Category: zerohedge

By Ven Ram, currency and rates strategist for Bloomberg’s Markets Live

Gold already boasts several qualities that enhance its allure: a hedge against inflation, a haven asset, a friend in need. Add one more to the list: convexity.

When real rates decline, gold’s value tends to go up more than it declines when yields climb. That’s based on analysis of the metal’s duration, which measures percentage changes in reaction to a 1ppt shift in underlying interest rates, and convexity, which gauges the change in duration in response to yields.

To measure duration, I took into account the value of gold against real rates, as delineated by the path of linker bonds in the U.S., over the past decade. I then used interest-rate simulation to see how the metal would move in response

The analysis shows that the duration of gold is 17 when interest rates go up and 20 when yields trend lower, suggesting that the second derivative of the shift in rates is alive and kicking. Back in 2018, Pimco found a duration of almost 30.

If real interest rates shift 100 basis points lower from current levels, gold prices may approach $2,500 an ounce, while a similar move higher would send the metal to around $1,700.

Gold has been on a tear this year, having surged 35% in response to a 120-basis point slump in real interest rates. Other catalysts include low global yields; erosion of confidence in global fiat money in general and a weaker dollar in particular; unbridled global monetary and fiscal stimulus; investor purchases through exchange-traded funds in response to uncertainty about the evolution of the pandemic.

However, the outlook for gold gets murky once it goes to around $2,500 an ounce. Beyond that level, it would imply a massive plunge in real rates and an even sharper rally in breakevens than what we have already seen.

Correlations suggest these factors would also imply a big decline in nominal 10-year yields, which currently sit near 0.50%. Such a move would essentially mean the markets are pricing in a depression-like scenario. Should it play out, the study indicates gold may be propelled toward $3,000 should real yields slump to -3.15%.

Given that gold has a longer duration than linkers, the metal offers a balance sheet-economical way to hedge against inflation.

There are some limitations to note for the study. It looked at the behavior of gold just in the past decade, but the metal has a far longer history and its duration may change depending on the time frame. Meanwhile, the methodology used nominal gold prices. But given how anemic inflation has been in the past decade, it’s unlikely to have distorted the findings.

Also, while there are many factors that play into the price of gold, I studied the effect of only changes in real yields to isolate their impact.

All told, gold’s positive convexity means that investors’ gains will be amplified if real rates fall and their losses will be limited if rates rise. In an environment of heightened uncertainty, it’s about as close as they could get to a win-win scenario.

Small Caps are soaring… short-squeezed ever higher but the big tech Nasdaq is down hard today…

Bonds are being sold

And gold (and silver) are being dumped…

 

Is “good” jobs news, “bad” money-printing/stimulus news? And therefore “sell it all”?

 

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

When Vice President Calvin Coolidge ascended to the presidency on the death of Warren Harding in 1923, a wag remarked that Silent Cal’s career had exhibited unmistakable signs of celestial intervention.

Governor Coolidge vaulted to national attention during the Boston police strike of 1919, where, in a stinging letter to Sam Gompers of the AFL, he thundered: “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time.”

If Joe Biden becomes president, celestial intervention, once again, cannot be ruled out.

Consider.

In the first Democratic contest in 2020 in Iowa, Biden, though the clear front-runner in the national polls, ran a humiliating fourth. In New Hampshire, a week later, he ran fifth. In Nevada, Joe was crushed again by Bernie Sanders but edged out Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar thanks to his loyal African American base.

Came then South Carolina where the Black vote, 60% of the total, gave Biden a triumph — and the momentum that propelled him to a sweeping victory on Super Tuesday. Biden’s delegate count became so large it was virtually impossible for Sanders to overcome.

That March, however, which had begun with the resurrection of Biden’s campaign, was also the month the COVID-19 pandemic hit in full fury, sinking the exuberant economy that had been Donald Trump’s ticket to reelection.

At that point, Biden went to earth. Through the spring of 2020 and this summer, he has socially distanced himself from the press and the public and sheltered in place in a basement bunker as the worst pandemic in a century drove down the best economy in decades to Depression-era levels. The last quarter alone saw a 9% plunge in our gross domestic product.

