Hillary Puts Bernie Into Her Basket Of Deplorables

Hillary Puts Bernie Into Her Basket Of Deplorables

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician.”

So says Hillary Clinton of her former Senate colleague and 2016 rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders.

Her assessment of Sanders’ populist-socialist agenda?

“It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Does that assessment still hold with Sanders now running strong in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, and having emerged, according to The New York Times, as “the dominant liberal force in the 2020 race”?

“Yes, it does,” said Clinton, who left open the possibility she might not support Sanders if he became the nominee.

In her interview with The Hollywood Reporter to promote a documentary that premieres Saturday at the Sundance Film Festival, Clinton also tore into Bernie’s backers.

“It is not only him. It’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women,” said Clinton.

“It should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted (he) seems to be very much supporting it.”

From her own words, Clinton regards Sanders as a nasty man running a misogynistic campaign and a political phony whose achievements are nonexistent and who lacks the temperament to be president.

As Clinton describes Sanders, he seems to fit nicely into her Trumpian “basket of deplorables.” Reflecting the significance of Clinton’s attack, The New York Times put it on Page 1.

This comes one week after Elizabeth Warren, at the end of the last debate, confronted Sanders, who had denied ever telling her a woman could not win the presidency.

“I think you just called me a liar on national TV,” said Warren, twice. Sanders assuredly had. He then accused Warren of lying.

This is “a part of a pattern,” says Clinton, noting that Sanders said in 2016 that she was not qualified to be president.

What is Hillary up to?

She is “hellbent on stopping Sanders,” says Obama strategist David Axelrod.

The bad blood between Bernie and two leading women in the Democratic Party calls to mind the battle between Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater, which did not end well for the Republican Party in 1964.

While the eventual GOP nominee, Goldwater, lost in a 44-state landslide to Lyndon Johnson, the liberal Republican establishment that Rockefeller led would never again be able to nominate one of its own.

It is difficult to see how this acrimony inside the Democratic Party — over the character, record, ideology and alleged sexism of Sen. Bernie Sanders — ends well for the Democrats.

Already, Bernie’s backers believe the DNC “rigged” the nomination in 2016 by feigning neutrality while secretly aiding Clinton. If Sanders now fails in the first primaries and loses his last chance for the Democratic nomination because of the Clinton-Warren’s attacks, it is difficult to see how Bernie’s backers enthusiastically support Warren.

As for Bernie backing Biden, the raison d’etre of the liberal-radical wing of the party to whom Sanders is a hero is that the Democratic establishment consistently sells out progressive values.

Sanders’ crowd consists of true believers, a trademark of whom is militancy. Such folks often prefer defeat behind a principled leader to victory for a corporatist Democrat they regard as the enemy within.

Assume Bernie defeats Warren in Iowa, bests Biden in New Hampshire, and then goes on to win the nomination. Would women, a majority of whom vote Democratic, and who are indispensable to party victory, surge to the polls to install a president whom Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren describe as a sexist who ruined their own presidential hopes?

Would Democratic women come out to vote for a candidate who was responsible, in two successive presidential elections, for keeping the glass ceiling firmly intact over the heads of the Democratic Party’s leading female candidates? Bernie has made some bad enemies.

Ten days before the Iowa caucuses, the great unifier of the Democratic Party remains Donald Trump. But now, with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina dead ahead, the Democrats’ focus is becoming: Who should replace Trump?

The rival claims of the constituent elements inside the party are rising to the fore. And what they reveal is a Democratic Party that is a coalition of groups that seem to be dividing along the lines of ideology, politics, race, class and culture.

Consider the most loyal of Democratic constituents in presidential elections: African Americans. They are 13% of the electorate but a fourth of the national Democratic vote.

Yet, of the six candidates for the nomination on stage in the last debate, not one was African American. Not one was Hispanic or Asian. Four were white men, and two were white women.

The lone outsider rising in the polls is another white man, a multibillionaire who is willing to spend a billion dollars to buy the presidential nomination of the party of the common man.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 01/24/2020 – 09:21

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aOUyd4 Tyler Durden

4 Key Republican Senators To Watch as Trump’s Trial Rolls Into the Weekend

It’s Friday, but not for members of the U.S. Senate, who will remain in D.C. through the weekend (though they do get Sunday off) for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. The House Democrats’ impeachment managers will likely finish making their case against the president today, and Trump’s attorneys will start their defense on Saturday.

