Pentagon Says Securing North Korean Nuclear Sites Would Require “Ground Invasion”

With President Donald Trump arriving in Japan today to kick off a 10-day Asia tour, the Washington Post is reporting that the only way to locate and secure all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons sites “with complete certainty” would be a ground invasion, and in the event of conflict, Pyongyang could use biological and chemical weapons, the Pentagon told lawmakers in a newly released assessment of what war on the Korean Peninsula might look like.

The Pentagon, in a letter to lawmakers, said that a full discussion of U.S. capabilities to “counter North Korea’s ability to respond with a nuclear weapon and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons located in deeply buried, underground facilities” is best suited for a classified briefing.

 

The letter also said that Pentagon leaders “assess that North Korea may consider the use of biological weapons” and that the country “has a long-standing chemical weapons program with the capability to produce nerve, blister, blood and choking agents."

 

The Pentagon repeated that a detailed discussion of how the United States would respond to the threat could not be discussed in public.

 

The letter noted that Seoul, the South Korean capital, is a densely populated area with 25 million residents. 

The Pentagon’s candid assessment appears to validate claims made by former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who famously said in an interview with the American Prospect before he was forced out of his White House job that there are no “good” military options for toppling the Kim regime. A ground invasion, he said, would lead to millions of casualties in the South Korean capital of Seoul from conventional weapons fire.

It’s release also coincides with the president’s push to rally the North’s neighbors in the region to do more to punish the restive Kim regime, which conducted a test of a hydrogen bomb – also its sixth nuclear test overall – in early September.

The North has been notably quiet since Sept. 15, when it launched a medium-range missile over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. Aside from the usual condemnations of military drills involving US and South Korean, and threats that the North is seriously considering testing a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific. Some have speculated that a partial collapse at the North’s Pyunggye-ri nuclear testing facility has been partly responsible for the delays.

The letter to lawmakers was written by Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont, the vice director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, in response to a request for information from two House members about “expected casualty assessments in a conflict with North Korea,” including for civilians and U.S. and allied forces in South Korea, Japan and Guam.

In the letter, Dumont explains how a ground invasion would unfold.

Any operation to pursue North Korean nuclear weapons would likely be spearheaded by U.S. Special Operations troops. Last year, President Barack Obama and then-Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter gave U.S. Special Operations Command a new, leading role coordinating the Pentagon’s effort to counter weapons of mass destruction. SOCOM did not receive any new legal authorities for the mission but gained influence in how the military responds to such threats.

 

Elite U.S. forces have long trained to respond in the case of a so-called “loose nuke” in the hands of terrorists. But senior officials said SOCOM is increasingly focused on North Korea.

Given the difficulty and tremendous potential for casualities that would accompany a ground invasion, Dumont affirmed that the military supports the present strategy of pursuing a diplomatic solution to the simmering standoff between the North and the US.

Dumont said the military backs the current U.S. strategy on North Korea, which is led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and focuses on ratcheting up economic and diplomatic pressure as the primary effort to get North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to stop developing nuclear weapons. Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., have emphasized that during trips to Seoul this year.

 

In contrast, President Trump, who goes unmentioned in the Pentagon letter, has taunted Kim as “Rocket Man” and expressed frustration with diplomatic efforts, hinting that he is considering preemptive military force.

 

“I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” Trump tweeted on Oct. 1, adding, “Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!"

 

On Oct. 7, Trump added in additional tweets that North Korea had “made fools” of U.S. negotiators. “Sorry, but only one thing will work!” he said. 

Defense Secretary James Mattis and the Pentagon has often pointed to the massive risk that North Korean weaponry pose to South Koreans living In Seoul. But the military has never before publicly revealed so much about its plans for a hunt for North Korea’s underground weapons.

Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said that Dumont and other Pentagon officials had no additional comment about the letter.

A senior US military official in South Korea told WaPo that while the 28,500 US troops in South Korea maintain a high degree of readiness, he “has to believe” that North Korea does not want a war, given all of the nations aligned against it.

“If you open the history books, this is not the first time that we’ve been in a heavy provocation cycle,” the official said. On the side of South Korea and the United States, he said, “there is no action taken without extreme consideration of not putting this in a position where a fight is going to happen."

Dumont’s letter also notes that “we have not seen any change in the offensive posture of North Korea’s forces."

A statement by 16 lawmakers, released simultaneously with the Pentagon letter, urged Trump to stop making “provocative statements” that impede diplomatic efforts and risk the lives of U.S. troops.

One lawmaker cited estimates that a ground invasion of the North would leave 300,000 people dead in the first couple of days.

The Pentagon’s “assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea,” said the statement, organized by Lieu and Gallego and signed by 14 other members of Congress who are veterans, all but one of them Democrats. In a telephone interview, Lieu said that the intent of asking the Pentagon for information was to spell out the cataclysmic consequences of war with North Korea and the aftermath.

 

“It’s important for people to understand what a war with a nuclear power would look like,” said Lieu, citing estimates of 300,000 dead in the first few days alone. More than 100,000 Americans are potentially at risk.

 

Lieu, who spent part of his time in the Air Force on Guam preparing for military action against North Korea, called the letter a confirmation that a conflict would result in a “bloody, protracted ground war.” The Joint Chiefs, he believes, are “trying to send a message to the American public,” he said.

 

“This is grim,” Lieu said. “We need to understand what war means. And it hasn’t been articulated very well. I think they’re trying to articulate some of that."

The question now is: Will this report undermine Trump’s efforts to push the US’s allies in the Pacific to do more to peacefully pressure the Kim regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program. China and Russia have for months been pushing a plan that would see the North freeze its nuclear program in exchange for the US withdrawing its THAAD missile defense systems from South Korea.

The Kim regime has repeatedly said it will never give up its nuclear weapons, which it believes are essential for the survival of the regime.

via http://ift.tt/2Ab3JkZ Tyler Durden

Saudis Call Missile Attack “Blatant Act Of Aggression” By Iran, “Could Be Considered Act Of War”

War is coming…

This weekend's chaos in the middle east just got considerably more serious.

Yesterday we detailed reports that the Saudis intercepted a ballistic missile over the nation's capital Riyadh…

At the time, Al Jazeera reported that Yemen's Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for the attack, saying they launched the Yemeni-made, long-range ballistic missile Burqan 2-H (with a range of 500 kilometers) from the Saudi-Yemeni border before being intercepted.

But tonight, according to a statement from the Saudi coailition carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency, the missile that targeted Riyadh has been called "a direct military aggresion" by Iran against Sauid Arabia,  that "could rise to be considered an act of war." Furthermore, the Saudi-led coalition has closed all Yemen's land, sea and air ports after missile targeted Riyadh.