If Biden wins in November, then his “basement bunker” campaign will be studied by historians alongside the “front porch” campaign of Harding that led to the 1920 landslide victory over Democrat James M. Cox.

Yet, several scheduled events could still upend Biden’s take-no-risks-and-run-out-the-clock strategy.

The first is his choice of a vice presidential nominee, which Biden has promised will be a woman.

However, if Biden restricts his choice to a Black woman, as some have insisted, he eliminates from consideration every governor and senator in the party save Kamala Harris.

And if all the media attention given to Harris and other VP candidates fails to produce that Black woman, in this hour of renewed demands for racial equality, Biden will have some serious explaining to do to the core constituency that saved his bacon in South Carolina.

There is another danger in Biden’s choice.

When General Eisenhower chose Richard Nixon in 1952, the liberal press ginned up a story about a “secret Nixon slush fund,” so intense that Ike was almost stampeded into dropping his running mate.

In 1972, Sen. George McGovern’s campaign failed in its due diligence on his vice presidential choice, and McGovern was forced to drop Sen. Tom Eagleton from his ticket and replace him with Sargent Shriver.

Moreover, given Biden’s age — he would be the oldest president ever inaugurated by eight full years — his choice will have to be seen by the nation as a credible president.

A second hurdle for Biden is his speech accepting the Democratic nomination.

The country would be watching intently to see if the Biden of August 2020 had lost the mental and communication skills he once had.

But Biden’s advisers bypassed that hurdle this week by declaring that the pandemic prevents Biden from traveling to the Milwaukee convention.

This leaves the three presently scheduled debates as perhaps the last major hurdles between Biden and the presidency.

Since 1960, when John F. Kennedy established himself as a credible challenger to Vice President Nixon in the first of four debates, these confrontations have often proven critical.

In 1976, President Gerald Ford severely damaged his chances of holding onto the office he had inherited from Nixon when he insisted during his debate with Jimmy Carter that Poland, then under Soviet control, was a free nation.

Ronald Reagan used his 1980 debate with Carter to show with his wit and demeanor that he was anything but the reactionary of the major media’s depiction.

For Trump to regain lost ground, he must convince the country that not only is he the right man to manage America’s way out of the health crisis, economic crisis and racial crisis that were none of his doing, but that Biden has lost the physical rigor and mental capacity to cope with the triple crisis. And the best, and perhaps last, place to do that is in the debates.

The left understands this, which is why we are suddenly seeing media suggestions that Biden should cancel the debates.

A terrified left wants Joe Biden to coast to victory, and many on that side share a belief that this may be the only way he gets there.

The Chinese investment bank, China Renaissance, found that President Trump’s executive order to ban U.S. residents from doing any business with Chinese messenger WeChat in about 45 days would have little impact on Tencent Holding’s revenue. 

“Tencent’s non-China revenue (2019) accounted for less than 5% of total revenue (Ex. 1). Tencent disclosed that 23% of total online game revenue came from non-China markets in 4Q19, and we estimate U.S. revenue accounted for 20-30% of total non-China game revenue. As such, we estimate Tencent’s current revenue exposure to the U.S. is less than 3%, with earnings exposure less than 5%.“

Tencent, the owner of WeChat, saw shares plunged 5% in Hong Kong trading on Friday after President Trump issued the executive order to ban not just WeChat but also TikTok, a video app popular with Americans. 

While the details for the ban are unclear, China Renaissance offers their thoughts on this developing story, concentrating on potential financial impacts:

What’s the scope of the ban?

1. The executive order prohibits “any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with Tencent Holdings Ltd, or any subsidiaries of that entity, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce”.
2.  The executive order notes that after 45 days, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce shall “identify the transactions that will be subjected to the ban”.

What’s unclear at the moment?

