Arizona’s GOP Has Become a Trump Cult

sfphotosfour783540

“He is with us,” the speaker in the video urged viewers. “He loves the United States of America and he loves the American people. Have no doubt!” It was a performance worthy of an obscure religious TV channel stumbled upon during a late-night bout of insomnia, but it was actually a January 8 update from Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward. She spoke in what she obviously assumed were reassuring terms of her conversation with President Donald Trump after the January 6 storming of the Capitol. “What an amazing president we have,” she added, in a demonstration of the sad decay of the state’s Republican organization from a political party into a cult of personality.

Once upon a time, the Arizona GOP nursed a distinctly individualistic skepticism of government and politicians. Long-time U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater famously wrote, “my aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.” A hand-wringing September 2020 Kurt Anderson column in The New York Times held Goldwater responsible for introducing Milton Friedman’s free-market economic ideas to a wide audience during events that “opened the door to libertarian economics.”

Sam Steiger, a colorful five-term member of the House of Representatives, said there were some of his colleagues “you wouldn’t hire to wheel a wheelbarrow.” He ran for governor as a Libertarian in 1982, earning 5 percent of the vote. When he returned to the Republican fold to unsuccessfully seek the party’s 1990 gubernatorial nomination, the Phoenix New Times noted that while he had backed off advocacy of drug legalization, Steiger “is an admitted ‘Libertarian at heart.'”

Those were Republicans you couldn’t really imagine assuring party faithful that a politician “loves” them. Grudging tolerance for an officeholder was more characteristic for their breed.

Since then, however, the Arizona GOP has undergone a strange transformation. It took a distinctly nativist and nationalist turn, best exemplified by Joe Arpaio, who held the office of Maricopa County sheriff for 24 years.

Where Goldwater promoted a Bracero-type temporary worker program to make illegal border crossings less tempting, and Steiger accused the Immigration and Naturalization Service of exaggerating illegal immigration in order to pad its budget requests, Arpaio made border enforcement the focus of his local law enforcement department. He went so far as to ignore a judge’s order to stop detaining people his officers suspected of undocumented status—earning himself a conviction for contempt of court in the process. (Trump pardoned the former sheriff.)

Beyond Arpaio, the Arizona Republican Party tied itself to anti-immigrant sentiment, pushing through in 2010 a controversial law that allowed police to stop and question suspected migrants and requiring aliens to carry registration papers on them at all times. Much, though not all, of the law was declared unconstitutional, but the legislation still influences state political divisions and strongly colors perceptions of the GOP.

The anti-immigrant sentiments of SB 1070 were embodied on the national scene by Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he claimed. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

That was too much even for Arpaio, who responded, “I don’t think the majority of people from Mexico are rapists and murderers.” But it struck a chord with Arizona Republicans, who delivered the state to Trump in 2016. Subsequently, Goldwater-esque Republican Sen. Jeff Flake declined to run for reelection when support within the party eroded over his opposition to “the transformation of my party from a party of ideas to a party in thrall to a charismatic figure peddling empty populist slogans,” as he put it in a Washington Post essay.

Since then, the Arizona GOP has doubled-down on its break with its past, becoming not even a nationalist-populist party, but a cult-like vehicle for one man: Donald J. Trump. Even before party chairwoman Ward assured the faithful of the love of their leader, the party called upon its devotees for sacrifice. “He is. Are you?” the party’s official Twitter account chimed in on December 7 after a “Stop the Steal” activist boasted “I am willing to give my life for this fight” in efforts to overturn Trump’s election loss.

The party isn’t yet entirely consumed by Trumpism. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, has championed old-school issues such as school choice. He’s been savaged by the usual suspects for his relatively light touch in terms of mandated restrictions and lockdowns in response to the pandemic. Ducey also appointed libertarian legal scholar Clint Bolick to serve on the Arizona Supreme Court.

But the governor’s defense of the integrity of the state’s voting process won him a juvenile slap from Kelli Ward, who tweeted #STHU (shut the hell up) at her party’s own elected official. Ward had unsuccessfully challenged the vote tally after the presidential election.