Following on what the Coalition had previously announced regarding the ballistic missiles launched by the Iranian-controlled Houthi militias from within Yemeni territory that targeted the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the most recent of which was the flagrant military aggression by the Iranian-controlled Houthi militias which targeted the city of Riyadh on November 11, 2017 (Corresponding to 15/2/1439 Hijri) using a ballistic missile with a range of more than 900 Km.

 

And, after the thorough examination of the debris of these missiles, including the missile launched on July 22, 2017 (Corresponding to 28/10/1438 Hijri) by experts in military technology, has confirmed the role of Iran's regime in manufacturing these missiles and smuggling them to the Houthi militias in Yemen for the purpose of attacking the Kingdom, its people, and vital interests.

 

The Coalition's command considers the Iranian regime's action in supplying the Houthi militias that it commands with these missiles to be a blatant violation of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions that prohibit nations from arming these militias, specifically UNSC Resolution (2216). Further, Iran's role and its direct command of its Houthi proxy in this matter constitutes a clear act of aggression that targets neighboring countries, and threatens peace and security in the region and globally.

 

Therefore, the Coalition's Command considers this a blatant act of military aggression by the Iranian regime, and could rise to be considered as an act of war against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and thus affirms the legitimate right of the Kingdom to defend its territory and people in accordance with Article (51) of the U.N. Charter. The Coalition Command also affirms that the Kingdom reserves its right to respond to Iran in the appropriate time and manner, in accordance with international law and based upon the right of self-defense, including the defense of its territory, its people, and its vital interests, which is enshrined in international agreements and conventions including the UN Charter.

 

To address the vulnerabilities in the current inspection procedures that led to the continuation of the supply of ballistic missiles and military equipment to the Houthi militias which enabled them to continue to commit crimes against the Kingdom, the Yemeni people, and the peoples of countries in the region, which constitutes blatant violations to international humanitarian laws, the Coalition’s Command has decided to temporarily close all Yemeni ground, air, and sea ports. These measures will be implemented while taking into consideration the continuation of the entry and exit of humanitarian supplies and crews in accordance with the Coalition’s updated procedures.

 

The Coalition Command calls upon all relevant parties to adhere to the inspections, entry, and exit procedures to and from Yemeni ports of entry designated by the Coalition that will be announced later. All necessary legal steps will be taken against violators of these procedures. The Coalition Command calls upon the brethren Yemeni people and all civilian and humanitarian crews to avoid areas of combat operations, areas populated by the Houthi armed militia, areas and ports exploited by this Iranian-controlled militia to smuggle weapons, and areas from which this militia launch its attacks against the Kingdom. The Coalition also calls upon diplomatic missions to avoid areas that are not controlled by the Legitimate Government of Yemen.

 

The Coalition Command calls upon the international community and the United Nations Security Council including the sanctions committee established by the Council for the implementation of UNSC Resolution 2216, to take all necessary legal measures to hold Iran accountable for its violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, primarily resolution 2216, in addition to its violations of provisions and principles of international law that criminalize the aggression against other states, due to: Iran's direct involvement in the unlawful smuggling of weapons to the Houthi Militia under its control, which threatens international peace and security; its aggression against the territory and people of Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries; and its continued support for the Houthi militia in violation of international resolutions that aim to restore legitimacy in Yemen.

The timing is fascinating.

What better way to get the price of oil up before an Aramco IPO – which President Trump just happened to mention out of the blue.

And amid increasing evidence of Saudi rapprochement with Russia and China – and the growing de-dollarization of the anti-unipolar world – a Saudi war with Iran would require the latter to be supported by Washington to survive… which perhaps could be quid pro quo for ending any chatter about the death of the petrodollar.

via http://ift.tt/2Abpz7T Tyler Durden

Matt Taibbi Exposes The Great College Loan Swindle

Authored by Matt Taibbi via RollingStone.com,

How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America's next financial black hole…

On a wind-swept, frigid night in February 2009, a 37-year-old schoolteacher named Scott Nailor parked his rusted '92 Toyota Tercel in the parking lot of a Fireside Inn in Auburn, Maine. He picked this spot to have a final reckoning with himself. He was going to end his life.

Beaten down after more than a decade of struggle with student debt, after years of taking false doors and slipping into various puddles of bureaucratic quicksand, he was giving up the fight. "This is it, I'm done," he remembers thinking. "I sat there and just sort of felt like I'm going to take my life. I'm going to find a way to park this car in the garage, with it running or whatever."

Nailor's problems began at 19 years old, when he borrowed for tuition so that he could pursue a bachelor's degree at the University of Southern Maine. He graduated summa cum laude four years later and immediately got a job in his field, as an English teacher.

But he graduated with $35,000 in debt, a big hill to climb on a part-time teacher's $18,000 salary. He struggled with payments, and he and his wife then consolidated their student debt, which soon totaled more than $50,000. They declared bankruptcy and defaulted on the loans. From there he found himself in a loan "rehabilitation" program that added to his overall balance. "That's when the noose began to tighten," he says.

The collectors called day and night, at work and at home. "In the middle of class too, while I was teaching," he says. He ended up in another rehabilitation program that put him on a road toward an essentially endless cycle of rising payments. Today, he pays $471 a month toward "rehabilitation," and, like countless other borrowers, he pays nothing at all toward his real debt, which he now calculates would cost more than $100,000 to extinguish. "Not one dollar of it goes to principal," says Nailor. "I will never be able to pay it off. My only hope to escape from this crushing debt is to die."

After repeated phone calls with lending agencies about his ever-rising interest payments, Nailor now believes things will only get worse with time. "At this rate, I may easily break $1 million in debt before I retire from teaching," he says.

Nailor had more than once reached the stage in his thoughts where he was thinking about how to physically pull off his suicide. "I'd been there before, that just was the worst of it," he says. "It scared me, bad."

He had a young son and a younger daughter, but Nailor had been so broken by the experience of financial failure that he managed to convince himself they would be better off without him. What saved him is that he called his wife to say goodbye. "I don't know why I called my wife. I'm glad I did," he says. "I just wanted her or someone to tell me to pick it up, keep fighting, it's going to be all right. And she did."

From that moment, Nailor managed to focus on his family. Still, the core problem – the spiraling debt that has taken over his life, as it has for millions of other Americans – remains.

Horror stories about student debt are nothing new. But this school year marks a considerable worsening of a tale that ought to have been a national emergency years ago. The government in charge of regulating this mess is now filled with predatory monsters who have extensive ties to the exploitative for-profit education industry – from Donald Trump himself to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who sets much of the federal loan policy, to Julian Schmoke, onetime dean of the infamous DeVry University, whom Trump appointed to police fraud in education.