As Reason‘s Peter Suderman wrote yesterday, there’s really not much question about the facts of the case at this point. The first article of impeachment says Trump tried to get a foreign government to conduct an investigation of one of the president’s chief political rivals—something that clearly happened, since Trump literally did it while standing in front of TV cameras on the White House driveway. As for the second article of impeachment—the one about obstructing Congress’ investigation—Trump seemed to concede the gist of it while he was summing up how things have been going so far:

If the facts aren’t really in dispute, then one of the few big remaining questions before the almost inevitable acquittal is whether the Senate will take testimony from new witnesses. Removing Trump from office would require a two-thirds majority, but a simple majority could approve additional witnesses—meaning that only four, rather than 20, Republicans would have to switch sides to allow it.

The Senate won’t decide whether to have more witness testimony until after both sides finish their opening arguments, likely in the middle of next week. Already, three Republicans have expressed an interest in hearing from additional witnesses: Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska), and Mitt Romney (R–Utah). The key swing vote could end up being Sen. Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.), who is retiring from politics at the end his current term and is therefore something of a wild card in the impeachment process. Alexander has opposed Trump’s border wall and has been critical of the president’s trade policies, The Wall Street Journal notes, so he isn’t a typical Trump lackey.

Would additional testimony change the course of the impeachment trial? Probably not. But it might at least cause some senators to put down their crossword puzzles and fidget-spinners for a few minutes to pay attention. It would also drag the impeachment trial out for significantly longer—White House attorneys say it could add weeks or months to the process, according to Politico—which is probably the best reason to believe it won’t happen.

FREE MINDS

The Chinese government took campus free speech issues to a whole new level this week by detaining Luo Daiqing, a University of Minnesota student, in his hometown of Wuhan. Luo has been sentenced to six months in prison, Axios reports, for the crime of “provocation.” Specifically, he made social media posts “denigrating a national leader’s image.” More specifically, he shared memes comparing Chinese President Xi Jingping to Winnie the Pooh.

Here’s the kicker: He posted those tweets while he was living in the United States, where Winnie the Pooh memes—like many other things—are protected speech.

Writing for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Sarah McLaughlin notes that, unfortunately, international students cannot enjoy the full benefits of the First Amendment because expression protected in the United States could be punished when they return home. “International students should not have to self-censor in the United States, an outcome that harms those students and academic communities that would benefit from a vocal and diverse student body,” she says.

FREE MARKETS

But who will build the roads deliver the beer? The Democratic Republic of Congo has one of the world’s most corrupt governments, has been embroiled in a decades-long civil war, and has virtually no national infrastructure. What it does have, as The Economist reports, is a population that loves drinking beer—a hangover from the brutally oppressive colonial rule of the Belgians.

Only four of the country’s 26 provincial capitals are connected to the national capital by road, yet beer is everywhere in Congo. Thank a makeshift supply chain that involves weeks of travel on crocodile-infested waters, plus bartenders who literally go the extra mile:

After a week Mr. Barcat’s barge reaches Bandundu. From here, as in Mbandaka, smaller vessels carry the beers to tiny villages on the banks of the river. At the port in Mbandaka, Christine, a 40-year-old bar owner, picks up 70 crates of beer from the Bracongo depot. She travels to the city twice a month on one of these smaller vessels to collect beers for her bar and to sell to other bartenders. The trips are tough: she has to sleep out on deck in the rain and the muggy heat. “We are exposed to all the elements,” she sighs….

Christine’s travails are passed on to her customers. Her beers cost a third more than those in Kinshasa, at $1.80. She has to factor in her $60 boat ticket and the money she pays a friend to run her bar when she is away. Her profits are slim. She does not make enough money to save, she says, but enough to survive.

ELECTION 2020

Is any candidate having more fun on the campaign trail than Andrew Yang?

And is there any candidate who wants to stop you from having fun more than former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg?

Bloomberg isn’t just a killjoy; he’s wrong about the facts. A growing body of research shows that people can and do use e-cigarettes to help quit smoking. Unnecessary panic (and, worse, panicky public policy) that drives people away from vaping and back to cigarettes is not helping public health.