The Arizona Republican Party’s transformation into a Trumpist cult isn’t just antagonizing a governor elected from its ranks, it’s eroding the organization’s support by alienating whole segments of the population. After Flake decided against running for reelection, his former seat went to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in 2018. Democrat Mark Kelly defeated incumbent Trumpist Republican Martha McSally (who was appointed) for the other seat in 2020. And, in a squeaker of a vote, the state’s electoral votes went to Joe Biden in the latest presidential contest.

“A big factor in this slippage of political fault lines has been the mobilization of the state’s growing Hispanic population and other communities of color by grassroots organizations, led by mostly young local organizers,” notes IPS News. “Over the past decade, Hispanic groups have grown strong by pushing back against the free-range bigotry and nativism of the state’s Republican establishment.”

Libertarian Jo Jorgensen’s vote total far exceeded the razor-thin margin between Biden and Trump in November—an election in which voters also overwhelmingly legalized recreational marijuana. That would seem to indicate a path for reviving the Goldwater/Steiger individualist tradition in state politics—except that Arizona Republicans already anticipated that threat. In a 2015 move overtly intended to keep Libertarians off the ballot, lawmakers hiked access hurdles for aspiring candidates from a couple of hundred signatures to several thousand.

“If we’re not on the ballot, we’re going to all vote Democrat,” Libertarian activist Barry Hess snapped in response. “Screw them!”

Probably less from libertarian disgust than because they’ve wandered down the dead end of political cultism, Republicans in Arizona do look screwed. Whether they can unscrew themselves after the object of their veneration has been ejected from national politics is anybody’s guess.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3slgNQl
via IFTTT

Arizona’s GOP Has Become a Trump Cult

sfphotosfour783540

“He is with us,” the speaker in the video urged viewers. “He loves the United States of America and he loves the American people. Have no doubt!” It was a performance worthy of an obscure religious TV channel stumbled upon during a late-night bout of insomnia, but it was actually a January 8 update from Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward. She spoke in what she obviously assumed were reassuring terms of her conversation with President Donald Trump after the January 6 storming of the Capitol. “What an amazing president we have,” she added, in a demonstration of the sad decay of the state’s Republican organization from a political party into a cult of personality.

Once upon a time, the Arizona GOP nursed a distinctly individualistic skepticism of government and politicians. Long-time U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater famously wrote, “my aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.” A hand-wringing September 2020 Kurt Anderson column in The New York Times held Goldwater responsible for introducing Milton Friedman’s free-market economic ideas to a wide audience during events that “opened the door to libertarian economics.”

Sam Steiger, a colorful five-term member of the House of Representatives, said there were some of his colleagues “you wouldn’t hire to wheel a wheelbarrow.” He ran for governor as a Libertarian in 1982, earning 5 percent of the vote. When he returned to the Republican fold to unsuccessfully seek the party’s 1990 gubernatorial nomination, the Phoenix New Times noted that while he had backed off advocacy of drug legalization, Steiger “is an admitted ‘Libertarian at heart.'”

Those were Republicans you couldn’t really imagine assuring party faithful that a politician “loves” them. Grudging tolerance for an officeholder was more characteristic for their breed.

Since then, however, the Arizona GOP has undergone a strange transformation. It took a distinctly nativist and nationalist turn, best exemplified by Joe Arpaio, who held the office of Maricopa County sheriff for 24 years.

Where Goldwater promoted a Bracero-type temporary worker program to make illegal border crossings less tempting, and Steiger accused the Immigration and Naturalization Service of exaggerating illegal immigration in order to pad its budget requests, Arpaio made border enforcement the focus of his local law enforcement department. He went so far as to ignore a judge’s order to stop detaining people his officers suspected of undocumented status—earning himself a conviction for contempt of court in the process. (Trump pardoned the former sheriff.)

Beyond Arpaio, the Arizona Republican Party tied itself to anti-immigrant sentiment, pushing through in 2010 a controversial law that allowed police to stop and question suspected migrants and requiring aliens to carry registration papers on them at all times. Much, though not all, of the law was declared unconstitutional, but the legislation still influences state political divisions and strongly colors perceptions of the GOP.

The anti-immigrant sentiments of SB 1070 were embodied on the national scene by Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he claimed. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

That was too much even for Arpaio, who responded, “I don’t think the majority of people from Mexico are rapists and murderers.” But it struck a chord with Arizona Republicans, who delivered the state to Trump in 2016. Subsequently, Goldwater-esque Republican Sen. Jeff Flake declined to run for reelection when support within the party eroded over his opposition to “the transformation of my party from a party of ideas to a party in thrall to a charismatic figure peddling empty populist slogans,” as he put it in a Washington Post essay.