Americans don't understand the student-loan crisis because they've been trained to view the issue in terms of a series of separate, unrelated problems.

They will read in one place that as of the summer of 2017, a record 8.5 million Americans are in default on their student debt, with about $1.3 trillion in loans still outstanding.

In another place, voters will read that the cost of higher education is skyrocketing, soaring in a seemingly market-defying arc that for nearly a decade now has run almost double the rate of inflation. Tuition for a halfway decent school now frequently surpasses $50,000 a year. How, the average newsreader wonders, can any child not born in a yacht afford to go to school these days?

In a third place, that same reader will see some heartless monster, usually a Republican, threatening to cut federal student lending. The current bogeyman is Trump, who is threatening to slash the Pell Grant program by $3.9 billion, which would seem to put higher education even further out of reach for poor and middle-income families. This too seems appalling, and triggers a different kind of response, encouraging progressive voters to lobby for increased availability for educational lending.

But the separateness of these stories clouds the unifying issue underneath: The education industry as a whole is a con. In fact, since the mortgage business blew up in 2008, education and student debt is probably our reigning unexposed nation-wide scam.

It's a multiparty affair, what shakedown artists call a "big store scheme," like in the movie The Sting: a complex deception requiring a big cast to string the mark along every step of the way. In higher education, every party you meet, from the moment you first set foot on campus, is in on the game.

America as a country has evolved in recent decades into a confederacy of widescale industrial scams. The biggest slices of our economic pie – sectors like health care, military production, banking, even commercial and residential real estate – have become crude income-redistribution schemes, often untethered from the market by subsidies or bailouts, with the richest companies benefiting from gamed or denuded regulatory systems that make profits almost as assured as taxes. Guaranteed-profit scams – that's the last thing America makes with any level of consistent competence. In that light, Trump, among other things, the former head of a schlock diploma mill called Trump University, is a perfect president for these times. He's the scammer-in-chief in the Great American Ripoff Age, a time in which fleecing students is one of our signature achievements.

It starts with the sales pitch colleges make to kids. The thrust of it is usually that people who go to college make lots more money than the unfortunate dunces who don't. "A bachelor's degree is worth $2.8 million on average over a lifetime" is how Georgetown University put it. The Census Bureau tells us similarly that a master's degree is worth on average about $1.3 million more than a high school diploma.

But these stats say more about the increasing uselessness of a high school degree than they do about the value of a college diploma. Moreover, since virtually everyone at the very highest strata of society has a college degree, the stats are skewed by a handful of financial titans. A college degree has become a minimal status marker as much as anything else. "I'm sure people who take polo lessons or sailing lessons earn a lot more on average too," says Alan Collinge of Student Loan Justice, which advocates for debt forgiveness and other reforms. "Does that mean you should send your kids to sailing school?"

But the pitch works on everyone these days, especially since good jobs for Trump's beloved "poorly educated" are scarce to nonexistent. Going to college doesn't guarantee a good job, far from it, but the data show that not going dooms most young people to an increasingly shallow pool of the very crappiest, lowest-paying jobs. There's a lot of stick, but not much carrot, in the education game.

It's a vicious cycle. Since everyone feels obligated to go to college, most everyone who can go, does, creating a glut of graduates. And as that glut of degree recipients grows, the squeeze on the un-degreed grows tighter, increasing further that original negative incentive: Don't go to college, and you'll be standing on soup lines by age 25.

With that inducement in place, colleges can charge almost any amount, and kids will pay – so long as they can get the money. And here we run into problem number two: It's too easy to find that money.

Parents, not wanting their kids to fall behind, will pay every dollar they have. But if they don't have the cash, there is a virtually unlimited amount of credit available to young people. Proposed cuts to Pell Grants aside, the landscape is filled with public and private lending, and students gobble it up. Kids who walk into financial-aid offices are often not told what signing their names on the various aid forms will mean down the line. A lot of kids don't even understand the concept of interest or amortization tables – they think if they're borrowing $8,000, they're paying back $8,000.

Nailor certainly was unaware of what he was getting into when he was 19. "I had no idea [about interest]," he says. "I just remember thinking, 'I don't have to worry about it right now. I want to go to school.' " He pauses in disgust. "It's unsettling to remember how it was like, 'Here, just sign this and you're all set.' I wish I could take the time machine back and slap myself in the face."

The average amount of debt for a student leaving school is skyrocketing even faster than the rate of tuition increase.

In 2016, for instance, the average amount of debt for an exiting college graduate was a staggering $37,172. That's a rise of six percent over just the previous year. With the average undergraduate interest rate at about 3.7 percent, the interest alone costs around $115 per month, meaning anyone who can't afford to pay into the principal faces the prospect of $69,000 in payments over 50 years.

So here's the con so far.

You must go to college because you're screwed if you don't.

 

Costs are outrageously high, but you pay them because you have to, and because the system makes it easy to borrow massive amounts of money.

 

The third part of the con is the worst: You can't get out of the debt.

Since government lenders in particular have virtually unlimited power to collect on student debt – preying on everything from salary to income-tax returns – even running is not an option. And since most young people find themselves unable to make their full payments early on, they often find themselves perpetually paying down interest only, never touching the principal. Our billionaire president can declare bankruptcy four times, but students are the one class of citizen that may not do it even once.

October 2017 was supposed to represent the first glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. This month marks the 10th anniversary of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, one of the few avenues for wiping out student debt. The idea, launched by George W. Bush, was pretty simple: Students could pledge to work 10 years for the government or a nonprofit and have their debt forgiven. In order to qualify, borrowers had to make payments for 10 years using a complex formula. This month, then, was to start the first mass wipeouts of debt in the history of American student lending. But more than half of the 700,000 enrollees have already been expunged from the program for, among other things, failing to certify their incomes on time, one of many bureaucratic tricks employed to limit forgiveness eligibility. To date, fewer than 500 participants are scheduled to receive loan forgiveness in this first round.

Moreover, Trump has called for the program's elimination by 2018, meaning that any relief that begins this month is likely only temporary. The only thing that is guaranteed to remain real for the immediate future are the massive profits being generated on the backs of young people, who before long become old people who, all too often, remain ensnared until their last days in one of the country's most brilliant and devious moneymaking schemes.

Everybody wins in this madness, except students. Even though many of the loans are originated by the state, most of them are serviced by private or quasi-private companies like Navient – which until 2014 was the student-loan arm of Sallie Mae – or Nelnet, companies that reported a combined profit of around $1 billion last year (the U.S. government made a profit of $1.6 billion in 2016!). Debt-collector companies like Performant (which generated $141.4 million in revenues; the family of Betsy DeVos is a major investor), and most particularly the colleges and universities, get to prey on the desperation and terror of parents and young people, and in the process rake in vast sums virtually without fear of market consequence.

