet system that brought it down as much as anything; that’s the way most authoritarian empires end, and I think that’s the way our system is going to end. Who knows when that’s going to happen, but we can’t continue to do what we’re doing. 

We can’t continue to run the world. Our deficit’s exploding. I think the sentiment toward the United States has started to shift too; there was a time when we were welcome, and were on the side of trying to help people, but right now it’s on the side of expanding our controls around the world.

Gun Control

Sputnik: On the subject of gun control: You’ve stated that those demanding that guns be taken away don’t talk much about guns when it’s government authorities who are the ones shooting innocent people. Why do you think that’s happening?

Ron Paul: Because there are some people who believe that guns belong in the hands of the government. Those are the authoritarians. Those who believe in a free society [say] that the people should have the guns, and the government should fear the people. 

This was an argument back in the days when they were [creating] our constitution, and of course [Thomas] Jefferson argued the case that the government shouldn’t have the guns that are ruling and controlling the people. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a national defense; it just means that the people deserve guns, because ultimately, the problem that has existed throughout history has always been the abuse by government in taking freedoms away from the people.

I think we see that happening now in our country. Every time there’s an incident, certain groups want more regulation. But if they were consistent, if they found one of our policemen shooting somebody that may have been a petty criminal…they would never say ‘Well, he overreacted, so what we have to do is take guns away from people’. No, they never even mention it…But if something like a school shooting occurs, they use that as an excuse where private guns aren’t to be used. And of course my argument is that private security is superior to anything the government will offer us.

Sputnik: You’ve said that tragedies like the one that happened in Florida can’t be prevented by banning guns. What measures do you see as the most effective in addressing this national issue?

Ron Paul: I think some of our problems occur because we don’t have enough guns in the right place. It’s more than just saying ‘the guns are the problem, get rid of the guns and give them to the government,’ because I don’t think that’s the solution…

I often mention a chemical plant next door to where I live: they have a lot of security, and it’s not the government, it’s not the police department; they have private security, and it does quite well. They’re responsible, it’s a very dangerous place, they don’t want anyone in there. 

So I think the more that’s privatized, the better. Private schools don’t have these problems. Home schooling obviously wouldn’t have problems like this, and the smaller schools don’t have problems because everybody knows everybody. Sometimes these movements towards gigantic school districts where there are thousands of kids in one school, where people don’t know exactly what’s going [on] sort of introduces these problems.

But I think we should talk about gun-free zones…where nobody is allowed to have a gun. I hate the idea of getting more guns, but quite frankly, if I was in charge of a very dangerous area or a private school and it was getting dangerous, a private owner has a right to use a gun. So yes, there are times when I think that teachers or some other school officials could have guns and be ready to deal with them.

The problem with my argument is that people will construe it as being ‘oh well he doesn’t care about the kids’, but quite frankly, the kids still are getting killed, and when you look at what our government guns do, if you measure how many kids are dying in Yemen right now because we’re allies of Saudi Arabia – why aren’t we worried about that? Not only about the policemen who shoot badly, but what about our own government, that’s in so many countries, with so many innocent people dying from our bombs and our interference in other peoples’ lives in other countries? So I think that’s involved in massively more killing than what’s happening in the schools. That doesn’t mean I’m not concerned about the schools, but they ought not be so inconsistent in what their arguments are.

You can find the complete audio from Dr. Paul’s full interview with Sputnik below.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2FshIGF Tyler Durden

In what has become a veritable cottage industry of predictions for when the 10Y yield will cause a market crash (just last Friday both Tom Lee and Jeff Gundlach chimed in with their latest forecasts), overnight Goldman’s economists published a detailed take on i) what has caused rates to jump by 70bps in 5 months, overtaking the Fed’s rate hikes over the same period and suggesting that bond vigilantes see the Fed as behind the curve, and ii) how much higher can rates rise before both the economy and the market are severely and adversely impacted.

Goldman, which last week followed Gundlach in raising its year-end 10Y yield target from 3.00% to 3.25% (with BofA following just days later), writes that there is no immediate cause for concern as “the recent rise in rates to be well absorbed for two reasons. First, the increase in rates over the last two quarters mostly reflects positive growth news. Second, the overall growth impulse from financial conditions remains positive, as equity prices have surged and the dollar has weakened over the last year.”

And while whereas Goldman’s base case expects a “gradual” – that being the key word – rise in the 10-year rate to 3.25% by year-end, the bank stress tests the outlook for a larger increase to 4.5% by year-end.

We assume the upward move in rates is driven by an exogenous rise in term premia and simulate the impact on growth using the Fed’s FRB/US model.

It is this sharp, aggressive spike in yields that is the worst case scenario as “a rise in the 10-year yield to 4.5% by end-2018 would cause a sharp [economic] slowdown” while “a rise in rates to 4.5% by year-end would cause a 20-25% decline in equity prices.”