In other election news, Foreign Policy published a lengthy essay by Joe Biden yesterday. In it, the former vice president and current presidential candidate outlines his views on, well, foreign policy. Conspicuously absent: a single mention of Iraq or explanation for Biden’s 2002 vote to take the United States to war there.

And Joe Rogan says he will probably vote for…Bernie?

QUICK HITS

    • China has locked down 12 cities populated by an estimated 35 million people, in an attempt to contain the spread of the deadly Coronavirus. Meanwhile, Texas A&M is monitoring an unidentified student who showed signs of the disease after returning from a trip to Wuhan, China, the city where the outbreak started. But don’t panic, say world health officials.
    • When Pennsylvania State Police data showed that officers were far more likely to search cars driven by black or Hispanic drivers than when the driver was white, the state police stopped providing the relevant data to researchers. Problem solved!
    • Speaking of difficult booze logistics, here’s the R Street Institute’s Marc Hyden on a silly Georgia law that allows home delivery of wine but not any of other alcoholic beverages.
    • The Atlantic wonders whether America has too many bathrooms.
    • I don’t know what sport this is, but I’ll appreciate excellence in any human endeavor:
    • And in case you’re wondering what usual Reason Roundup editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown is doing right now instead of writing this newsletter….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30RUmF2
via IFTTT

FAQ about my New York Times Op-Ed

Yesterday, the New York Times published my Op-Ed about the impeachment trial. I received a lot of feedback. This post will answer some of the most commonly-asked questions I received. I apologize that I can’t respond to all emails, comments, and tweets. I still haven’t checked my Twitter mentions. Indeed, I am using this opportunity as an excuse to wind down my Twitter usage. The site truly is a waste of time, and seldom yields any productive discourse. I removed the app from the home screen of my phone. Let’s see how long this detente lasts.

1. Why didn’t you write about X?

The Times asked me to write 900 words. The final version is about 1,000 words. Space is an important constraint on all op-eds. I have a very limited frame to convey an intricate positions. I spent considerable time laboring over nearly every word. I had wanted to develop some issues further, but the Times cut them out. The editors also asked me to talk about a few other issues that I would have preferred to exclude. Writing an Op-Ed requires making cuts, additions, and compromises. Given unlimited space, I could have written a book about the issues. I probably will one day–I am rarely criticized for not writing enough.

2. You didn’t write about X so you must be disingenuous!

This criticism is one of the most common, and disheartening responses I received. There are many, many reasons why an Op-Ed includes some arguments, and not others. Question #1 above addresses some of the more practical rationales. Ultimately, the criticism of “Why did you write about X” boils down to “Why didn’t you write the Op-Ed I would have written.” There is a really simple answer: the New York Times invited me, and not you, to write the Op-Ed.

I wanted to convey very specific positions in a very limited space. It is not conceivable to simply “mention” some other argument in passing. That drive-by analysis will leave the reader uncertain, and would make my analysis incomplete. Any argument I offer has to be fully developed, or not offered at all. (The difficulties of writing a 900-word op-ed about something as complicated as impeachment should be manifest). There are lots of other issues I would have liked to discuss. But I did not have time to address the second article of impeachment. Or the Impoundment Control Act. Or the GAO decision. I decided to fully explore one aspect of the House’s case–the relationship between the “abuse of power” article and “personal political benefit.”

3. Only a partisan hack could write this op-ed. 

I view the phrase “partisan hack” as an academic version of “deplorable”–a person could only hold a belief because he is blinded by partisan rage. I encourage anyone reading this post to remove the phrase “partisan hack” from their discourse. Moreover, I chuckle when people use this label for me. The Op-Ed criticized Trump and his lawyers, but said his conduct does not rise to the level of impeachment:

Mr. Trump’s lawyers respond that the call was “perfectly normal.” Yes, that phrase actually appears in the brief. Regrettably, parts of the brief are written in a far-too-political tone. . . .

As a policy matter, I disagree with Mr. Trump’s decision to ask for an investigation of the Bidens. Even if warranted, it should have been avoided at all reasonable costs. The Republic would have been fine if we never learned more about Burisma.