About that: Universities, especially public institutions, have successfully defended rising tuition in recent years by blaming the hikes on reduced support from states. But this explanation was blown to bits in large part due to a bizarre slip-up in the middle of a controversy over state support of the University of Wisconsin system a few years ago.

In that incident, UW raised tuition by 5.5 percent six years in a row after 2007. The school blamed stresses from the financial crisis and decreased state aid. But when pressed during a state committee hearing in 2013 about the university's finances, UW system president Kevin Reilly admitted they held $648 million in reserve, including $414 million in tuition payments. This was excess hidey-hole cash the school was sitting on, separate and distinct from, say, an endowment fund.

After the university was showered with criticism for hoarding cash at a time when it was gouging students with huge price increases every year, the school responded by saying, essentially, it only did what all the other kids were doing. UW released data showing that other major state-school systems across the country were similarly stashing huge amounts of cash. While Wisconsin's surplus was only 25 percent of its operating budget, for instance, Minnesota's was 29 percent, and Illinois maintained a whopping 34 percent reserve.

When Collinge, of Student Loan Justice, looked into it, he found that the phenomenon wasn't confined to state schools. Private schools, too, have been hoarding cash even as they plead poverty and jack up tuition fees. "They're all doing it," he says.

While universities sit on their stockpiles of cash and the loan industry generates record profits, the pain of living in debilitating debt for many lasts into retirement. Take Veronica Martish. She's a 68-year-old veteran, having served in the armed forces in the Vietnam era. She's also a grandmother who's never been in trouble and consid?ers herself a patriot. "The thing is, I tried to do everything right in my life," she says. "But this ruined my life."

This is an $8,000 student loan she took out in 1989, through Sallie Mae. She borrowed the money so she could take courses at Quinebaug Valley Community College in Connecticut. Five years later, after deaths in her family, she fell behind on her payments and entered a loan-rehabilitation program. "That's when my nightmare began," she says.

In rehabilitation, Martish's $8,000 loan, with fees and interest, ballooned into a $27,000 debt, which she has been carrying ever since. She says she's paid more than $63,000 to date and is nowhere near discharging the principal. "By the time I die," she says, "I will probably pay more than $200,000 toward an $8,000 loan." She pauses. "It's a scam, you see. Nothing ever comes off the loan. It's all interest and fees. And they chase you until you're old, like me. They never stop. Ever."

And that's the other thing about lending to students: It's the safest grift around.

There's probably no better symbol of the bankruptcy of the education industry than Trump University. The half-literate president's effort at higher learning drew in suckers with pathetic promises of great real-estate insights (for instance, that Trump "hand-picked" the instructors) and then charged them truckfuls of cash for get-rich-quick tutorials that students and faculty later described as "almost completely worthless" and a "total lie." That Trump got to settle a lawsuit on this matter for $25 million and still managed to be elected president is, ironically, a remarkable testament to the failure of our education system. About the only example that might be worse is DeVry University, which told students that 90 percent of graduates seeking jobs found them in their fields within six months of graduation. The FTC found those claims "false and unsubstantiated," and ordered $100 million in refunds and debt relief, but that was in 2016 – before Trump put DeVry chief Schmoke, of all people, in charge of rooting out education fraud. Like a lot of things connected to politics lately, it would be funny if it weren't somehow actually happening.?"Yeah, it's the fox guarding the henhouse," says Collinge. "You could probably find a worse analogy."

But the real problem with the student-loan story is that it's so poorly understood by people not living the nightmare. There's so much propaganda that blames the borrowers for taking on the debt in the first place that there's often little sympathy for people in hopeless situations. To make matters worse, band-aid programs that supposedly offer help hypnotize the public into thinking there are ways out, when the "help" is usually just another trick to add to the balance.

"That's part of the problem with the narrative," says Nailor, the schoolteacher. "People think that there's help, so what are you complaining about? All you got to do is apply for help."

But the help, he says, coming from a for-profit predatory system, often just makes things worse. "It did for me," he says. "It does for a lot of people."

via http://ift.tt/2h9wt5P Tyler Durden

Each Bitcoin Transaction Uses As Much Energy As Your House In A Week

While Bitcoin bulls will probably never have it so good as they have in 2017, we wonder whether many of them have stopped to think about the environmental downside of this roaring bull market. After all, back in the dot.com boom, people had ideas about potential internet businesses, issued pieces of paper representing ownership and watched their prices go parabolic parabolic. All it took was a Powerpoint presentation, some computer programming expertise and a “research” report, courtesy of Mary Meeker, Henry Blodgett et al.

The environmental downside we’re referring to in Bitcoin is, of course, is energy.

We alluded to this in a constructive way here when we noted that a new Bitcoin mining hub is developing in Iceland, where the natural temperature dramatically reduces the cost of cooling computing hardware.

The primary energy requirement, however, goes into the computing power to “mine” the Bitcoins. The Bitcoin mining industry can consume 24 terawatt hours of electricity and still be profitable – the Motherboard website provides some context…  

Bitcoin's incredible price run to break over $7,000 this year has sent its overall electricity consumption soaring, as people worldwide bring more energy-hungry computers online to mine the digital currency. An index from cryptocurrency analyst Alex de Vries, aka Digiconomist, estimates that with prices the way they are now, it would be profitable for Bitcoin miners to burn through over 24 terawatt-hours of electricity annually as they compete to solve increasingly difficult cryptographic puzzles to "mine" more Bitcoins. That's about as much as Nigeria, a country of 186 million people, uses in a year… De Vries also estimates that the worldwide Bitcoin mining industry is now using enough electricity to power 2.26 million American homes.

A rapid “Google” later and we discovered that there are 125.8 million American households, so almost 2%.

Another way of looking at Bitcoin’s energy consumption is divide the electricity use in Bitcoin mining each day by the number of daily Bitcoin transactions. As the Motherboard notes, each Bitcoin transaction now requires the same amount of electricity needed to power the average American household for one week.

Expressing Bitcoin's energy use on a per-transaction basis is a useful abstraction. Bitcoin uses x energy in total, and this energy verifies/secures roughly 300k transactions per day. So this measure shows the value we get for all that electricity, since the verified transaction (and our confidence in it) is ultimately the end product…This averages out to a shocking 215 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of juice used by miners for each Bitcoin transaction (there are currently about 300,000 transactions per day). Since the average American household consumes 901 KWh per month, each Bitcoin transfer represents enough energy to run a comfortable house, and everything in it, for nearly a week. Since 2015, Bitcoin's electricity consumption has been very high compared to conventional digital payment methods. This is because the dollar price of Bitcoin is directly proportional to the amount of electricity that can profitably be used to mine it.