Translated: a potential selloff in rates as a result of the market’s “sudden” realization that central banks are set to tighten conditions could unleash a far bigger surge in 10Y yields than what was observed so far, leading to dramatic consequences for stocks and to a lesser extent, the economy, and while a recession would be avoided despite a “short housing recession”, a market crash would be unavoidable.

To be sure, certain fundamental drivers already support a view that the Fed is well behind the curve: as discussed last night, the NY Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge is already at 3.00%…

… the highest in over a decade, and rising fast, well above the core CPI reading noted recently by the BLS.

Going back to Goldman’s analysis, and its rates “stress test”, conducted using the same FRB/US model used by the Fed, the bank’s economists find two things:

• On one hand, a rise in the 10-year yield to 4.5% by end-2018 “would cause a sharp slowdown but no recession, with hits to GDP growth of 0.5pp in 2018 and 1pp in 2019, lowering GDP growth to 2.25% and 1% respectively.“
• On the other hand, such a sharp spike in yields would crush stocks, wiping out a quarter of the S&P’s market cap, or as Goldman puts it: “the model implies a peak 200bp tightening in our Financial Conditions Index (FCI), mostly driven by a 20-25% decline in stock prices.” And that’s just the start as “a larger exaggerated response of financial markets to the rates shock may trigger a sharper slowdown.“

Before we get to the detailed analysis why risk assets will have an increasing sensitivity to higher yields from this point on, first here is Goldman’s explanation why rates have risen as high, and as fast, as they have.

In a nutshell, Goldman sees the recent move higher in rates as benign, and largely reflective of growth considerations, and less a reaction to inflation fears:

We highlight two reasons for resilience to the recent bond market sell-off.

First, part of the increase in interest rates is likely driven by positive growth news. We estimate the underlying  macroeconomic drivers by analyzing the changes in correlations  across asset classes. Exhibit 2 shows that investors’ optimistic growth views account for an estimated 60bp of the 75bp increase in the 10-year rate since September. The intuition is that nominal interest rates, breakeven inflation, and stock prices have mostly risen together over this period. It is only in February that expectations of more hawkish policy and higher inflation have also significantly driven the rates sell-off.

While activity tends to decelerate if the increase in rates is driven by more hawkish monetary policy, higher inflation, or wider risk premia, it tends to accelerate if the increase in rates is driven by positive growth news.

Next, Goldman points out the paradox observed over the past year (which prompted Goldman itself to question if the Fed – which is desperately seeking to tighten financial conditions – has lost control of the market), in which higher rates have resulted in even higher stocks, and financial conditions which until the Feb vol swoon were the loosest on record.

Second, we estimate that the negative growth impulse from higher rates is more than offset by the boost from surging equity prices, narrowing credit spreads, and dollar cheapening over the last year. While our FCI is modestly tighter than in early 2018, it remains significantly easier than in early 2017. This means a somewhat diminished but still clearly positive FCI impulse to growth this year, barring a more substantial and broad-based tightening in financial conditions in the coming months (Exhibit 3).

Whether Goldman is right or not about its optimistic take on rising rates, of course, will be determined only after the fact. The big question now, however, is what happens next should the rate increase accelerate.

To do this, and “to get a feel for the impact of further sharp rate increases”, Goldman conducts a “rates stress” scenario, where the 10-year rate rises to 4.5% by year-end.

According to Goldman economist Dean Struyven, “the 160bp increase in long-run rates over the next 10 months would correspond to a roughly 2 standard deviations move.”

We also assume that the 125bp overshoot above our forecast is driven by an exogenous increase in bond term premia. We simulate the impact on growth using the Fed’s FRB/US macroeconomic model.

The bank first focuses on the “downside risk” scenario for the economy, which concludes that GDP in 2018 and 2019 would be hurt notably, declining to 2.25% in 2018 and 1% in 2019, largely as a result of a “short housing recession”:

In the stress scenario, year-on-year GDP growth slows to 2.25% in 2018 and 1% in 2019, well below our forecast of 2.8% and 1.9% respectively. The model implies peak drags on GDP and consumption growth of 1pp and 0.5pp respectively, while the peak hit to business investment growth is 2.25pp. Higher interest rates weigh the most on residential fixed investment with a peak hit to growth of 6pp, pushing the sector in 2019 into a short “housing recession”. Exhibit 4 shows the growth rates of GDP, consumption, business investment, and residential fixed investment in the baseline and stress scenarios.

 

What about stocks? Here there is less confusion: “a rise in rates to 4.5% by year-end would cause a 20-25% decline in equity prices.” Here’s Goldman:

Interest rates affect the economy through many channels, but their impact on broader financial conditions is a key input. The FRB/US model implies a peak 200bp tightening in our FCI in the rates stress scenario, as shown in Exhibit 5. A 20-25% decline in stock market wealth contributes 110bp to the move.