Since then, the Arizona GOP has doubled-down on its break with its past, becoming not even a nationalist-populist party, but a cult-like vehicle for one man: Donald J. Trump. Even before party chairwoman Ward assured the faithful of the love of their leader, the party called upon its devotees for sacrifice. “He is. Are you?” the party’s official Twitter account chimed in on December 7 after a “Stop the Steal” activist boasted “I am willing to give my life for this fight” in efforts to overturn Trump’s election loss.

The party isn’t yet entirely consumed by Trumpism. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, has championed old-school issues such as school choice. He’s been savaged by the usual suspects for his relatively light touch in terms of mandated restrictions and lockdowns in response to the pandemic. Ducey also appointed libertarian legal scholar Clint Bolick to serve on the Arizona Supreme Court.

But the governor’s defense of the integrity of the state’s voting process won him a juvenile slap from Kelli Ward, who tweeted #STHU (shut the hell up) at her party’s own elected official. Ward had unsuccessfully challenged the vote tally after the presidential election.

The Arizona Republican Party’s transformation into a Trumpist cult isn’t just antagonizing a governor elected from its ranks, it’s eroding the organization’s support by alienating whole segments of the population. After Flake decided against running for reelection, his former seat went to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in 2018. Democrat Mark Kelly defeated incumbent Trumpist Republican Martha McSally (who was appointed) for the other seat in 2020. And, in a squeaker of a vote, the state’s electoral votes went to Joe Biden in the latest presidential contest.

“A big factor in this slippage of political fault lines has been the mobilization of the state’s growing Hispanic population and other communities of color by grassroots organizations, led by mostly young local organizers,” notes IPS News. “Over the past decade, Hispanic groups have grown strong by pushing back against the free-range bigotry and nativism of the state’s Republican establishment.”

Libertarian Jo Jorgensen’s vote total far exceeded the razor-thin margin between Biden and Trump in November—an election in which voters also overwhelmingly legalized recreational marijuana. That would seem to indicate a path for reviving the Goldwater/Steiger individualist tradition in state politics—except that Arizona Republicans already anticipated that threat. In a 2015 move overtly intended to keep Libertarians off the ballot, lawmakers hiked access hurdles for aspiring candidates from a couple of hundred signatures to several thousand.

“If we’re not on the ballot, we’re going to all vote Democrat,” Libertarian activist Barry Hess snapped in response. “Screw them!”

Probably less from libertarian disgust than because they’ve wandered down the dead end of political cultism, Republicans in Arizona do look screwed. Whether they can unscrew themselves after the object of their veneration has been ejected from national politics is anybody’s guess.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3slgNQl
via IFTTT

Intel Soars After CEO Bob Swan Announces Resignation

Intel Soars After CEO Bob Swan Announces Resignation

Dan Loeb wins again.

Just two weeks after Third Point launched an activist campaign targeting Intel, when on Dec 29, Dan Loeb sent a letter to the chip-challenged semiconductor company urging it “to evaluate strategic alternatives” including “potential divestment of certain failed acquisitions,” and in which Loeb said that Intel’s most urgent task was addressing its “human capital management issue”, as many of its talented chip designers have fled, “demoralized by the status quo”, moments ago we got the latest departure of “human capital” when CNBC reported that CEO Bob Swan was stepping down effective February 15, and would be replaced by VMWare CEO Pat Gelsinger .

The stock has reacted furiously, surging as much as 9% premarket.

Developing

 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/13/2021 – 09:07

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/35B8rdP Tyler Durden

A Senatorial Impeachment Two-Step?

My initial instinct, when discussions began in earnest about a second impeachment proceeding in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Capitol—was it really only one week ago?!—was to dismiss the prospect as too blunt and unwieldy for the task at hand.

There can be no question that President Trump committed impeachable offenses in connection with the events of (and leading up to) Jan. 6. But the Senate can only remove a president from office after it has convened a “trial”; the Constitution uses the verb form, giving the Senate the power to “try,” not to “decide” or to “hold hearings” or to “consider,” impeachment. And it seemed to me, as a matter of fundamental due process to which even a president who has committed impeachable and perhaps even criminal acts is entitled, that a “trial” requires giving the defendant adequate notice of the charged offenses, allowing the defendant time to prepare a defense, allowing him to present evidence and to question witnesses, etc. etc.