1. It is unclear whether the ban focuses solely on “WeChat the product” or “Tencent the corporation, along with its subsidiaries”. The wording of the executive order seems to allow interpretation in both scenarios, which would have drastically different financial consequences, in our view.
2.  If focused solely on WeChat, it would presumably result in the WeChat app stopping operation for users in the U.S. However, if applicable to “Tencent the corporation”, there could be notable disruption to Tencent’s online game operation and its investment portfolio in U.S. companies, in our view.
3. According to L.A. Times (link), citing a U.S. government official, the ban mainly targets transactions related to the WeChat app but not transactions with Tencent.
4.  It is still unclear whether the ban will lead to WeChat being removed from China’s iOS app store, considering Apple (AAPL US, BUY, T.P.: US$478.40, Jason Sun) is under U.S. jurisdiction (over 200mn MAU of WeChat on iOS system in China, per QuestMobile).
5.  Also, it’s unclear whether the ban will block U.S. companies from using WeChat business functions, including payment and mini programs, to reach consumers in China.

Tencent is the largest video game publisher in the world by revenue. And if the proposed ban of WeChat by Washington is really an attack to crush the publisher, then it’s kind of pointless considering exposure in U.S. markets is fairly limited: 

“We believe WeChat itself has immaterial business and financial exposure to the U.S.,” China Renaissance said. 

However, the story gets more complex, Tencent “has manageable revenue and investment exposure in the U.S.” Some of those investments include:

“For instance, Riot Game and Supercell, two leading global game developers, are majority-owned by Tencent. It also has a minority holding in Activision Blizzard (ATVI US, Not Covered) and Tesla (TSLA US, NC), among others,” the Chinese bank said.

If the Trump administration goes ahead with the banning of WeChat and TikTok next month, well, it would certainly confirm a technology war between both countries is underway. That would result in a retaliatory response by China… 

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Due to failed reopenings people have been called back to work only to be laid off again.

The California Policy Lab has interesting insights into Unemployment Insurance Claims in  California During the COVID-19 Pandemic.  

Key Findings

1. The number of  initial UI claims has increased steadily from May 17th to July 18th, followed by a slight drop in the week of July 25th . In each of the last nine weeks, regular initial UI claims were over two times the peak of weekly initial claims during the Great Recession, yet data from continuing claims indicates a gradual decline in the number of individuals collecting benefits each week.

2. The steady rise in initial claims since May 17th is nearly entirely explained by an increasing number of additional claims—claims which are “reopened” after a claimant’s temporary return to work, implying many workers suffered from repeated layoffs during the crisis. In the week ending July 25th, 57% of regular initial claims were additional claims, compared to just above 40% before the crisis, and 5% during the peak. [Lead Chart]

3. This is the first study publishing the number of unique claimants in the state, instead of tallying all initial claims, which results in substantial double-counting. 6.23 million unique California claimants, or 32% of the California workforce, has filed for UI benefits since the start of the COVID-19 crisis in mid-March. Since many of these 6.23 million workers have filed multiple claims, this total is substantially smaller (24% less) than the 8.18 million initial claims that have been filed in the same period.

4. In the week ending July 11th, 3.46 million claimants, or about 18% of the CA labor force, were eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Unlike more common statistics of weekly UI payment receipt, we are able to count claimants in terms of when they were unemployed, not when they were paid (which is usually several weeks later, and complicated by varying processing lags). 

5. Without the $600 per week additional benefits from FPUC, half of all individuals receiving UI benefits would have received payments below the Federal Poverty Level. California claimants have received $35.5 billion in FPUC payments for unemployment experienced between the start of the program and July 11th.

6. In the week ending July 11th , a total of 529 thousand individuals (or 2.7% of the labor force) either received partial UI or were denied benefits because of excess earnings. The share of paid claimants receiving partial benefits has risen substantially since early May, but ticked down during the week ending July 11th. This indicates a substantial fraction of individuals that recently returned to work are working reduced hours and may still be receiving unemployment benefits. 

Impact of $600 Weekly Checks

FPUC benefits made a substantial difference for UI claimants in CA. For example, $914 per week ($314 + $600) puts the median claimant at about 55% of median family income (MFI), and above the HUD threshold for “very low-income” (50% MFI). The claimant would still be deemed “low-income” (below 80% MFI) in the absence of other income sources in the household

California Not Unique

Points number two, five, and six are the key ideas. 

California is not unique. This implies millions of workers nationally are suffering through repeated layoffs and reduced hours. 

PUA Dependency

Nationally, about 13 million workers are solely dependent on PUA, having no state benefits. 

Some of those people are working part-time. Working or not, the weekly $600 checks stopped flowing  on July 25. 