The contributions from a 125bp increase in longer-run rates (55bp), a 5% dollar appreciation (30bp), and a 5bp widening in corporate spreads (5bp) are smaller. We think that volatile risk asset prices may initially respond more to the rates shock than implied by the fundamentals-based FRB/US model. This factor alone would suggest that the peak hit to GDP growth could be larger than 1pp.

In other words, 25% is just a low-ball estimate based on the Fed’s “rational” model: the full impact, when accounting for jittery vol-targeting funds, risk parities, retail investors shorting volatility and so on, could result in a far bigger hit to the S&P!

* * *

Goldman concludes cheerfully, noting that “the analysis moderately increases our confidence that today’s economy —which is benefiting from strong momentum, firm global growth, and a fiscal boost—should be able to weather fairly large rate increases, without spiraling into a recession. While the aggregate impact of a continued bond sell-off should be manageable, we conclude by noting that several important sectors—including housing and smaller business activity— would likely experience sharper slowdowns.”

It also concludes that if the 10Y selloff accelerates by another ~150bps, the market will crash, although the bank remains confident that conditions for such a sharp selloff are not (yet) in place.

It is worth pointing out that Goldman’s dire forecast, while realistic, is another example of “moving the goalposts”: one year ago, when rates were in the low-2%’s, consensus was that a move to 3% or higher would lead to a market crash. Now that we are there, banks are scrambling to push the threshold even higher, despite the recent 10% correction once the 10Y broke what until recently was Gundlach’s red-line in the upper 2%-range.

Finally, while a sharp market selloff is certainly inevitable the higher rates go (especially if 10Y yields are rising due to real rates and not breakevens), the fate of both rates – and stocks – is ultimately be in the hands of the Fed, and Jay Powell in particular. Any further hints from the Fed (in addition to the ones we noted last night) that the central bank believes it is behind the inflationary curve, any hints of 4 or more hikes in 2018 and further hikes in 2019, and the selling of risk assets will surely start far sooner than Goldman expects.

And for the biggest, and most immediate hint, keep a close eye on Jay Powell’s testimony on Tuesday, when a big part of the “what is the Fed thinking now” puzzle will finally be revealed.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2ERGGCr Tyler Durden

In a stunning – if not altogether unexpected – blow to long-time California Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the California state Democratic Party opted not to endorse their own senior senator as she prepares to start campaigning to defend her seat in the 2018 midterms.

Delegates to the state party convention instead favored progressive state Senate leader Kevin de León, over Feinstein by a 54% to 37% margin, according to results, which were announced early Sunday. And while neither candidate reached the 60% threshold required to receive the party endorsement outright for 2018, de Leon’s camp claimed it as a profound victory.

“The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” de León said in a prepared statement, quoted by Politico. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.”

Feinstein, a longtime centrist, has often maintained an uneasy truce with the progressive activists who dominate the state party. The result followed two days of lobbying by the candidates in convention speeches and throughout the convention halls.

In an appeal to thousands of delegates Saturday, de Leon portrayed Feinstein as a Washington power broker and corporatist insider who wouldn’t listen to progressives.

Still, the state party’s refusal to endorse Feinstein will ultimately have little impact on her chances of winning another term later this year. Every poll still shows her winning the race by a wide margin.

But her challenger de Leon is undeterred by the unfavorable numbers:

“I’m running for the U.S. Senate because the days of Democrats biding our time, biting our tongue, and trying to let it work the margins are over,” he said to cheers. “I’m running because California’s greatness comes from paths of human audacity, not congressional seniority.”

The non-endorsement appears unlikely to immediately alter the trajectory of a contest Feinstein is leading by a wide margin.

First elected in a 1992 special Senate election, Feinstein is out-polling de León 46 percent to 17 percent among likely California voters, according to the most recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. Her financial advantage is even more overwhelming: Feinstein held close to $10 million in cash on hand at the end of last year, while de León reported raising just $500,000.

Feinstein, who was one of the sponsors of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, touted her gun-control bona fides, and stressed the importance of California Democrats maintaining unified support.

California Democrats, she said, have “the largest delegation in the House. You’ve got Kamala Harris and me in the Senate.” She said Democrats can more effectively advance their principles “if we have unified support.”

Feinstein lost the state party endorsement to a rival Democrat, John Van de Kamp, when she ran for California governor in 1990. And though supporters this year waved signs and stopped Feinstein to pose for photographs, she at times appeared out of step working the convention halls.

Interrupted in her convention speech Saturday by music signaling her time to speak had run out, Feinstein said, “I guess my time is up.”

As she left the stage, de León supporters in the crowd yelled back at the 84-year-old, “Time’s up! Time’s up!”

The state party returned a non-endorsement in California’s other major statewide contest, as well.

In the race for governor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom led all candidates with 39 percent support, followed by state Treasurer John Chiang and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has drawn close to Newsom at the top of statewide public opinion polls, finished a distant fourth, at 9 percent.