All of which would clearly be impossible to achieve before Jan. 20, when the primary object of such a proceeding—the removal of President Trump from office—would already have occurred.

But Ilya Somin’s post (The Case for a Swift Impeachment), and some additional reflection and study, has convinced me otherwise. It’s true that the Senate must conduct a “trial,” but as Ilya points out, that hardly requires the sort of full-blown due process protections that would be required in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding.

Donald Trump surely has a constitutional right not to be deprived of his life, his liberty, or his property without the full panoply of due process protections, including the right to an attorney, to confront witnesses against him, etc.

But removing him from office is not such a deprivation. He does not have a constitutional right to exercise presidential power, which was bestowed on him by the American people, and which can be taken away by their elected representatives in a constitutionally-sanctioned impeachment proceeding. Given the threat his continued exercise of that power poses to the nation, I see no reason why it cannot be taken away from him via some sort of summary Senatorial proceeding.

Removal from office, of course, is not the only post-conviction remedy available to the Senate in an impeachment proceeding; it may also impose a “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

Disqualifying Donald Trump from future office-holding would be a significant step forward in the process of healing the many wounds he has inflicted upon this country. It would allow—not guarantee, but allow—the Republican Party to reconstitute itself as a voice of principled conservativism, rather than of slavish devotion to whatever whims had seized Donald Trump that morning.

Disqualification, however, changes the due process calculus rather substantially.  Donald Trump, like any other “natural born Citizen … having attained to the Age of thirty five Years,” does have a constitutional right to run for and be elected to the Office of president, and depriving him of that right via some sort of summary proceeding strikes me as constitutionally improper.

The solution seems pretty straightforward: A bifurcated impeachment proceeding.  Remove him from office immediately and summarily; then, in Part 2, consider whether the charges warrant disqualification from future office-holding in a more extended proceeding that gives (ex)-president Trump the opportunity to defend himself.

Indeed, the Senate can make its final judgment contingent upon the completion of a full-blown Part 2 impeachment trial, as a way of reassuring any Senators who might be uncomfortable denying the President his “day in court” in a Part 1 summary proceeding. The Senate’s Part 1 judgment, ordering the President’s removal, could include a provision to the effect that the judgment would expire, and would be expunged from the record and of no further force and effect, unless the Senate convicts in a full-blown Part 2 proceeding within __ months. [by which time, obviously, his removal from office would be a literal fait accompli.]

Now that Vice-President Pence has stated that he will not invoke the 25th Amendment, this would seem to be the one remaining route to accomplishing a very important goal: Removing Donald Trump from office and preventing him from using the final days of his presidency to inflict further damage on the republic. The days leading up to and including Inauguration Day could well be very difficult ones, and he has amply demonstrated that he should not be entrusted with the powers of the presidency during such times.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sjc3Lb
via IFTTT

Pelosi Names Eric Swalwell As House Impeachment Manager

Pelosi Names Eric Swalwell As House Impeachment Manager

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Speaker Nancy Pelosi shocked many in Washington by appointing Eric Swalwell as a house managers in the impeachment of President Donald Trump as he continues to face calls for his removal from the House Intelligence Committee due to his alleged intimate relationship with a Chinese spy. 

Swalwell has been hunkered down to avoid questions from the media and the public, but he will now be one of those prosecuting the case against the President.

He allegedly first met the spy, Fang Fang or Christine Fang, in 2011. She not only raised money for Swalwell but reportedly had a personal relationship with him. She also pushed successfully for his office to accept an intern. He cut ties with her in 2015 after the FBI contacted him. Pelosi made no mention of the scandal in heralding Swalwell’s credentials:

“Congressman Swalwell serves on House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where he chairs the Intelligence Modernization and Readiness Subcommittee, and on the Judiciary Committee,” Pelosi’s office said in a statement. “He is a former prosecutor and is the son and brother of law enforcement officers.  He is serving his fifth term in Congress.”