Unfortunately for the environmentalists, the Bitcoin price – as every bull knows – entered the parabolic phase in 2017. This Bloomberg chart calculates the number of days for each $1,000 rise in price.

While Motherboard states that De Vries model isn’t perfect and “makes assumptions about the economic incentives available to miners at a given price level”, the website makes the point that there is clearly a “problem”. According to Motherboard…

That problem is carbon emissions. De Vries has come up with some estimates by diving into data made available on a coal-powered Bitcoin mine in Mongolia. He concluded that this single mine is responsible for 8,000 to 13,000 kg CO2 emissions per Bitcoin it mines, and 24,000 – 40,000 kg of CO2 per hour. As Twitter user Matthias Bartosik noted in some similar estimates, the average European car emits 0.1181 kg of CO2 per kilometer driven.

 

So for every hour the Mongolian Bitcoin mine operates, it's responsible for (at least) the CO2 equivalent of over 203,000 car kilometers travelled.

However, you’ve probably been thinking what we’ve been thinking. While the price is going parabolic now, Bitcoin usage might go parabolic in the future, problem solved. While it might help, De Vries pointed out the structural flaw…

As goes the Bitcoin price, so goes its electricity consumption, and therefore its overall carbon emissions. I asked de Vries whether it was possible for Bitcoin to scale its way out of this problem.

 

"Blockchain is inefficient tech by design, as we create trust by building a system based on distrust. If you only trust yourself and a set of rules (the software), then you have to validate everything that happens against these rules yourself. That is the life of a blockchain node," he said via direct message.

Motherboard reflects on the cost of Bitcoin’s environmental footprint versus the benefits of a decentralized payment system which avoids the “Too Big To Fails” and their smaller brethren.

This gets to the heart of Bitcoin's core innovation, and also its core compromise. In order to achieve a functional, trustworthy decentralized payment system, Bitcoin imposes some very costly inefficiencies on participants, for example voracious electricity consumption and low transaction capacity. Proposed improvements, like SegWit2x, do promise to increase the number of transactions Bitcoin can handle by at least double, and decrease network congestion. But since Bitcoin is thousands of times less efficient per transaction than a credit card network, it will need to get thousands of times better. In the context of climate change, raging wildfires, and record-breaking hurricanes, it's worth asking ourselves hard questions about Bitcoin's environmental footprint, and what we want to use it for. Do most transactions actually need to bypass trusted third parties like banks and credit card companies, which can operate much more efficiently than Bitcoin's decentralized network? Imperfect as these financial institutions are, for most of us, the answer is very likely no.

It’s certainly food for thought, even for die-hard libertarians, like ourselves. Then again, perhaps less so for libertarians who’ve been loaded up with Bitcoins in the past few weeks. They would likely be more interested in the bull, bear and neutral cases for Bitcoin in the Bloomberg article linked above. Here is the summary.

With the rhetoric for and against heating up this week amid bitcoin’s barrelling gains, here’s a look at where some big names in finance stand — from those who see it as the natural evolution of money, to the naysayers waiting for the asset to crash and burn.

Bitcoin’s Backers

  • The digital currency’s evangelists are led by Roger Ver, known in the industry as “Bitcoin Jesus.” Ver remains optimistic about bitcoin’s sustainability amid attempts from governments like China to curb some of the more speculative elements of trading. “The only way to stop (bitcoin) is to turn off the entire Internet in the entire world and keep it turned off,” he said in a September interview with Bloomberg News.
  • Some countries are jumping on the bitcoin bandwagon, with Argentina’s most important futures market considering offering services to investors in digital currencies, while Turkish Central Bank Governor Murat Cetinkaya said digital currencies may contribute to financial stability if designed well.
  • Ronnie Moas, who for the past 13 years has made more than 900 stock recommendations via his one-man show at Standpoint Research, upped his 2018 price forecast to $11,000 from $7,500 on Friday. He maintained his $50,000 target for 2027, though he said it was conservative.

Bitcoin’s Detractors

  • Severin Cabannes, deputy chief executive officer at Societe Generale SA, was the latest big bank official to weigh in, saying that “Bitcoin today is in my view very clearly in a bubble,” in a Bloomberg Television interview Friday.
  • Speculation around bitcoin is the “very definition of a bubble,” Credit Suisse Group AG CEO Tidjane Thiam told reporters in Zurich on Thursday. “The only reason today to buy or sell bitcoin is to make money,” and such speculation “has rarely led to a happy end,” Thiam said.
  • Themis Trading LLC raised a red flag this week after CME Group Inc. announced plans to introduce bitcoin futures, saying the world’s largest exchange owner appeared to have “caved in” to pressure from clients. “A bitcoin future would be placing a seal of approval around a very risky, unregulated instrument that has a history of fraud and manipulation,” the firm said in a blog post.
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon remains one of Wall Street’s most strident bitcoin opponents, saying in October that people who buy the currency are “stupid” and that governments will eventually crush it.

On the Fence

  • While CME’s decision to offer bitcoin futures by the end of the year appears to be an endorsement of the currency’s viability, CEO Terry Duffy demurred when asked whether he’s concerned about a potential bubble. “I’ve seen a lot of different bubbles over the last 37 years,” he said on Bloomberg TV. “It’s not up to me to predict if it’s a bubble or not — what I’m here to do is to help people manage risk.”
  • Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein isn’t sure what to make of bitcoin and is unwilling to reject the digital currency just yet. “I know that once upon a time, a coin was worth $5 if it had $5 worth of gold in it,” Blankfein said in another Bloomberg TV interview. “Now we have paper that is just backed by fiat … maybe in the new world, something gets backed by consensus.”
  • While Thomas J. Lee of Fundstrat Global Advisors has turned cautious on bitcoin in the short term because of its big gains, he remains a long-term bull on the digital currency — maintaining a 2022 price target of $25,000.

Unfortunately for the environmentalists, we suspect the Bitcoin horse has bolted and only the dreaded hand of government can rein it back.

via http://ift.tt/2ixbQkF Tyler Durden

Oil Jumps To $56, Highest Since July 2015 Following Saudi Turmoil

With the launch of electronic trading, WTI crude has jumped from the highest close since July 2015 amid Saudi turmoil which over the weekend included a crackdown on 11 Saudi princes – including billionaire Alwaleed – and dozens of current and former ministers as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, i.e. MbS, who’s backed policy of capping oil output to raise prices, consolidates power with anti-graft probe, and shortly after a helicopter that carried 8 high-ranking Saudi officials inexplicably crashed near the Yemen border

As shown in the chart below, December WTI briefly touched $56, and was up +0.5% to $55.87/bbl shortly after 6pm ET, the highest price since July 6, 2015…

… while January Brent was also higher by 0.5% to $62.39/bbl.

via http://ift.tt/2hI9ek6 Tyler Durden

The Deflating Rally

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Record prices continue to be printed on US indices as the global multiple expansion on the heels of still ongoing record central bank intervention has yet to slow down in a significant way.