It’s worth highlighting that Feinstein’s circumstances in the 2018 race mirror – to a degree – the circumstances that Hillary Clinton faced during the 2016 campaign. Both represent a Democratic establishment that has failed to energize the progressive voters. And both reportedly have trouble connecting with voters.

We wonder: Could Feinstein, whose seat is viewed as “safe” by pollsters, be in for an upset, either by her Republican opponent, or a progressive insurgency? For the guaranteed answer, we await the NYT and WaPo polls showing that Feinstein is a 99% favorite to win.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2HL2UE7 Tyler Durden

In an announcement that was already something of a forgone conclusion, China’s Communist Party has officially cleared the way for President Xi Jinping to rule as emperor for life by announcing on Sunday that it intends to abolish a two-term constitutional limit on the presidency.

The change to the country’s constitution follows the decision during last October’s National People’s Congress to enshrine Xi’s name in the country’s constitution (see “Xi Could Rule For “Decades” As China’s New Leadership Team Unveiled“), making him the first living leader to be granted such an honor.

In addition, the Party’s appointments to the Politburo lacked a clear successor to Xi, another sign that he intends to seek a third term after the conclusion of his second term, which has only just begun.

According to state media reports on Sunday, the Central Committee approved the amendments to the Constitution at a meeting last month. But the vague official announcement released at that time did not hint at the momentous expansion of Mr. Xi’s presidential power, which was kept secret until Sunday.

In another victory for Mr. Xi, the draft amendments to the Constitution would also add his trademark expression for his main ideas – “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” – into the preamble of the Constitution, as well as adding a nod to the ideological contributions of his predecessor, Mr. Hu.

The amendments are almost certain to be passed into law by the party-controlled legislature, the National People’s Congress, which holds its annual full session from March 5. The congress has never voted down a proposal from party leaders.

Sunday’s move will make Mr. Xi much more powerful than he already was, and will dampen any remnants of resistance to his rule, said Zhang Baohui, professor of international affairs at Lingnan University in Hong Kong.

“Once people know he will serve for who knows how long, it will strengthen his power and motivate everybody to bandwagon with him,” said Mr. Zhang. “Any rival will think he will be almighty.”

As the Times explains, if Xi had appointed a successor last fall, his power would begin to wane in a year or two as he entered what would’ve been a lame duck period for his presidency – the second half of his second term.

At the same party congress, Mr. Xi conspicuously broke with precedent by choosing not to name a pair of much younger officials to the Politburo’s ruling inner circle, the seven-member standing committee, to serve as his heirs-in-waiting. Instead, Mr. Xi chose men — no women — who were closer to his own age or older.

Mr. Xi’s strongman style has been compared to that of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. But even Mr. Putin, who has amassed considerable personal power, did not try to erase his country’s constitutional limit on serving more than two consecutive terms as president as he approached that limit in 2008.

Instead, he arranged for a close adviser with limited personal influence, Dmitri A. Medvedev, to serve as president for a single term while Mr. Putin held the post of prime minister. Mr. Putin then returned to the presidency in 2012, and is running this year for re-election to another term.

Mr. Xi may now have even greater power, and the question will be how he chooses to use it.

“Xi Jinping is susceptible to making big mistakes because there are now almost no checks or balances,” said Willy Lam, an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong who is the author of a biography of Mr. Xi in 2015. “Essentially, he has become emperor for life.”

In another Xi-approved break with tradition, Wang Qishan, a close ally of the president’s who helped carry out Xi’s campaign against corruption and disloyalty in the party, appears set to return to power as vice president. Wang, 69, stepped down from a party position last year because of his age.

The announcement sheds new light on Xi’s decision to send to Liu He – one of his closest advisers and the most likely candidate to take over the PBOC later this year – to Washington on Tuesday. Instead of a trip to argue against Trump’s toughening stance on free trade, Liu may be heading to Washington to explain Xi’s decision to the Trump administration.

In kneejerk response, some China commentators had rather harsh words for the dramatic china, with WSJ commentator Li Yuan noting that “even though this has been talked about for a few years, it still feels like one man’s Pearl Harbor attack on the whole country.”

Even though this has been talked about for a few years, it still feels like one man’s Pearl Harbor attack on the whole country. https://t.co/BP4sdlciPl

— Li Yuan (@LiYuan6) February 25, 2018

As Yuan also notes, the local reaction to the news was also notable, with Baidu searches for “migration” spiking shortly after the news came out at 4pm local time.

During his time as president, Xi has launched grandiose initiatives like the “One belt, one road” initiative to build a modern Silk Road that would cement China’s position as a global hegemon to rival the US.

…Or as Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group, puts it…

 

One Belt.
One Road.
One Leader.

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) February 25, 2018

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2GHJCOu Tyler Durden

It’s barely been 12 hours since Rep. Adam Schiff and his Democratic comrades on the House Intelligence Committee released – with Trump’s blessing – a redacted version of their counter to the original “FISA Memo” drafted by Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes – and already its ramifications are being weaponized by the administration.