Usually a speaker selects House managers to reinforce the credibility and integrity of the case against a president. Even before the current scandal, Swalwell was viewed as a member who was a raw partisan. Last year, it was revealed that (despite long denials) the FBI did send an agent to report on his observations within the Trump campaign. As I discussed in a column, Democratic members spent years mocking allegations that there was any spying or surveillance of Trump or his campaign by the FBI. That was just a conspiracy theory. Now however there is proof that the FBI used a briefing in August 2016 of then candidate Trump to gather information for “Crossfire Hurricane,” the Russia investigation. It turns out that it did not really matter after all and Rep. Eric Swalwell did not miss a step. Swalwell declared that such targeting of the opposing party and its leading presidential candidate was “the right thing to do.” That’s it. A conspiracy theory suddenly becomes a commendable act.

Previously, Swalwell also declared that  if President Donald Trump refused to give Congress the documents and witnesses that it has demanded, he is clearly guilty of all charged offenses.

Swalwell declared “We can only conclude that you’re guilty.”

The Swalwell selection is clearly part of a rehabilitation campaign. Swalwell remained secluded as the many in the media refused to carry the story, let alone investigate it.  A member of the House Intelligence Committee carried on an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy but major media largely blacked out coverage as they did on the Hunter Biden story. Now Pelosi will use the impeachment as a way for Swalwell to reemerge from seclusion . . . as the accuser and prosecutor of President Donald Trump.

While there are good faith reasons for calling for impeachment, there remain serious questions over the speed and basis for the impeachment.  My concern is primarily over the use of a snap impeachment without even a hearing to discuss the implications of this action. That makes the House managers even more important in bringing credibility to this effort. This is putting politics ahead of the institution in my view.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/13/2021 – 08:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3qgCfEl Tyler Durden

US Consumer Prices Rise For Seventh Straight Month, Shelter Inflation At Decade Lows

US Consumer Prices Rise For Seventh Straight Month, Shelter Inflation At Decade Lows

Today’s inflation print is key. After significant signs of cost pressures (PMIs all signaling record or near record rising prices) and commodity prices breaking out from multi-year downtrends, analysts did expect a bump in CPI but nothing overly concerning.

As Marija Veitmane, senior multi-asset strategist at State Street Global Markets, warned,The market is very relaxed about it and should we get high inflation that would be a big pressure. The 10-year is probably the key variable to watch. If you have a very strong positive surprise then you will probably start thinking about the Fed being a bit more aggressive in their intervention and pushing yields lower.”

The final print actually matched expectations, rising 0.4% MoM (vs +0.2% MoM in November) pushingthe YoY print for the headline CPI up to +1.4%. This is the seventh straight rise in consumer prices..

Source: Bloomberg

Goods inflation is accelerating as the rise in services costs are slowing rapidly…

Source: Bloomberg

A silver lining, of sorts, is that shelter/rent inflation is slowing dramatically…as home prices soar?

  • Shelter Inflation 1.84% Y/Y, lowest since Nov 2011

  • Rent inflation 2.28% Y/Y, lowest since Oct 2011

The debacle of ‘owner-equivalent rent’ strikes again: According to BLS housing inflation is at 10 year low even as home prices surge 8%, a 7 year high.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/13/2021 – 08:36

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ibtWGY Tyler Durden

Blain On QE’s Consequences For Bitcoin, Bonds, & Bullion

Blain On QE’s Consequences For Bitcoin, Bonds, & Bullion

Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com,

“Weebols wobble but they don’t fall down..”

This morning’s comment is going to be brief for two reasons. 1) I am busy on a deal, and 2) it’s about bonds, which are definitionally boring and I don’t want held responsible for readers falling asleep at their desks….

US bond yields have been rising since New Year, so yesterday’s US 10-year Bond auction was more interesting than most – the market was looking carefully for signs, signals and auguries of further rises in bond yields to come: a Bond Bear Market! I even read that most dangerous of comments: “bond yields have reached an inflection point”, according to one bank rates strategist. 

Should we pack our bags and run for the hills in terror and fear of a looming bond market panic? (If you are not a fixed income/bond market aficionado perhaps I should make clear: rising bond yields are a bad thing meaning prices fall, and rising prices mean yields fall. Clear? Excellent.. let us proceed.)