The Times was attracted to my position precisely because I have been critical of Trump’s actions, but think the articles do not warrant removal.

4. Trump wasn’t interested in Ukraine actually investigating Ukraine; he only wanted an announcement of the investigation.

My co-blogger Jon Adler raised this question, which I take to be a very serious point. It is one I have given considerable thought, and have discussed at some length with colleagues. I offered a tentative response in an interview for Law and Crime:

President Trump may have reasonably believed that merely asking for an announcement of an investigation would be sufficient. That is, he would not need to follow through and supervise how the Ukrainians manage their affairs. The announcement would line up all the principals in place, and the foreign government could conduct the investigation as they see fit. Or he may have changed his mind after the phone call about what was actually needed. Priorities do shift.

The more difficult question is what is the appropriate burden of proof for an impeachment conviction. It is not Trump’s burden to show that he wanted an investigation, and not merely an announcement of an investigation. I think it is the House’s burden to show that Trump did not want an actual investigation, but only the announcement. I think the evidence does show he wanted an announcement about an investigation, and the evidence is silent about the follow-up. That absence of evidence, in my mind, is not sufficient to convict. We can certainly draw an inference that he didn’t care about the actual investigation, and it is a reasonable inference, but not enough in my mind to remove a President.

Much of the impeachment trial turns on drawing inferences from incomplete facts. After all, Trump has refused to allow his subordinates to respond to subpoenas. I think a Senator could draw an adverse inference from this behavior. I would be hesitant for doing so, for reasons I advanced in an earlier response to Ilya.

5. It doesn’t matter if other politicians act to promote their re-election campaigns. Trump withheld foreign aid in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. 

Specifics matter here. Far too many commentators casually write that GAO concluded that President Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act. This claim lacks precision. The GAO found that the Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act. Not the President. This difference matters.

Let me state my answer differently. If the President violated the Impoundment Control Act, we would not need to consider the nebulous charge of “abuse of power.” Running afoul of a statute could itself be a ground for impeachment. For example, President Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act. But the House did not make the specific claim in the Articles against Trump. Instead, they relied on the nebulous charge of “abuse of power,” premised on a wide range of activities.

There could be grounds for impeachment with respect to the ICA. Seth Barrett Tillman and I flagged this issue on Lawfare more than a month ago:

In the impeachment context, Trump’s liability could result from knowingly failing to take care that his subordinates faithfully executed the law. We say “knowingly” because it is unreasonable to expect any president to be intimately familiar with every action taken by every subordinate. Additionally, Trump may violate his oath of office if he personally directed others not to make a timely transfer of funds with an intent to block the statute’s implementation.

As of now, we have only indirect evidence that the President ordered the hold. I think it is reasonable to draw that inference that he issued such an order, but we have not heard from principals who actually heard that order from Trump. (They have not been permitted to testify.) We do not have evidence that Trump knowingly ordered his subordinates to violate the statute. At most, I think it is safe to presume Trump thought ordering such a hold was lawful. GAO, and Congress, may disagree. But I think you need a higher burden of proof to establish a violation of the Oaths Clause.

6. You are normalizing Trump’s dangerous behavior.

The President is being impeached based on specific legal arguments. Those arguments are either right or wrong. I view my role in this process as limited: offer my opinion on whether those arguments are right or wrong. I freely concede that imposing a higher burden of proof would allow this President, and future Presidents, to engage in abusive behavior. On this point, Ilya Somin and I largely agree. I think this tradeoff is justified. Ilya does not. The potential for future abuse does not eliminate the present-day debate about the validity of these articles.

7. You still haven’t persuaded me.

I am not surprised. My goal is not to persuade people. Truly. I recognize that on most issues, people have already made up their minds. Especially on a polarized issue like impeachment, most people are dug in. I do not write to change minds. I write to articulate my position and plainly and cogently as I can. If people see a new perspective, but remain unpersuaded, I will claim victory.

Far too many people (academics especially) view persuasion as something of a blood sport. They will stop at nothing to convince other people they are wrong. Most Twitter threads, or list-serve exchanges, that go beyond two or three volleys, reflect this dynamic.