The memo landed late on Saturday by failing to conclusively dispel the lingering cloud of doubt surrounding the genesis of the Russia investigation and the political biases that might’ve helped set it in motion, as both sides dug in.

The Democrat memo response on government surveillance abuses is a total political and legal BUST. Just confirms all of the terrible things that were done. SO ILLEGAL!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2018

 

And with little time wasted, the Wall Street Journal this morning published the latest implicit offer from Trump’s legal team, which has been conducting its negotiation with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in part via the media, as we anticipated earlier this month when we highlighted a New York Times story about Trump’s legal team pushing back against its client’s offer – which was extemporaneously extended during a press conference – to sit for an interview with Mueller (assuming his lawyers give the green light).

Mr. Trump’s legal team is weighing options that include providing written answers to Mr. Mueller’s questions and having the president give limited verbal testimony, another person familiar with the matter said.

Trump’s tendency to embellish has, of course, been widely observed since he announced his intention to run for president. But, as WSJ explains, while those qualities might have benefited Trump on the campaign trail, they pose serious risks during a deposition – where even a slip of the tongue could elicit perjury charges. That’s why few were surprised earlier this month when the NYT reported that Trump’s legal team was pushing him to refuse Mueller’s interview request.

Of course, as any savvy observer has probably noticed by now, the initial NYT report was an effective trial balloon – an opening gambit on the part of Trump’s legal team, who no doubt leaked it to their benefit. Public scrutiny adds to the pressure, and by threatening to expose every detail of the negotiations, Trump’s team has given Mueller more incentive to agree to some compromise – written answers that can be painstakingly reviewed by a team of professionals, for example – than risk years of legal struggle and ultimately the prospect of an embarrassing defeat.

If Mr. Trump were to face detailed questions involving dates and times, his legal team may be reluctant to have him participate, the person familiar with team’s thinking said. As an example, this person said, general questions about what the president was thinking when he ordered the firing of Mr. Comey might be acceptable, as opposed to what action he took on a specific date and time.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump have studied a federal court ruling from the 1990s that could be the basis for delaying or limiting the scope of an interview, or perhaps avoiding one altogether.

In that 1997 case, a federal appeals court ruled that presidents and their closest advisers enjoy protections against having to disclose information about their decision-making process or official actions.

Legal experts say Mr. Trump’s attorneys can use the case as leverage in talks with Mr. Mueller.

“If it were exclusively a legal judgment, no one would ever do it, but there’s a political aspect to this,” Mr. Ray said.

Meanwhile, between the Democratic memo and last week’s indictment of 13 Russian internet trolls – including a close confidant of President Vladimir Putin – and 3 Russian entities, no smoking gun linking the President to Russia, or anything even close to that, has been produced. Many have also speculated that Mueller won’t be able to demonstrate that the president was involved in a conspiracy against the state. Hence, his pivot toward financial crimes and obstruction of justice.

And given the public’s already weary attitude toward the investigation, there’s also an element of time pressure that would seemingly push Mueller toward compromise.

Whether Mr. Mueller would agree to the terms sought by the Trump legal team is unclear; his office declined to comment.

“The sooner they make the president available to submit to an interview, the faster that Bob Mueller can get to the finish line and be over and done,” said Robert Ray, who served as independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation that examined former President Bill Clinton’s conduct.

Negotiations could break down should Mr. Mueller insist on conditions that Mr. Trump finds unacceptable, and the president’s lawyers are prepared to launch a court fight to shield him from testifying, people familiar with the matter said.

However, as WSJ points out, both sides have leverage they can use.

A subpoena from Mr. Mueller compelling Mr. Trump to testify could ratchet up pressure on the president to answer questions.

“The American people really want him to cooperate with this investigation,” said Alberto Gonzales, who was attorney general under former President George W. Bush.

Should Mr. Trump face a subpoena, he could try to quash it, setting in motion a lengthy legal proceeding that could deprive Mr. Mueller of an interview any time soon. Guy Lewis, a former U.S. attorney in Florida who has worked with Mr. Mueller in the past, said, “If that’s not two years of delay and litigation, up and back to the Supreme Court, then I don’t know what is.”

To avoid a protracted court fight, Mr. Mueller might prefer to strike an agreement on the interview’s scope, he said. “You’re playing chess here, and both sides are smart chess players,” Mr. Lewis said.

But there are certain lines that cannot be crossed. For example, Trump’s team will likely refuse to allow their client to answer any questions involving specific dates and times…

Whether Mr. Trump winds up talking to Mr. Mueller is one of many lingering questions surrounding the Russia investigation, which has shadowed this presidency since the first.

An interview would pose risks, with the president facing skilled prosecutors armed with documents and witness testimony who have shown they are willing to indict people on perjury charges. Mr. Trump is a freewheeling conversationalist, an instinct that proved advantageous on the campaign trail but could be unsuited to a legal setting. Still, Mr. Trump is no stranger to litigation, having given depositions tied to his career as a private businessman.