Progress?

There is still a Huge Gap Between the GOP and the Democrat Stimulus Plans but we keep hearing reports of progress.

The alleged progress is so great that Trump Weighs Imposing His Stimulus Plan, Constitution be Damned.

An Air India Express Boeing 737 from Dubai appears to have broken apart on landing at Kozhikode Airport in Kerala, India. 

BREAKING: Air India Express Boeing 737-800 VT-AXH has crashed on landing in heavy rain at Kozhikode/Calicut, India after arriving from Dubai as #IX1344 . Around 200 people are believed to be on board. Images show the fuselage broken into three sections. More soon. pic.twitter.com/zmlAQbqgrA

— Airport Webcams (@AirportWebcams) August 7, 2020

India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) said there were 191 people on board and visibility was around 2000 meters at the time of the incident. 

BBC News said the incident occurred around 19:00 local time (14:30 BTS) during heavy rainfall.

Here’s the Boeing 737 broken in two pieces. 

Closer view of the plane. 

New Delhi Television Limited posted a video on Twitter showing rescue operations were underway after the plane ‘overshot’ the runway during landing. 

Watch | Rescue operations underway as Air India Express flight from Dubai with 184 passengers overshoots runway during #Kerala landing pic.twitter.com/G6h6weg9JF

— NDTV (@ndtv) August 7, 2020

#AirIndia express Flight skid off to 30 feet down from runway and broke into two pieces. Rescue operation is on #Kozhikode#Calicut pic.twitter.com/aME699hezO

— Vivek Bajpai विवेक बाजपेयी (@vivekbajpai84) August 7, 2020

Flight data shows the plane either made a couple attempts to land or circled around the airport before crash landing. 

At the moment, there are no official injury reports. 

*Developing 

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio just got the ‘green light’ from the governor’s mansion to move ahead with his vague ‘hybrid outline’ for reopening NYC schools in the fall.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said all school districts in the state can reopen in September if they have low infection rates but is leaving the exact details up to local school districts to ensure ‘maximum flexibility’.

If another wave of infections emerges, guidance will change, Cuomo said.

As schools reopen NYS is requiring all school districts to:

1) Post their remote learning plans & their testing/tracing plans online

2) Set dates for 3-5 discussion sessions with parents & community (prior to Aug 21)

3) Have at least one separate discussion with teachers alone

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) August 7, 2020

NYC is now one of the only big cities in the country that will offer some form of in-person instruction now that Chicago and LA schools will be focusing on entirely virtual education.

With the state now on track to reopen, there’s little doubt that in 1 month public officials in NYC and elsewhere around the state will be dealing with a surge in new cases, which the media will immediately make into a much bigger problem than it actually is, resulting in the city being completely shut again by October. 

Parents of NYC students now have until Friday to decide whether to “opt out” and start the year with remote learning.

“By our infection rates, all school districts can open,” Cuomo said Friday on a conference call with reporters. “Everywhere in the state, every region is below the threshold that we established, which is just great news.”

NYC has the largest school system in the US, with 1.1 million students. Parents across the city were left struggling to juggle work and essentially home-schooling their kids in the spring. Teachers Unions have opposed reopening in-person, but the pressure on Cuomo from parents was clearly too great. Some have projected that school closures would crush the NYC economy, one of the most vibrant engines of economic growth in the US.

In other news, Con Edison and the governor’s office announced on Friday that 200,000 homes in Manhattan are still without electricity in the latest Manhattan blackout following the hurricane earlier this week.

The US dollar surged Friday after President Trump issued executive orders banning the Chinese messaging app WeChat and video-sharing app TikTok. The ban will take effect in 45 days has sparked further deterioration in Sino-US relations. 

The dollar rebound against the Swiss franc, the pound, and the euro, as the safe-haven trade was ignited by what could seemingly be a technology war between the US and China. 

Morgan Stanley published a note Friday (seen by Reuters) indicating the greenback is at the most oversold level in 40 years, with rising probabilities of a near term reversal. 

The investment bank recently exited its dollar-bearish trade as it turned “tactically neutral” on the safe-haven currency while closing longs in euro and Australian dollar. 