The past three years have taught me a lot about myself, and how I view others. I have tried, quite consciously, to dial back my rhetoric, proceed deliberately, and avoid assuming the worst in people. I always try to take a step back and recognize that people can hold different views in good faith. I will leave you with a mantra I often repeat: “I do not know nearly as much as I think I do.” Whenever you become irate at what someone else said, pause, repeat these words of wisdom, and then consider how to proceed.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37mKOo4
via IFTTT

WTF Chart Of The Day: Bonds Ain’t Buying It

WTF Chart Of The Day: Bonds Ain’t Buying It

Presented with little comment aside to ask (rhetorically), why – amid the unknown parameters of what appears to be escalating into a global pandemic, and ongoing weakness in economic data despite the ‘trade deal’ – are stocks soarng to record highs as bond yields collapse to 3-month lows?

Source: Bloomberg

Fun-durr-mentals don’t matter…

Source: Bloomberg

This seemed to sum up stocks investors attitude perfectly…


Tyler Durden

Fri, 01/24/2020 – 09:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aEZe57 Tyler Durden

“Economy Failed To Pick Up” But European PMIs Suggest Signs Of Stabilization

“Economy Failed To Pick Up” But European PMIs Suggest Signs Of Stabilization

European business activity failed to ignite growth momentum to the upside at the start of 2020 – despite regional equities ramping to near all-time-highs with the expectation of V-shape growth. Services, which buoyed the broader economy from tilting into a recession, are beginning to weaken as a manufacturing recession continues to drag on the overall economy.

IHS Markit’s Euro Zone Composite Flash Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) was unchanged at 50.9 in January, missing expectations of 51.2 – suggesting growth momentum to the upside is still missing.

“While the year may have changed, the performance of the eurozone economy was a familiar one in January. Output growth was unchanged from the modest pace seen in December, signaling that the economy failed again to record a pick-up in growth momentum,” said Andrew Harker, associate director at IHS Markit.

The service sector slowed at the start of the year, indicating the continued contraction in manufacturing production could be transmitting weakness into consumers. The manufacturing PMI has been stuck in a contraction for 12 months, printing at 47.8, a slight improvement from December’s 46.3 – a sign of stabilization but nothing to cheer about at the moment.

The Flash Eurozone Manufacturing PMI Output Index increased to 47.5 from 46.1, the highest since August.

Signs of stabilization at the start of the year are visible in Europe but far from the expectations of a V-shape recovery that regional equity markets priced in over the last four months. Confidence among European business leaders has marginally improved as central banks across the world slash interest rates 80 times over the previous 12 months and print more than $1 trillion in the last quarter – with the hopes of troughing the global economy and unleashing a V-shape recovery.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 01/24/2020 – 08:55

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36iSvKI Tyler Durden

FAQ about my New York Times Op-Ed

Yesterday, the New York Times published my Op-Ed about the impeachment trial. I received a lot of feedback. This post will answer some of the most commonly-asked questions I received. I apologize that I can’t respond to all emails, comments, and tweets. I still haven’t checked my Twitter mentions. Indeed, I am using this opportunity as an excuse to wind down my Twitter usage. The site truly is a waste of time, and seldom yields any productive discourse. I removed the app from the home screen of my phone. Let’s see how long this detente lasts.

1. Why didn’t you write about X?

The Times asked me to write 900 words. The final version is about 1,000 words. Space is an important constraint on all op-eds. I have a very limited frame to convey an intricate positions. I spent considerable time laboring over nearly every word. I had wanted to develop some issues further, but the Times cut them out. The editors also asked me to talk about a few other issues that I would have preferred to exclude. Writing an Op-Ed requires making cuts, additions, and compromises. Given unlimited space, I could have written a book about the issues. I probably will one day–I am rarely criticized for not writing enough.

2. You didn’t write about X so you must be disingenuous!

This criticism is one of the most common, and disheartening responses I received. There are many, many reasons why an Op-Ed includes some arguments, and not others. Question #1 above addresses some of the more practical rationales. Ultimately, the criticism of “Why did you write about X” boils down to “Why didn’t you write the Op-Ed I would have written.” There is a really simple answer: the New York Times invited me, and not you, to write the Op-Ed.