“As a lawyer, what I would want to get a sense of is how careful my client is going to be when responding to questions,” Mr. Gonzales said. “If I’m totally confident that this person can be careful in saying no more than needs to be said, I might let my client go ahead and testify.”

If Mr. Trump were to face detailed questions involving dates and times, his legal team may be reluctant to have him participate, the person familiar with team’s thinking said. As an example, this person said, general questions about what the president was thinking when he ordered the firing of Mr. Comey might be acceptable, as opposed to what action he took on a specific date and time.

Trump’s team has reportedly been studying a Federal Court ruling from the 1990s that seemingly excludes a president from being compelled to disclose any information about their decision making process or official actions.

We imagine we’ll be seeing some kind of back-and-forth via leaked press reports over the coming weeks, as Trump and Mueller continue to dance around one another ahead of this year’s mid-term vote.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2BRkyWd Tyler Durden

China issued a stern rebuke of enhanced US sanctions on North Korea on Friday, saying the unilateral targeting of Chinese firms and individuals accused of supplying Pyongyang with prohibited cargo risks harming international cooperation on the problem. 

“The Chinese side firmly opposes the US imposing unilateral sanctions and ‘long-arm jurisdiction’ on Chinese entities or individuals in accordance with its domestic laws,” said the Chinese Foreign Ministry in a statement. “We have lodged stern representations with the US side over this, urging it to immediately stop such wrongdoings so as not to undermine bilateral cooperation on the relevant area.”

The fresh sanctions were slapped on 27 companies and 28 ships linked to the North Korean shipping trade, while the U.S. urged the United Nations to blacklist entities known or believed to be smuggling prohibited cargo in or out of North Korea. Energy and shipping firms based in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are primarily affected by the sanctions, which block US-held assets belonging to violators, and prohibit US citizens from conducting business with them. 

China is North Korea’s largest trading partner, supplying 90 percent of North Korea’s total trading volume according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

China provides North Korea with most of its food and energy supplies and accounts for more than 90 percent of North Korea’s total trade volume. In the first three quarters of 2017, Chinese imports from North Korea actually fell by 16.7 percent, though exports were up by 20.9 percent. Despite announced trade restrictions in textiles, seafood, and oil products, there are reports of North Korean businesses still in operation in China.

“Today’s actions will significantly hinder North Korea’s ability to conduct evasive maritime activities that facilitate illicit coal and fuel transports,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told reporters on Friday. “And limit the regime’s ability to ship goods through international waters.”

President Trump warned last week of a “phase two” that could be “very, very unfortunate for the world” if the new sanctions weren’t adhered to. 

Beijing has pushed back, saying it has been “comprehensively and strictly implementing” UN Security Council resolutions, and “fulfilling its international obligations” in regards to the sanctions – preventing its citizens and companies to circumvent them. China says it will “seriously handle” violators in accordance with the law. 

“China resolutely opposes the US side enacting unilateral sanctions and ‘long-armed jurisdiction’ in accordance with its domestic law against Chinese entities or individuals,” the ministry said.

An October report reportedly showing US spy satellites catching Chinese vessels offloading oil to North Korea suggest otherwise, however.

Even as China signals that it will toughen its stance toward North Korea—though stopping short of challenging its survivability—there is mounting skepticism that China alone can resolve the North Korea problem. Chinese officials have emphasized that they do not “hold the key to the issue.” Some analysts say that China’s tightening of economic ties are unlikely to deter Kim’s nuclear ambitions, while others say the North Korean leader no longer cares what China thinks of its actions. –CFR

As we reported earlier, the Trump administration is coordinating with key Asian allies in the region to enforce the enhanced sanctions, according to Reuters. 

The joint effort between the U.S. Coast Guard and regional partners including Japan, South Korea, Australia and Singapore, would go further than ever before to physically block deliveries of banned weapons, components for its nuclear missile program and other prohibited cargo. Suspected violators could be targeted on the high seas or in the territorial waters of countries which cooperate with the coalition. Up to now, suspect ships have been intercepted on a far more limited basis. 

During Friday’s presser, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin could not rule out physically boarding suspect ships for interdictions: 

QUESTION: Can you rule out the United States boarding and inspecting North Korean ships…

(CROSSTALK)

MNUCHIN: No, I — I cannot rule that out.

“Those who trade with North Korea do so at their own peril,” added Mnuchin. “The United States will leverage our economic strength to enforce President Trump’s directive that any company that chooses to help fund North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs will not be allowed to do business with anyone in the United States.”

Both China and Russia have cautioned against overly harsh sanctions on North Korea, proposing a “double freeze” initiative which would entail the US and its allies ceasing military exercises in the region if Pyongyang agrees to suspend its nuclear and ballistic missile program. Washington outright rejected the suggestion. 

Russian envoy to Pyongyang, Alexander Matsegora, suggested that a total ban on oil exports to North Korea could be considered a declaration of war by Kim Jong-un.  