All central banks were in essence dovish in recent days and weeks, whether the FOMC, the ECB, the BOE and of course the ever active BOJ as well as the SNB as it showed a new record $88B in direct holdings of US stocks.

Yet, despite the record prices on indices, the rally appears to be deflating from within.

In the past several weeks I’ve pointed out a very specific pattern of positive internals on market opens and then a very distinct pattern of internals weakening throughout most days:

This trend has impacted the cumulative advance/decline picture and shows that recent highs have come on a negative cumulative advance/decline:

Since this rally began with massive global central bank intervention in February 2016 the cumulative advance/decline picture has often been cited as a sign of underlying core strength in markets. This picture has changed:

Recent highs came on negative divergences in relative strength despite index prices continuing to advance in a seemingly steady trend.

Yet the internal picture is practically collapsing.

Take the recent highs in the Nasdaq.

Ever since the beginning of October all new highs in the $NDX have come on fewer new highs versus new lows. Indeed Friday’s $NDX highs came on the lowest expansion yet:

On $NDX itself we can observe a complete collapse in the amount of stocks above the 50MA as $NDX printed new highs. Only 56% of components are still above the 50MA:

A similar picture can be observed on the $SPX:

And of particular note: All recent highs have come on a negative $NYMO:

The message: Somebody is selling this market. Every day. And it’s very cleverly done as to not disturb the seeming tranquility in markets.

Note that despite all the selling volatility compression continues at a record pace as during each Friday, no matter what happens in the world, the $VIX is ensured a close below 10 by week’s end:

You’d think we’d have more volatility with such an internal breakdown in stocks. But the concentration of market cap in only a handful of stocks continues to mask the selling underneath.

On an equal weight basis we’ve noted the divergence in markets for quite some time. This indicator has now fallen off the cliff as the correlation has completely broken down:

As has the yield curve which hasn’t believed in this rally in months:

2017 has seen more central bank intervention on a global basis than ever. But this party is slowly coming to an end. And while central banks will still intervene in 2018 it will be at a reduced pace. The last time we’ve seen central banks intervene at a reduced pace? 2015. And it produced sizable selling in the summer of 2015 and at the beginning of 2016 forcing record intervention since then.

All global markets have proven is that they can perform splendidly with record intervention:

2018 will then be a test case how well markets can fare with less than record intervention, a new reality. Another new reality: Soon US markets will also have their answer in regards to tax cuts. All will be priced in one way or the other.

And, from the looks of it, someone has begun selling ahead of both of these emerging realities. And once the rest of the market takes notice we suspect Friday $VIX closes below 10 may suddenly become a thing of the past.

via http://ift.tt/2y5n71U Tyler Durden

Trump Wanted Japan’s “Samurai Warriors” To Shoot Down North Korean Missiles: Report

Ahead of Trump’s visit to Asia, there were understandable concerns that a diplomatic snafu was imminent. Those concerns were partially justified after a report from Japan Times according to which Trump said Japan should have shot down the North Korean missiles that flew over the country before landing in the Pacific Ocean earlier this year. The Japanese publications cited sources who claim that Trump questioned Japan’s decision not to shoot down the missiles when he met or spoke by phone with leaders from Southeast Asian countries over recent months to discuss how to respond to the threats from North Korea.

After North Korea launched ballistic missile tests on both August 29 and September 15 which flew over Hokkaido and landed in the Pacific Ocean, Trump was reportedly confused: “The U.S. president said he could not understand why a country of samurai warriors did not shoot down the missiles“, the sources said.

As Japan Times adds, “the Self-Defense Forces did not try to intercept the missiles, with the government saying the SDF had monitored the rockets from launch and judged they would not land on Japanese territory”

Furthermore, the altitude and speed of the missiles would have made it very difficult to destroy them in flight, while failure would have been embarrassing for Japan and encouraging to North Korea. Defense Ministry officials confirmed this view and said there were also legal issues to clear.

Had Japan shot down the missile, it could have faced serious ramifications, such as a military response from North Korea as The Hill correctly observes. Trying and failing to shoot down the missile also could have had consequences.  Shortly after the August test by North Korea, a U.S. warship successfully shot down a medium-range ballistic missile in a test launch off the coast of Hawaii.

Separately, during his speech upon arriving in Japan, Trump provoked more diplomatic squirming when he delivered a not-so-veiled threat to North Korea leader Kim Jong-un, which however some interpreted as an unpleasant reminder of Japan’s militant past, when he warned the world, namely dictators, not to underestimate “America’s resolve” in a speech at Yokota Air Base on Sunday. Trump touted American military strength in a speech at the United States Air Force base near Tokyo in the first leg of his Asian tour.

“No one, no dictator, no regime, and no nation should underestimate ever American resolve,” the president said. “Every once in a while in the past they underestimated us. It was not pleasant for them. Was it? It was not pleasant.” The warning to North Korea, which some Japanese analysts saw as a not so thinly veiled reference to Japan actions in World War II can be heard 10:40 into the clip below:

“We will never yield. Never waiver, and never falter in defense of our people, our freedom, and our great American flag” Trump continued. “We dominate the sky. We dominate the sea. We dominate the land and space. Not merely because we have the best equipment, which we do, and by the way, a lot of it is coming in. You saw the budget. That’s a lot different than the past. A lot of beautiful brand new equipment is coming in. And nobody makes it like they make it in the United States. Nobody,” Trump told troops in an airplane hangar.  “As long as I am president, the servicemen and women who defend our nation will have the equipment, the resources, and the funding they need to secure our homeland, to respond to our enemies quickly and decisively, and when necessary, to fight, to overpower, and to always, always, always win,” Trump promised.

* * *

Still, despite the potential diplomatic flaps, the meeting between Trump and Abe passed largely without a glitch, with Japan’s Prime Minister lavishing Trump with a welcome reserved for formal state guests during his visit to Japan, looking to use hospitality to highlight close ties with its powerful ally.

According to the Nikkei, Abe and his wife Akie on Sunday treated Trump and first lady Melania to a dinner featuring Ise lobster and wagyu beef at a high-end teppanyaki, or table grilling, restaurant in Tokyo’s ritzy Ginza district. This was the first of four meals the leaders will eat together in just two days. Trump also kicked off his visit with a round of golf with Abe and Japanese professional player Hideki Matsuyama.

The president is also slated to meet with the prime minister at the State Guest House, and a meeting with Emperor Akihito is on the agenda as well.