Morgan Stanley said its Combined Market Timing Indicator for equity markets triggered a “sell” signal, the first time since January 2018. 

“With global markets appearing tactically stretched a sell signal on our MTI (market timing indicator) would certainly add to the notion that upside on markets may be capped near term,” the bank warned clients. 

As Morgan Stanley recognizes a short squeeze in the greenback could be ahead, we noted last week the short dollar trade has likely become an overcrowded trade shown via CFTC data. 

Shorting the dollar accelerated this summer. Goldman’s FX strategist continues to push out bearish notes: 

We remain bearish on the USD driven by a pro-cyclical global growth outlook (we note that our Global Economics team expect at least one vaccine to be completed by this year), continued overvaluation of the USD (currently by 15% vs. our GS DEER model), a lower likelihood of US asset market outperformance compared to previous years, and still-lopsided long USD positioning. Moreover, our Global Rates team expects US real rates to drop further into negative territory. In this report, we interpret what the above conditions mean for NJA FX and rates markets. – Goldman Sachs Economist Danny Suwanapruti

With conflicting views of the dollar’s trajectory between Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, there could certainly be a squeeze forming… 

Maybe it’s only a matter of time before the greenback is deemed a safe-haven as mounting geopolitical risks, waning global recovery, and rising virus cases in Western countries have already materialized. 

By Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations

While much speculation inside the Beltway says U.S. Attorney John Durham will punt the results of his so-called Spygate investigation past the election to avoid charges of political interference, sources who have worked with Durham on past public corruption cases doubt he’ll bend to political pressure — and they expect him to drop bombshells before Labor Day.

Durham’s boss, Attorney General Bill Barr, also pushed back on the notion his hand-picked investigator would defer action. Under Democratic questioning on Capitol Hill last week, he refused to rule out a pre-election release.

“Under oath, do you commit to not releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the November election?” Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) asked Barr, citing longstanding Justice Department policy not to announce new developments in politically sensitive cases before an election.

“No,” the attorney general curtly replied.

Justice Department policy prohibits prosecutors from taking overt steps in politically charged cases typically within 60 days of an election. Accordingly, Durham would have to make a move by the Friday before Labor Day, or Sept. 4. 

A low-profile prosecutor, Durham has kept a tight lid on his investigation into the origins of the specious Russiagate investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign, leading to rampant speculation about who he might prosecute and whether he would take action ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election.

That could well be of historic consequence, since his probe involves both the Trump administration and high-level officials in the previous administration, including Trump’s presumptive Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Recently declassified FBI notes show Biden offered input into the investigation of Trump adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017. Another declassified document reveals that Biden was among those who requested Flynn’s identity be “unmasked” in foreign intelligence intercepts around that same time.

If Durham announces criminal indictments or plea agreements involving former officials operating under the Obama-Biden administration, or releases a report documenting widespread corruption, independent voters could sour on Biden and sympathize with Trump.  On the other hand, kicking the ball past the election could dispirit Trump’s base.

“I would find it hard to believe that he punts under any circumstances,” said former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker, who knows Durham personally and has worked with the hard-nosed prosecutor on prior investigations.

He pointed out that Durham would risk throwing away 16 months of investigative work if he delayed action beyond the election.

“There’s no question that if Biden is elected, everything Durham has done at that point will be canceled out,” Swecker explained, adding that Biden would replace Barr and possibly even Durham. But by putting indictments and reports “into the public arena” before the election, Durham would put a Biden administration in the position of either taking further action or closing down his probe.

“It would make it very difficult for Biden’s appointees to undo his charges or bury the results of his probe,” he said. “John knows this and I fully expect he will take action before the election.”

Swecker, who’s also a former prosecutor, anticipates Durham will deliver criminal charges, a written report or some combination of the two around the first week in September, if not sooner. “He must get his work done and out to the public by Labor Day,” he said. “That way he avoids any accusations that he was trying to impact the election.”

Democracy 21, a liberal Washington watchdog group, has already cited the department policy in recent complaints to Barr demanding he suspend Durham’s investigation and place on hold any further actions or public comments about it until after the election.