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2owfZIr Tyler Durden

Authored by Edward Curtin via GreanvillePost.com,

“The compulsive hatred of Putin by many who have almost zero idea about Putin or Russian history is disproportionate to any rational analysis, but not surprising.

Trump and Putin are like weird doppelgangers in the liberal imagination.”

—John Steppling, “Trump, Putin, and Nikolas Cruz Walk into a Bar”

The Trump and Netanyahu governments have a problem: How to start a greatly expanded Middle-Eastern war without having a justifiable reason for one.  No doubt they are working hard to solve this urgent problem.  If they can’t find a “justification” (which they can’t), they will have to create one (which they will).  Or perhaps they will find what they have already created.  Whatever the solution, we should feel confident that they are not sitting on their hands. History teaches those who care to learn that when aggressors place a gun on the wall in the first act of their play, it must go off in the final act.

These sinister players have signaled us quite clearly what they have in store.  All signs point toward an upcoming large-scale Israeli/U.S. attack on Lebanon and Syria, and all the sycophantic mainstream media are in the kitchen prepping for the feast.  Russia and Iran are the main course, with Lebanon and Syria, who will be devoured first, as the hors d’oeuvres.  As always, the media play along as if they don’t yet know what’s coming.  Everyone in the know knows what is, just not exactly when.  And the media wait with baited breath as they count down to the dramatic moment when they can report the incident that will compel the “innocent” to attack the “guilty.”

Anyone with half a brain can see the greatly increased anti-Russian propaganda of the past few weeks.  This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces, as former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, the late Robert Parry, Paul Craig Roberts, and others have documented so assiduously.  All across the media spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other “leftist” publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession, as if Trump were a dear friend of Putin and Russia and wasn’t closely allied with the Netanyahu government in its plans for the Middle-East.  As if Trump were in charge. “Russia Sees Midterm Elections as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord (NY Times, 2/13), “Russia Strongman” (Putin) has “pulled off one of the greatest acts of political sabotage in modern history (The Atlantic, Jan. /Feb. 2018), “”Mueller’s Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime” (Mother Jones, 2/16/18), “A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists” (whowhatwhy.com, 2/7/18), etc.   

I am reminded of the turn to the right that so many “muckrakers” made during and after WW I.  Afraid of a revolt from below, bewitched by their own vision to articulate the world’s future, heady over their own war propaganda, and wanting to be on the safe side of the government crackdown on dissent (The Espionage Act, the Palmer Raids, etc.), many progressives of the era embraced a jingoism similar to the anti-Russia mania of today.

Only someone totally lacking a sense of humor and blind to propaganda would not laugh uproariously at today’s media nonsense about Russia, but such laughter would be infused with a foreboding awareness that as the Middle East explodes and U.S./NATO backed Kiev forces prepare to attack the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, the world is entering a very dangerous period.  And of course Trump has said, “The U.S. has great strength and patience but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”  Totally destroy 26 million human beings.  While his bully buddy in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently said at the Munich Security Conference that Iran is “the greatest threat to the world,” compared it to Nazi Germany, and claimed it was developing ballistic missiles to strike deep into the United States.  “Iran seeks to dominate our region, the Middle East, and seeks to dominate the world through aggression and terror,” he said.  And he vowed to act against Iran and anyone who supported it – i.e. Lebanon and Syria (Russia). 

Putin also, like all the mythic bogeymen, is portrayed as the new Hitler intent on conquering the world.  If the American public wasn’t so “sophisticated” and adept at seeing through lies – pause and laugh – we could expect some World War I posters with Russian soldiers (like The Huns), sharp teeth glistening, gorilla strong and beastly, holding American women in preparation for the kill or rape.

Last year, when Oliver Stone did the world the great service of releasing his four-part interview with Putin, he was bashed, of course.  Just as he was with his film JFK, the only movie in history to be reviewed and panned one year before its release by a Washington Post reviewer who didn’t see the movie but had a purloined preliminary script as his source.  The Washington Post: the object of the latest film drivel, The Post, portraying it falsely as the savior of the nation through the publication of the Pentagon Papers (which is another story).  The Washington Post – the CIA’s dear friend.

In his Putin interviews, Oliver Stone, a man of truth and honor, lets viewers catch a glimpse of the real Vladimir Putin.  Of course Putin is a politician and the leader of a great and powerful nation, and one should receive his words skeptically. But watching Stone interview Putin for four hours, one comes away – but I doubt few have watched the four hours – with a reasonably good sense of the man. 

And putting aside one’s impressions of him, he makes factual points that should ring loud and clear to anyone conversant with facts. 

One: that the U.S. needs an external enemy (“I know that, I feel that.”).

Two: the U.S.A. engineered the coup d’état in the Ukraine on Russia’s border. 