Watch bond yields very carefully. I’ve spent my career in finance believing the basis of everything is: In bond yields there is always truth

However, the first thing is that truth is about the last thing many folk want to hear at the moment when it comes to bubblicious equity prices and the speculative trades currently dominating the pages of the financial press. The market’s dirty little secret is it’s been ultra-low bond rates that have been fuelling market madness, making nonsensical concepts look like financial genius on a “relative basis” to negative yields. If bond yields were to rise, it won’t just be bond holders that suffer.

The second issue is that since the Global Financial Crisis 2007/31 began, central banks have been manipulating bond yields, compromising that fundamental truth of bond yields. When bond yields are no longer set by the market, but by the QE policies of central bans, then There Will Be Consequences…. I fear these are upon us!

The immediate threat receded when yesterday’s 10-year auction did better than expected – firming up around 1.13%. That’s still well above the 1% threshold we though were sacrosanct about a thousand years ago on Jan 1st 2021. The real yield of the US 10-year bond – its notional yield less inflation – is still deeply negative around -ve 0.90%! Who wants to own bonds that cost nearly 1% in real returns? 

Well… lots of people apparently do – or maybe did. This year we’ve already seen a slew of European sovereigns drop new negative yield bonds into the market. The ECB will be hitting the market with more of its rescue fund bonds to prop up ailing Covid ravaged economies. Over $18 trillion of global debt now trades with notional negative yields! And folk keep buying them – mainly because central banks like the ECB and The BOJ have promised to keep lapping them up. There is talk about the Bank of England finally going down the negative yield route because of the dire state of the economy – which would mean UK Gilts should rally.

The US 10-year bond yield was over 3% back in Nov 2018. Since then it rallied hard on the back of trade war slowdown, Trump demanding the Fed caved into his demands to juice the economy, and then the Pandemic. A 2% change in yields might not sound much, but the mathematics of bonds mean that a drop from 3% to 1% in yield creates a spectacular return for bond holders. 

(One day I will get round to writing an article on bond maths (US readers – note, its maths, not math), but at the moment life is too short to squander… (Adrian J… you’re bored.. fancy writing it for me?) 

Low bond yields have enormous consequences. They make bonds look less attractive from a return perspective – therefore other assets look more attractive. That rally in bonds has driven much of the relative value rally in stocks. Smart investors have ridden yields lower, and have piled their profits into higher-risk equities in search of relatively higher returns – so the conventional wisdom says. 

But now… .after 2 years of bond rally, it’s clear bond yields – which rallied all through the Pandemic year – have now turned. Oh dear.. that sounds rather like inflection point.. Rising rates would makes sense to investors – they all expect the global economy to recover post pandemic, they fear all the government aid, support and unrestrained money printing will create real inflation, and therefore bond yields will/must rise. 

Rising rates would hit the wisdom of low rates driving the equity rally: as long as equity prices continue to post startling returns (fuelled by low rates) then all is well and good. But if bond yields were to rise…. Then the equation starts to change.

As I wrote yesterday, its highly unlikely we will actually see yields rise by any significant amount… In the US, the new Biden presidency is expected to stimulate the economy. Central Banks will not contemplate tightening in the devasted post-Covid economic landscape… the economic strength of the Covid-ravaged global economy is too perilous, rising rates would hold back investment, etc…. but I suspect their real fear is a market collapse. As the Taper Tantrum way back in 2013 demonstrated (when the Fed tried to undo the supports given to markets after the 2008 global financial crisis) markets will go into meltdown at any sign of rates being normalised. 

A market collapse would not just be the optics of falling stock market valuations. It would have very real consequences on individual savings and pensions, on banks, on the flow of the economy and, as we saw in 2007/08, create very real economic misery in terms of employment and growth. Its politically unacceptable. 

The threat of higher yields will no doubt trigger further Fed action to continue to “average down” rates via bond buying QE programmes. The danger is such market intervention, manipulation or even repression – depending on your political stance to markets – has its own consequences. These have been piling on top of each other since 2008.

One of the Big Questions in markets at the moment is the adoption of Bitcoin. The fanboy shysters say Bitcoin has now been widely adopted and accepted as better than gold, and that’s why it’s rising. The nay-sayers look at the volatility and say it’s a speculative bubble…   

I suspect a big issue behind sensible, serious investors actually taking time to even consider Bitcoin is the as yet unfelt consequences of the QE repression of real interest rates. 