Trump is in Japan for an official working visit, which ranks behind state and official visits in terms of formality. Tokyo decided against the state guest designation given that this is just one leg in a longer tour of Asia, a senior Foreign Ministry official said.

State visits in Japan are customarily limited to just one or two per year, with only one a decade from any given country. Japan just received a state guest from the U.S. in April 2014 — then-President Barack Obama. But Trump is receiving treatment on a par with a state guest. “It’s pretty unusual for the prime minister to give a guest such constant attention — even the U.S. president,” a Japanese government source observed. Abe joined Obama for two dinners during the 2014 trip, but the two ate lunch separately.

A top Foreign Ministry official noted the contrast between Obama’s “businesslike” visit and the treatment offered to Trump. “Showing Trump hospitality is the main focus this time,” the official said. Tokyo hopes to showcase the strong U.S.-Japan alliance to not only Asia — amid mounting tensions with North Korea — but the international community as a whole.

via http://ift.tt/2lSPaQx Tyler Durden

Eric Peters: “The Next Market Cleanse Will Be Sharp, Deep, Fast And Feel Like The End Of The World”

The latest weekend note by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management, is his latest masterpiece in lyrical, stream of consciousness, financial analysis, and can be broadly divided into to broad parts: his latest take on financial markets analyzing the build up of disequilibrium which eventually culminates with discrete “flushes” that reset the system; how bold investors inevitably give up on financial sense and logic long (or just) before said flush takes place, and what this upcoming Minsky Moment could mean for the future. We have excerpted from this section in the current note, as for the remainder of his weekend observations – which deal with tectonic macro and geopolitical shifts – we will follow up in a subsequent post.

Anecdote: “The most common example is a ball sitting atop a hill,” she said, polished accent, hint of condescension. “Locally stable, but one nudge and it’s all over.”

 

 

She drove terribly fast, discussing Minsky Moments; the idea that persistent stability breeds instability. “Naturally each cycle is different in key respects, and that’s because you’re far better at preventing past problems from recurring than new ones from arising.”

 

I smiled, amused, insulted. “Despite knowing this all too well, you humans remain inexplicably fixated on the rearview mirror. And this blinds you to all manner of hazards ahead.”

 

She initiated a few perfect turns of the Tesla, dodging a squirrel or two, tumbling, unhurt. “The source of instability in this cycle is your dissatisfaction with ultra-low bond yields.” $8trln of sovereign debt carries a negative yield, still our central bankers buy. “You should logically respond to this historic rise in valuations across asset classes with a reduction in your expectations for future returns.” I nodded. “But instead you respond with indignation.”

 

So I explained to her that without robust growth and a compounding stream of uninterrupted 7.5% returns, our entitlement systems will implode. They probably will anyway. And lacking the stomach for an honest accounting of this predicament, we prefer to pretend it doesn’t exist.

 

“Is this humor or sarcasm?” she asked. “Both,” I answered. “Fascinating, anyhow, you then demand that we algorithms produce mathematically impossible returns. So we apply leverage, which makes nearly anything possible, even at valuations that are 99th percentile in all of human history. The more leverage we apply, the more stable your system appears. The flatter your hilltop.

 

Naturally, we ensure that today’s leverage looks different from yesterday’s disaster, recognizing your powerful aversion to repeating recent mistakes.” And I stared out the window, lost in thought, fall’s kaleidoscope whizzing by.

Surrender:

“The giant miss in this cycle has been the duration of financial repression,” he said. The Bank of England had just hiked rates for the first time in a decade. Doubling them to 0.50%. Faced with an inflation rate of 3% and 5yr/5yr inflation swaps priced at 3.4%, the BOE estimated just two more 25bp interest rate hikes in the coming 3yrs. 10yr government bonds yield 1.26%. For years, every incremental increase in inflation expectations has led to lower real yields. “Financial repression has been so beaten into investors that they appear to have given up.”

Equilibrium:

Long lasting adjustments occur when large imbalances need to be cured,” said my favorite strategist. “They require decisive policies, without which you can become trapped.” He turned to Tokyo. “70% of Japanese corporates pay no taxes because of the loss-carry-forward from 30yrs ago.” Policy makers never allowed the 1989 collapse to properly cleanse. “This is incredibly inefficient and the government knows exactly what to do.” But no one has the will. “So you end up with this perpetual ho hum outcome, lifted and lowered by the global cycle.” 

 

“This is where Japan finds itself today,” continued the same strategist. “A cyclical upswing and a renewed excitement about Abenomics, but not much changes until they really address the structural issues.” Only Japanese banks are really cheap; trading at 50% of book.

 

But banks have no loan demand for as far as the eye can see. And the firms that could borrow, invest, and create disruption by wiping out inefficient supply chains are prevented from doing so by government policy to forestall the cleanse of something that happened 30yrs ago.”

Flush:

“We have few big structural imbalances in the US,” he said. “Admittedly there are large generational imbalances but these won’t be cured today.” Entitlements, pensions, states, and municipalities are tomorrow’s problem. “US imbalances are really just financial.” The bank and residential real estate flush from our last crisis has left both in better balance. Student loans are a problem, but not systemic. Same for auto loans.

 

“But we’ve had this financial engineering cycle of buybacks, ETFs, passive strategies, leveraged quant investing, crowding.”

 

“The thing about flushing the excesses of financial engineering is that it can happen quickly,” he continued. “You saw that happen in 1987 for instance. And like then, it need not have a massive impact on the economy.”

 

For financial engineering to take down an economy, its unwind needs to devastate large balance sheets. And it’s not clear where that would happen today.

 

“The next cleanse will be sharp, deep, fast, and will feel like the end of the world, but it won’t be. It’ll slow economic growth for sure, but 18mths later we’ll be back near the highs.”

via http://ift.tt/2y5fRmM Tyler Durden

US Boosts Special Operations Forces Presence At Russia’s Border

Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The deployment of US Special Operations Forces in Europe is never in spotlight but it is rapidly increasing. There can be no other purpose than acquisition of capability to deliver strikes deep into Russia’s territory.

The Trump administration is relying heavily on Special Operations Forces (SOF). They are deployed to 137 countries or 70% of them in the world. At least 8,000 of SOF are operating in around 80 countries at any given moment. The numbers have ballooned from a few thousands in the 1980s to 70,000 at present. In 2016, the US deployed special operators to Taiwan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Laos, the Philippines, South Korea, and Japan. In 2006, 3 percent of special operators deployed overseas were in Europe. In 2016, the number topped 12 percent.

Much has been said recently about SOF operations in Africa, which are going to expand and intensify. Formally, they are on train and assist missions to counter terrorist threats. But one can hardly imagine the need to deploy such special purpose forces from overseas to fight terrorists in the Old Continent.