Three: the U.S. has surrounded Russia with US/NATO troops and bases armed with anti-ballistic missiles that can, as Putin rightly says to Stone, be converted in hours to regular offensive nuclear missiles aimed at Russia. 

This is a factual and true statement that should make any fair-minded person stand up in horror.  If Russia had such missiles encircling the United States from Cuba, Mexico, and Canada, what American would find it tolerable?  What would CNN and The New York Times have to say?  Yet these same people readily find it impossible to see the legitimacy in Russia’s position, resorting to name calling and illogical rhetoric. Russia is surrounded with U.S/NATO troops and missiles and yet Russia is the aggressor.  So too Iran that is also surrounded.  These media are propagandists, that’s why.  They promote war, as they always have.  They are pushing for war with Russia via Syria/Lebanon/Iran and Ukraine, and they are nihilistically demonizing North Korea (as part of Obama’s pivot toward Asia and the encircling of China, as John Pilger has brilliantly documented in his film The Coming War on China) in what can only be called a conspiracy to commit genocide, as Dr. Graeme MacQueen and Christopher Black make clear in their Open Letter to the International Criminal Court.

We are moving toward a global war that will become nuclear if an international anti-war movement doesn’t quickly arise to stop it.  Most people bemoan the thought of such a war to end all wars, but refuse to analyze the factors leading to it. It happens step-by-step, and many steps have already been taken with more coming soon.    It’s so obvious that most can’t see it, or don’t want to.  The corporate mainstream media are enemies of the truth; are clearly part of the continuation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, and those who still rely on them for the truth are beyond reach. 

Douglas Valentine, in The CIA as Organized Crime, says the CIA has long aimed to use and co-opt the “Compatible Left, which in America translates into liberals and pseudo-intellectual status seekers who are easily influenced.”  And he adds that the propaganda is not just produced by the CIA but by the military, State Department, and red, white, and blue advertisements that are everywhere.  Nothing has changed since the Church Committee hearings in the 1970s.  Valentine adds:

All of that is ongoing, despite being exposed in the late 1960s.  Various technological advances, including the internet, have spread the network around the world, and many people don’t even realize they are part of it, that they’re promoting the CIA line.

“Assad’s a butcher,” they say, or “Putin kills journalists,” or “China is repressive. 

They have no idea what they’re talking about but spout all this propaganda. 

William Blake said it truly:

In every cry of every Man,

In every Infants cry of fear,

In every voice: in every ban,

The mind-forg’d manacles I hear 

How to break the chains – that is our task.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2F3OfVG Tyler Durden

Well, you guessed it, New York City of course – this dirty city has more pests and litter than any other large metropolis in the United States, according to newly compiled government data by the cleaning-services company Busy Bee.

The cleaning company ranked 40 large cities across the United States based on data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Housing Survey (AHS), and the U.S. Census Bureau to create an informative infographic to determine just how shitty America really is. Factors include litter, pests such as mice and cockroaches, population density, particulate matter air pollution, and nitrogen dioxide air pollution.

The City that Never Sleeps ranked the highest in three out of five categories, placing it as shittest-city-in-the-nation of 427.9 on Busy Bee’s “dirtiness index.” The next closest competitor for all the wrong reasons is Los Angeles, which has a dirtiness index of 317.8. To complete the top five list, the remaining dirtiest cities are Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

Busy Bee Cleaning Service is one of New York’s premier commercial cleaning services, but in their latest report, they might have angered the millennial generation who just moved out of their parent’s basements into overpriced homes across America’s inner cities, to only now discover their new environment is trash. Busy Bee does a great job tearing apart the narrative that everything is awesome in America’s inner cities, and perhaps, the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ should take a night off to realize just how much trash its citizens are living in. The report further verifies that America’s empire is rotting from within, as its culture and lifestyles from its major metropolises are producing a toxic environment that is softly killing its citizens from within.

The New York Patch highlights just how toxic these inner cities are:

Some 904,000 homes in the city have litter on nearby streets or properties, and nearly 2.3 million homes have seen signs of mice, rats or cockroaches in the past year, Busy Bee’s review shows. New York also ranks first for population density, with 28,000 people per square mile.

New York has less air pollution than some other large cities. EPA figures show the city’s air has a one-hour average concentration of 60 parts per billion of nitrogen dioxide, a harmful chemical that can cause breathing problems. Los Angeles leads the nation in that category, with a one-hour average of 77 parts per billion.

Pittsburgh is the worst city when it comes to particle pollution, which the EPA says can give harmful substances a way in to a person’s lungs or bloodstream. The Steel City shows a 24-hour average concentration of 40 micrograms of particles per cubic meter of air, double New York City’s average of 20 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Even if New Yorkers get used to the grime, that doesn’t change the fact that the city is still far dirtier than many others. Take Jacksonville, Florida, which was the cleanest city Busy Bee reviewed. Just 44,000 homes there reported litter and 90,000 had evidence of pests, the company’s review shows.

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EO2kY4 Tyler Durden