Bitcoin was founded in financially illiterate libertarian mumbo-jumbo about how fiat money is controlled by pernicious governments. The bitcoin touts say their money is better than Govt money: “why trust government and take the risk of fiat money when governments are abusing their position as monopoly money suppliers by devaluing currencies through unrestricted money printing and negative yields..” Terrrible! Shocking! they say… “Trust us instead… Give us your money in exchange for these magic beans imaginary coins.. sure you can trust us and our imaginary invisible currency that only exists on an ethereal platform we say exists…” 

Sure.. makes sense to me… NOT! If the consequence of these many years of QE is Bitcoin.. then we really are in trouble.

Bitcoin is just one of many speculative bubbles feeding off the detritus and consequences of QE and monetary yield repression. Which is why I’m staying long on gold for the time being…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/13/2021 – 08:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MWTKv3 Tyler Durden

A Senatorial Impeachment Two-Step?

My initial instinct, when discussions began in earnest about a second impeachment proceeding in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Capitol—was it really only one week ago?!—was to dismiss the prospect as too blunt and unwieldy for the task at hand.

There can be no question that President Trump committed impeachable offenses in connection with the events of (and leading up to) Jan. 6. But the Senate can only remove a president from office after it has convened a “trial”; the Constitution uses the verb form, giving the Senate the power to “try,” not to “decide” or to “hold hearings” or to “consider,” impeachment. And it seemed to me, as a matter of fundamental due process to which even a president who has committed impeachable and perhaps even criminal acts is entitled, that a “trial” requires giving the defendant adequate notice of the charged offenses, allowing the defendant time to prepare a defense, allowing him to present evidence and to question witnesses, etc. etc.

All of which would clearly be impossible to achieve before Jan. 20, when the primary object of such a proceeding—the removal of President Trump from office—would already have occurred.

But Ilya Somin’s post (The Case for a Swift Impeachment), and some additional reflection and study, has convinced me otherwise. It’s true that the Senate must conduct a “trial,” but as Ilya points out, that hardly requires the sort of full-blown due process protections that would be required in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding.

Donald Trump surely has a constitutional right not to be deprived of his life, his liberty, or his property without the full panoply of due process protections, including the right to an attorney, to confront witnesses against him, etc.

But removing him from office is not such a deprivation. He does not have a constitutional right to exercise presidential power, which was bestowed on him by the American people, and which can be taken away by their elected representatives in a constitutionally-sanctioned impeachment proceeding. Given the threat his continued exercise of that power poses to the nation, I see no reason why it cannot be taken away from him via some sort of summary Senatorial proceeding.

Removal from office, of course, is not the only post-conviction remedy available to the Senate in an impeachment proceeding; it may also impose a “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

Disqualifying Donald Trump from future office-holding would be a significant step forward in the process of healing the many wounds he has inflicted upon this country. It would allow—not guarantee, but allow—the Republican Party to reconstitute itself as a voice of principled conservativism, rather than of slavish devotion to whatever whims had seized Donald Trump that morning.

Disqualification, however, changes the due process calculus rather substantially.  Donald Trump, like any other “natural born Citizen … having attained to the Age of thirty five Years,” does have a constitutional right to run for and be elected to the Office of president, and depriving him of that right via some sort of summary proceeding strikes me as constitutionally improper.

The solution seems pretty straightforward: A bifurcated impeachment proceeding.  Remove him from office immediately and summarily; then, in Part 2, consider whether the charges warrant disqualification from future office-holding in a more extended proceeding that gives (ex)-president Trump the opportunity to defend himself.

Indeed, the Senate can make its final judgment contingent upon the completion of a full-blown Part 2 impeachment trial, as a way of reassuring any Senators who might be uncomfortable denying the President his “day in court” in a Part 1 summary proceeding. The Senate’s Part 1 judgment, ordering the President’s removal, could include a provision to the effect that the judgment would expire, and would be expunged from the record and of no further force and effect, unless the Senate convicts in a full-blown Part 2 proceeding within __ months. [by which time, obviously, his removal from office would be a literal fait accompli.]