“If Barr allows indictments from the Durham investigation to come out during the presidential election campaign, he would be abandoning longstanding DOJ policy by misusing the department’s prosecutorial power to support Trump’s reelection campaign,” Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer argued.

Swecker, who served 24 years with the FBI before retiring as assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, said he expects Durham to take more action “than just issuing a report” similar to the 500-page document issued in December by Justice’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The IG made criminal referrals to Durham, including against an FBI attorney accused of altering evidence used to support a surveillance warrant on a former Trump adviser.

“I know John Durham. I worked under him on the Whitey Bulger case, which resulted in indictments of [corrupt FBI] agents,” Swecker said. “I don’t think he’s the least bit squeamish about bringing indictments if there is criminal exposure.”

Swecker says he’s confident Durham has uncovered crimes. “He’s onto something, I’m convinced of it, otherwise he would have folded up his tent by now,” he asserted in a RealClearInvestigations interview.

The lack of media leaks coming from Durham’s office is another sign he is building a serious corruption case, Swecker said. Targets and witnesses have largely been kept in the dark about the scope and direction of his investigation, encouraging cooperation and possible plea deals. And the secrecy of grand jury proceedings has been fiercely protected.

“I’m impressed with the discipline his team has shown,” Swecker said. “There’s been no leaks. The investigation has been very close-hold.”

Durham, a Republican, has been known to threaten to polygraph investigators whenever he suspected a leak.

His team is led by his deputy, Nora Dannehy, who specializes in the prosecution of complex white-collar and public corruption cases. A Democrat with a reputation for integrity, she left a high-paying corporate job to rejoin Durham’s office in March 2019, the month after Barr was confirmed.

Barr officially announced in May 2019 that he had put Durham in charge of looking into what he called the government’s “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016. Was that surveillance justified? Or was it done to smear Trump and sink his campaign — and when that failed, his presidency? Durham is exploring a host of other questions, including: What role did the CIA play? Did it monitor Trump advisers overseas? Were U.S. laws restricting spying on U.S. citizens broken? Did the spy agency slant U.S. intelligence on Russian election interference to justify the anti-Trump operation?

“As a former CIA analyst, Barr recognized that this is the biggest thing since Watergate in terms of the abuse of the intelligence community,” Swecker said. “This is a huge, huge intelligence scandal.”

Swecker named former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith among officials most vulnerable to possible criminal charges in Durham’s investigation of the investigators. Justice’s watchdog made a criminal referral pertaining to his conduct – specifically, that Clinesmith forged an email in a way that hid the fact that former Trump adviser Carter Page had been a cooperating CIA source on Russia. The information, if disclosed to the FISA court, would have weakened the FBI’s case that Page was a “Russian agent.”

On the other hand, Swecker does not expect Durham to indict former FBI Director James Comey, nor former CIA Director John Brennan or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. None of these central figures in the scandal has been interviewed by Durham’s office, according to recent published reports, though Durham reportedly is working out details with Brennan’s lawyer for a pending interview. Durham’s investigators have already reviewed Brennan’s emails, call logs and other records.

“It’s hard to prove criminal intent at their level, and unless there’s a smoking gun, like an email or text, they’ll probably get off with a damning report about their activities,” Swecker said.

Durham’s portfolio also includes exploring the extent to which Ukraine played a role in the counterintelligence operation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Officials from Kiev, the Democratic National Committee and the Obama administration reportedly coordinated efforts to dig up dirt on Trump – and Biden was Obama’s point man in Ukraine at the time.

Though Biden may factor into Durham’s probe, don’t expect him to appear in any pre-election report. Another longtime Durham colleague noted that political candidates cannot be part of indictments or any report on investigative findings, according to Barr’s own rules.

“The policy says you can’t indict political candidates or use overt investigative methods targeting them in the weeks before an election,” said the former federal prosecutor, who requested anonymity.

Barr has publicly acknowledged the policy. “The idea is you don’t go after candidates,” he said in an April radio interview. “You don’t indict candidates or perhaps someone that’s sufficiently close to a candidate within a certain number of days before an election.”

The former prosecutor, who’s worked with Durham, said his old colleague may start revealing developments from his case weeks in advance of the 60-day cut-off, or ideally right after the political conventions. The GOP convention, which follows the Democrats’ gathering, ends Aug. 27.