I wanted to convey very specific positions in a very limited space. It is not conceivable to simply “mention” some other argument in passing. That drive-by analysis will leave the reader uncertain, and would make my analysis incomplete. Any argument I offer has to be fully developed, or not offered at all. (The difficulties of writing a 900-word op-ed about something as complicated as impeachment should be manifest). There are lots of other issues I would have liked to discuss. But I did not have time to address the second article of impeachment. Or the Impoundment Control Act. Or the GAO decision. I decided to fully explore one aspect of the House’s case–the relationship between the “abuse of power” article and “personal political benefit.”

3. Only a partisan hack could write this op-ed. 

I view the phrase “partisan hack” as an academic version of “deplorable”–a person could only hold a belief because he is blinded by partisan rage. I encourage anyone reading this post to remove the phrase “partisan hack” from their discourse. Moreover, I chuckle when people use this label for me. The Op-Ed criticized Trump and his lawyers, but said his conduct does not rise to the level of impeachment:

Mr. Trump’s lawyers respond that the call was “perfectly normal.” Yes, that phrase actually appears in the brief. Regrettably, parts of the brief are written in a far-too-political tone. . . .

As a policy matter, I disagree with Mr. Trump’s decision to ask for an investigation of the Bidens. Even if warranted, it should have been avoided at all reasonable costs. The Republic would have been fine if we never learned more about Burisma.

The Times was attracted to my position precisely because I have been critical of Trump’s actions, but think the articles do not warrant removal.

4. Trump wasn’t interested in Ukraine actually investigating Ukraine; he only wanted an announcement of the investigation.

My co-blogger Jon Adler raised this question, which I take to be a very serious point. It is one I have given considerable thought, and have discussed at some length with colleagues. I offered a tentative response in an interview for Law and Crime:

President Trump may have reasonably believed that merely asking for an announcement of an investigation would be sufficient. That is, he would not need to follow through and supervise how the Ukrainians manage their affairs. The announcement would line up all the principals in place, and the foreign government could conduct the investigation as they see fit. Or he may have changed his mind after the phone call about what was actually needed. Priorities do shift.

The more difficult question is what is the appropriate burden of proof for an impeachment conviction. It is not Trump’s burden to show that he wanted an investigation, and not merely an announcement of an investigation. I think it is the House’s burden to show that Trump did not want an actual investigation, but only the announcement. I think the evidence does show he wanted an announcement about an investigation, and the evidence is silent about the follow-up. That absence of evidence, in my mind, is not sufficient to convict. We can certainly draw an inference that he didn’t care about the actual investigation, and it is a reasonable inference, but not enough in my mind to remove a President.

Much of the impeachment trial turns on drawing inferences from incomplete facts. After all, Trump has refused to allow his subordinates to respond to subpoenas. I think a Senator could draw an adverse inference from this behavior. I would be hesitant for doing so, for reasons I advanced in an earlier response to Ilya.

5. It doesn’t matter if other politicians act to promote their re-election campaigns. Trump withheld foreign aid in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. 

Specifics matter here. Far too many commentators casually write that GAO concluded that President Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act. This claim lacks precision. The GAO found that the Office of Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act. Not the President. This difference matters.

Let me state my answer differently. If the President violated the Impoundment Control Act, we would not need to consider the nebulous charge of “abuse of power.” Running afoul of a statute could itself be a ground for impeachment. For example, President Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act. But the House did not make the specific claim in the Articles against Trump. Instead, they relied on the nebulous charge of “abuse of power,” premised on a wide range of activities.

There could be grounds for impeachment with respect to the ICA. Seth Barrett Tillman and I flagged this issue on Lawfare more than a month ago:

In the impeachment context, Trump’s liability could result from knowingly failing to take care that his subordinates faithfully executed the law. We say “knowingly” because it is unreasonable to expect any president to be intimately familiar with every action taken by every subordinate. Additionally, Trump may violate his oath of office if he personally directed others not to make a timely transfer of funds with an intent to block the statute’s implementation.

As of now, we have only indirect evidence that the President ordered the hold. I think it is reasonable to draw that inference that he issued such an order, but we have not heard from principals who actually heard that order from Trump. (They have not been permitted to testify.) We do not have evidence that Trump knowingly ordered his subordinates to violate the statute. At most, I think it is safe to presume Trump thought ordering such a hold was lawful. GAO, and Congress, may disagree. But I think you need a higher burden of proof to establish a violation of the Oaths Clause.