The United States increased the presence of SOF in Europe four times last year. The forces are mainly deployed near Russia’s borders, including such countries as the Baltic States, Romania, Poland, Ukraine and Georgia. In 2017, SOF have deployed to more than 20 European countries.

In March, SOF (Army Green Berets) trained along local troops in Lapland, Finland, during exercise Northern Griffin 2017. In May, Navy SEALs were part of exercise Flaming Sword 17 in Lithuania. In June, members of the US 10th Special Forces Group trained near Lubliniec, Poland. In July, naval SOF took part in Sea Breeze annual military exercise in Ukraine. In August, special-tactics combat controllers from the 321st Special Tactics Squadron surveyed the two-lane highway, deconflicted airspace and exercised command and control on the ground and in the air to land A-10s from the Maryland Air National Guard's 104th Fighter Squadron on the Jägala-Käravete Highway, Estonia. Also in August, SOF took part in Exercise Noble Partner in Georgia.

According to Major Michael Weisman, a spokesman for US Special Operations Command Europe, “Outside of Russia and Belarus we train with virtually every country in Europe either bilaterally or through various multinational events.”

In April-May, 2017, Naval Special Warfare operators from US Special Operations Command along with NATO special operations forces from Albania, Bulgaria and Lithuania took part in exercise Saber Junction 17 at the Joint Multinational Readiness Centre in Germany. Ukraine and Georgia were among participating countries. In addition to the integration of US SOF, a simulated resistance force was introduced into the exercise through the use of the Lithuanian National Volunteer Defence Force.

American commandos have deployed quietly to the Baltic States. Dozens of United States Special Operations forces have a “persistent” presence there to train special operators.

This year, a United States National Guard Special Forces group based in Birmingham, Alabama, was tasked with learning the Russian language, including military terminology, as well as history, culture and traditions in what appears to be a preliminary phase of a potential overseas operation. This is the start of a five-year program to prepare National Guard SOF. The language course is expected to last from three to six weeks. It includes military terminology and the practical application of command terms. In addition, instructors are supposed to provide an overview of regional cultural awareness, including important dates and personalities.

The SOF are deployed in the proximity of Russia’s borders under the pretext of defending the allies scared of potential “Russian aggression”. If they were, they would ask for general purpose forces, such as Army units, equipped with defensive weapon systems to protect their borders. They would not need SOF, which are offensive strike units just like US Marines in Norway. Instructors specializing in defensive operations, not SOF, are needed to prepare forces for repelling adversary’s attacks. What SOF and Marines can teach is the art of carrying out first strikes. Their deployment in Europe is never in spotlight but it is rapidly increasing. There can be no other purpose than acquisition of capability to deliver strikes deep into Russia’s territory.

via http://ift.tt/2zmKsQj Tyler Durden

Democratic Leaders’ Responses To Brazile Allegations Expose A Widening Rift

Donna Brazile's shocking revelations about how the Clinton campaign rigged the 2016 primary to favor Hillary and disadvantage the insurgent press of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have exposed a divide in the Democratic Party that is manifesting itself in the stark difference in tone between establishment figures, who've crticized Brazile and sought to rebut her claims, and members of the party's progressive wing, who've offered messages of support.

Nowhere is this contrast more evident than in the responses from Tom Perez, who took over from Brazile as permanent DNC Chairman late last year, and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, who had challenged Perez's bid for the chairmanship of the party.

As USA Today pointed out, at issue are the joint funding agreements signed by the presidential campaigns for Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, which allowed whoever won the nomination to take control of the party. Perez explained in a statement that the joint fundraising agreements were the same for both Clinton and Sanders.

While both men pledged to reform the party in the wake of revelations that Obama left it in debt and that it was financially ill-prepared for the 2016 race,

"Our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential campaigns the opportunity to set up a JFA and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those funds were used to best prepare for the general election," Perez said.

 

Meanwhile, Ellison, who was handed the party vice-chairmanship as a sop following his surprisingly strong challenge against Perez, said in a statement published by the Washington Post that Brazile's allegatins shouldn't be ignored.

"We must heed the call for our party to enact real reforms that ensure a fair, open and impartial nominating process in elections to come," he said in a statement published Friday by The Washington Post.

 

"I'm committed to working with Chairman Perez to make the DNC more transparent and accountable to the American people, whether that's by ensuring that debates are scheduled far ahead of time or by guaranteeing that the terms of joint fundraising agreements give no candidate undue control or influence over the party."

Still, both Perez and Ellison emphasized that they would work with the DNC's Unity Reform Commission on reforms for the party.

Meanwhile, Perez appeared on NBC's State of the Union to push back against Brazile's claims about Clinton's health.

"She was tireless she was a workhorse what saddens me more than anything is that after people read that….they’ll start wondering about other claims in the book."

In an interview, former Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said that the JFA, by its nature, benefited the candidate who could set up high-dollar fundraisers, and that the DNC did not help Sanders organize large donors.

“Who are the wealthy people Bernie was going to bring to a fundraiser?” Weaver asked. “They never set up a single event.”

Zerlina Maxwell, formerly the director of progressive media for the Clinton campaign, took to CBS to respond to Brazile's claims. The aide's tone was critical, but during the interview, she appeared to corroborate what Brazile said.

“She is correct that under Obama the DNC languished and that DWS didn’t do a good enough job. The committee was broke when the 2016 election came around.

Maxwell added that relitigating the 2016 race doesn't help the party move forward.

“As a party, relitigating 2016 doesn’t get us anywhere.”

She also made the absurd claim that the party was too broke and incompetent to rig the primary.

"The Democratic party was broke; they didn’t have the capacity to rig the election against Bernie. I think the timing couldn’t be worse in terms of where the party needs to go going forward. We need space for us to be more transparent as a party and focus on what the opposition is, which is the Trump administration, and the policies they’re putting forward."

Overall, some of her rebuttals echoed those listed in an open letter to Brazile signed by more than 100 Clinton campaign staffers.

Most notably, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the party needs to change its procedures for selecting candidates, and if changes aren't made the party will have "a real problem."

"My reaction to it is the conversation I had with Tom Perez...I said look Tom your number one job is to bring in Bernie and Bernie supporters and the people in this country who don't have confidence in the Democratic Party and its process…you need to ensure that the Democratic party works for the people…not the other way around."


 

Warren added that Perez is "being tested" and that there are negotiations going on to possibly change the rules surrounding the selection of the next nominee, and that the rules going forward "are rules that are fair for everyone."

The DNC will meet next month to hear recommendations from a “unity commission” that has met four times, in four cities, to research problems with the primary process and debate reforms. Multiple state Democratic chairs are lobbying specifically for new language in the party bylaws about JFAs, an issue that might be forced at a later meeting.

via http://ift.tt/2y3zefP Tyler Durden