“They are nervous about affecting the election, so timing is everything,” he said. “It will be tricky.”

At the same time, the former Justice official said Durham could exploit a loophole in the department rule, memorialized in memos dating to 2008, that allows for action closer to the election. It states that “law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission.” (Emphasis added.)

The operative phrase – “for the purpose of” – leaves leeway for actions close to an election that aren’t taken “for the purpose” of affecting the election. In other words, Durham wouldn’t necessarily have to lie low for the two months in the run-up to the election.

Testing that loophole with an “October surprise” would almost certainly send Democrats and the Washington media into high dudgeon.

Some are skeptical Durham will deliver at all, regardless of the deadline, while others question his reputation as a fierce prosecutor. They point to his nearly three-year investigation of CIA officials who destroyed videos of terrorist detainees allegedly being “tortured.” Congress had sought the evidence, but Durham closed the case in 2012 without filing any criminal charges. And his final report about what he found remains classified. In a 2018 criminal case, moreover, he cleared Comey’s general counsel, James Baker, of unauthorized leaks to the media.

The Senate’s top FBI watchdog, Chuck Grassley, has grown frustrated with Durham’s lack of progress. “Durham sh[ou]ld be producing some fruit of his labor,” the Iowa senator groused in a recent tweet.

Swecker attributes the sluggish pace of Durham’s sprawling probe to the COVID-19 health scare, which has restricted travel and grand jury meetings in the D.C. area. Durham’s team of investigators, who include retired FBI agents, has been operating out of his New Haven, Conn., offices. Besides Washington, they have taken trips abroad. Before the coronavirus outbreak, they interviewed authorities and other sources in Italy, Britain and Australia.

In addition, Durham’s agents have been slowed by an avalanche of subpoenaed electronic media, including emails, texts and direct messages, “which are incredibly difficult and time-consuming to sort through,” Swecker said. Such evidence is not limited to FBI, Justice and CIA officials. Durham also has reportedly obtained, for instance, data and meta-data contained on two BlackBerry cellphones used by Joseph Mifsud, a shadowy Maltese professor who some believe was used by the FBI to create a predicate to open the original case against the Trump campaign.

During last week’s House hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., asked Barr if he would be able to “right this wrong” against Trump before the election.

“I really can’t predict that,” the attorney general answered. “John Durham is looking at all these matters. COVID did delay that action for a while. But he’s working very diligently.”

Added Barr: “Justice is not something you can order up on a schedule like you’re ordering a pizza.”

McClintock warned Barr that if he is succeeded by a Biden appointee, Durham’s investigation will simply go away.

“I understand your concern,” Barr sighed.

 

For obvious reasons, India has been focus of concern for global health officials from the start of the pandemic crisis, given its tightly packed population of over 1.3 billion.

The country hit a grim milestone on Friday, surpassing 2 million confirmed COVID-19 cases, including over 41,000 deaths, which commentators have somewhat positively noted is a comparatively low mortality rate compared to other global hot spots. Friday saw a record daily jump in confirmed cases.

“The Health Ministry reported 62,538 cases in the past 24 hours, raising the nation’s confirmed total to 2,027,074. It said 886 more people had died, for a total of 41,585,” according to the latest numbers.

Compounding the crisis, community and local health teams seen as vital in testing and treating rural areas have gone on strike over what they say are state and provincial governments leaving them ill-equipped, thus lacking proper protection as the virus spreads, AP reports.

Still, officials are saying it could be much worse given the population density, and are hailing government efforts as effective: “Despite our huge population and rampant illiteracy, if we have only 2 million cases so far, it shows that the government has played a big role in reducing the spread,” one pharmacist and health official told AP.

Currently India remains with the third highest confirmed cases, after the United States and Brazil, though Iranian officials (Iran is much further down the list with over 322,000 cases) have lately said they believe their true numbers are in the tens of millions.

A government ordered months long lockdown has begun to be lifted in most major cities while some provinces have seen restrictions left in place, as India hopes to reinvigorate its lagging, COVID-hit economy.

It’s especially rural districts which are considered worrisome, given fears that ill-equipped country-side clinics and hospitals can be easily overrun.