6. You are normalizing Trump’s dangerous behavior.

The President is being impeached based on specific legal arguments. Those arguments are either right or wrong. I view my role in this process as limited: offer my opinion on whether those arguments are right or wrong. I freely concede that imposing a higher burden of proof would allow this President, and future Presidents, to engage in abusive behavior. On this point, Ilya Somin and I largely agree. I think this tradeoff is justified. Ilya does not. The potential for future abuse does not eliminate the present-day debate about the validity of these articles.

7. You still haven’t persuaded me.

I am not surprised. My goal is not to persuade people. Truly. I recognize that on most issues, people have already made up their minds. Especially on a polarized issue like impeachment, most people are dug in. I do not write to change minds. I write to articulate my position and plainly and cogently as I can. If people see a new perspective, but remain unpersuaded, I will claim victory.

Far too many people (academics especially) view persuasion as something of a blood sport. They will stop at nothing to convince other people they are wrong. Most Twitter threads, or list-serve exchanges, that go beyond two or three volleys, reflect this dynamic.

The past three years have taught me a lot about myself, and how I view others. I have tried, quite consciously, to dial back my rhetoric, proceed deliberately, and avoid assuming the worst in people. I always try to take a step back and recognize that people can hold different views in good faith. I will leave you with a mantra I often repeat: “I do not know nearly as much as I think I do.” Whenever you become irate at what someone else said, pause, repeat these words of wisdom, and then consider how to proceed.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37mKOo4
via IFTTT

WikiLeaks Editor: US Is Saying First Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Foreigners In Assange Case

WikiLeaks Editor: US Is Saying First Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Foreigners In Assange Case

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone,

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson gave a brief statement to the press after the latest court hearing for Julian Assange’s extradition case in London today, saying the Trump administration is arguing that the First Amendment of the US Constitution doesn’t provide press freedom protection to foreign nationals like Assange.

“We have now learned from submissions and affidavits presented by the United States to this court that they do not consider foreign nationals to have a First Amendment protection,” Hrafnsson said.

“Now let that sink in for a second,” Hrafnsson continued.

“At the same time that the US government is chasing journalists all over the world, they claim they have extra-territorial reach, they have decided that all foreign journalists which include many of you here, have no protection under the First Amendment of the United States. So that goes to show the gravity of this case. This is not about Julian Assange, it’s about press freedom.”

Hrafnsson’s very newsworthy claim has as of this writing received no mainstream news media coverage at all. The video above is from independent reporter Gordon Dimmack.

This prosecutorial strategy would be very much in alignment with remarks made in 2017 by then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

“Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He’s sitting in an embassy in London. He’s not a U.S. citizen,” Pompeo told the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That, like nearly every sound which emits from Pompeo’s amorphous face, was a lie. The First Amendment is not a set of special free speech privileges that the US government magnanimously bestows upon a few select individuals, it’s a limitation placed upon the US government’s ability to restrict rights that all persons everywhere are assumed to have.

This is like a sex offender who’s barred from living within 500 yards of a school claiming that the school he moved in next to is exempt because it’s full of immigrants who therefore aren’t protected by his restriction. It’s a restriction placed on the government, not a right that is given to certain people.

Attorney and Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger explained after Pompeo’s remarks, “As Jefferson points out, everyone, not just American citizens, is endowed with these natural, God-given rights, including life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes people who are citizens of other countries. Citizenship has nothing to do rights that are vested in everyone by nature and God. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, that includes Julian Assange.”

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is himself now being legally persecuted by the same empire as Assange under an indictment which Hrafnsson in the aforementioned statement called “almost a carbon copy of the indictment against Julian Assange”, also denounced Pompeo’s 2017 remarks.

“The notion that WikiLeaks has no free press rights because Assange is a foreigner is both wrong and dangerous,” Greenwald wrote at the time.

“When I worked at the Guardian, my editors were all non-Americans. Would it therefore have been constitutionally permissible for the U.S. Government to shut down that paper and imprison its editors on the ground that they enjoy no constitutional protections? Obviously not.”

Greenwald, who is a former litigation attorney, referenced a Salon article he’d written in 2010 skillfully outlining why Senator Susan Collins’ attempts to spin constitutional rights as inapplicable to foreigners would be outlandish, insane, illegal and unconstitutional to put into practice.