Now that Vice-President Pence has stated that he will not invoke the 25th Amendment, this would seem to be the one remaining route to accomplishing a very important goal: Removing Donald Trump from office and preventing him from using the final days of his presidency to inflict further damage on the republic. The days leading up to and including Inauguration Day could well be very difficult ones, and he has amply demonstrated that he should not be entrusted with the powers of the presidency during such times.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sjc3Lb
via IFTTT

The 14th Amendment Disqualification Gambit

As people search around for some means of taking action against President Donald Trump in light of the events of the past several weeks, and particularly of January 6, some have alighted on a previously obscure part of the Constitution. This is not the way.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress in 1866, and its first section extending new federal protection to the rights of individuals has been the most consequential. Section Three has mostly faded into practical irrelevance. It states:

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In short, it disqualifies from office those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution but subsequently engage in insurrection or given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.

The reason for wanting to include such a provision in the Constitution in the aftermath of the Civil War is obvious. It largely fell into disuse as time went on. The provision is very oddly structured, however, it that it gives no indication of how it is to be authoritatively determined that someone had engaged in insurrection nor how the disqualification is to be enforced in the case of such individuals.

But this is where things get interesting for President Trump. Can Congress, for example by majority vote on a concurrent resolution, simply declare that Trump has engaged in an insurrection and disqualify him from ever holding the office of president again? That would be a neat trick in that it would avoid the difficulties of winning conviction in a Senate trial by a two-thirds majority.

In the Washington Post, Daniel Hemel walks through why this is a strained interpretation of Section Three and why it would be a bad idea. I recommend checking it out. Myles Lynch has a draft article working through the history of how Section Three has actually been applied.

A Senate impeachment trial may not adhere to the same standards of due process as an ordinary judicial proceeding, but there is a reason why the punishment of disqualification can be applied only after a trial and a conviction before a court with a high hurdle for a guilty verdict. “Insurrection” is not a political offense like “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is a criminal act in violation of the criminal code and capable of being adjudicated in ordinary criminal courts. If Section Three is to be applied, then it should follow a criminal conviction for engaging in an insurrection.

If instead partisan majorities can simply declare that individuals have participated in, encouraged, or given aid to insurrections, then it is not hard to imagine how the scope of “insurrection” could grow, the evidence that an individual had actually engaged in one could be thin to none, and how this power could be turned against political opponents. How many Democratic politicians would a Republican majority in Congress be willing to disqualify from holding future office given their expressed views on various protests turned riots? It would be better not to find out.

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

The 14th Amendment Disqualification Gambit

As people search around for some means of taking action against President Donald Trump in light of the events of the past several weeks, and particularly of January 6, some have alighted on a previously obscure part of the Constitution. This is not the way.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress in 1866, and its first section extending new federal protection to the rights of individuals has been the most consequential. Section Three has mostly faded into practical irrelevance. It states:

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In short, it disqualifies from office those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution but subsequently engage in insurrection or given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.

The reason for wanting to include such a provision in the Constitution in the aftermath of the Civil War is obvious. It largely fell into disuse as time went on. The provision is very oddly structured, however, it that it gives no indication of how it is to be authoritatively determined that someone had engaged in insurrection nor how the disqualification is to be enforced in the case of such individuals.

But this is where things get interesting for President Trump. Can Congress, for example by majority vote on a concurrent resolution, simply declare that Trump has engaged in an insurrection and disqualify him from ever holding the office of president again? That would be a neat trick in that it would avoid the difficulties of winning conviction in a Senate trial by a two-thirds majority.

In the Washington Post, Daniel Hemel walks through why this is a strained interpretation of Section Three and why it would be a bad idea. I recommend checking it out. Myles Lynch has a draft article working through the history of how Section Three has actually been applied.

A Senate impeachment trial may not adhere to the same standards of due process as an ordinary judicial proceeding, but there is a reason why the punishment of disqualification can be applied only after a trial and a conviction before a court with a high hurdle for a guilty verdict. “Insurrection” is not a political offense like “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is a criminal act in violation of the criminal code and capable of being adjudicated in ordinary criminal courts. If Section Three is to be applied, then it should follow a criminal conviction for engaging in an insurrection.

If instead partisan majorities can simply declare that individuals have participated in, encouraged, or given aid to insurrections, then it is not hard to imagine how the scope of “insurrection” could grow, the evidence that an individual had actually engaged in one could be thin to none, and how this power could be turned against political opponents. How many Democratic politicians would a Republican majority in Congress be willing to disqualify from holding future office given their expressed views on various protests turned riots? It would be better not to find out.

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