“To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights,” Greenwald argued in 2010. “It says nothing about ‘citizens.’  To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech’; ‘No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner’).  And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in ‘citizens,’ but rather in ‘persons’ or ‘the accused’ (‘No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’; ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense’).”

“The U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans,” Greenwald wrote. “The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.).  If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible.”

“The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008,” Greenwald added.

“To the contrary, the Supreme Court — all the way back in 1886 — explicitly held this to be the case, when, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.  In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what Susan Collins and many others claim about the Constitution.”

These “and many others” Greenwald referred to would now include both Mike Pompeo and the Department of Justice prosecutors who are attempting to extradite and imprison Assange for publishing information exposing US war crimes.

So let’s be clear here: the Trump administration isn’t just working to establish a legal precedent which will demolish press freedoms around the world, it’s also working to change how the US Constitution operates on a very fundamental level.

Does now seem like a good time to fight against this to you? Because it sure as hell seems like that time to me.

Hrafnsson also said in this same statement that Assange’s extradition trial is going to be split into two separate dates, the first on February 24 for one week and then reconvening again for three weeks starting May 18. If you care about freedom of virtually any sort, I highly recommend paying very, very close attention.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


Tyler Durden

Fri, 01/24/2020 – 08:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38CD3uC Tyler Durden

Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation Run 3 Months Ago Predicts 65 Million People Could Die

Coronavirus Pandemic Simulation Run 3 Months Ago Predicts 65 Million People Could Die

As of this morning, the deadly coronavirus that originated in China has killed 26 people and infected more than 900. 

But according to one simulation run less than three months ago, things could get much, much worse. Less than three months ago, Eric Toner, a scientist at the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, had run a simulation of a global pandemic involving the exact same type of virus, according to Business Insider. 

His simulation predicted that 65 million people could die “within 18 months”. 

He commented:

 “I have thought for a long time that the most likely virus that might cause a new pandemic would be a coronavirus.”

As of now, the outbreak is not a pandemic, but it has been reported in eight different countries. Toner’s simulation said that nearly “every country in the world” would have the virus after six months.

He commented:

“We don’t yet know how contagious it is. We know that it is being spread person to person, but we don’t know to what extent. An initial first impression is that this is significantly milder than SARS. So that’s reassuring. On the other hand, it may be more transmissible than SARS, at least in the community setting.”

His analysis used a fictional virus called CAPS, which would be resistant to any modern vaccine and would be deadlier than SARS. The simulation involved a virus originating in Brazil’s pig farms. The outbreak started small, with farmers coming down with symptoms, before spreading to crowded and impoverished areas. 

The simulation also showed flights being cancelled and travel bookings falling by 45%, as people disseminated false information on social media. It also triggered a financial crisis around the globe, with global GDP falling 11% and stock markets falling 20% to 40%. 

No word on whether or not the simulation accounted for the modern monetary theory the Fed is essentially governing with now. 

He also claimed that the current coronavirus could have major economic impact if it the total cases hits the thousands.

He concluded:

“If we could make it so that we could have a vaccine within months rather than years or decades, that would be a game changer. But it’s not just the identification of potential vaccines. We need to think even more about how they are manufactured on a global scale and distributed and administered to people.”

“It’s part of the world we live in now. We’re in an age of epidemics.”

Of course here in the United States the CDC is assuring us that we don’t have anything to be concerned about…

“We don’t want the American public to be worried about this because their risk is low,” says Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “On the other hand, we are taking this very seriously and are dealing very closely with Chinese authorities.”

Hopefully they are correct, and hopefully this outbreak will blow over sooner rather than later.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 01/24/2020 – 08:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30RGbzO Tyler Durden

First, They Think You’re Crazy…

First, They Think You’re Crazy…

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

80’s Party

First they think you’re crazy and then they’ll join you.

On January 14th I outlined a rather obvious appearing correlation between the Fed’s repo operations and the market’s behavior: Every day, no matter what happens or what data is thrown at this market the same pattern repeats: Markets are jammed higher following the Fed’s repo operations.

It is this chart I’ve been posting on twitter every day since and no change to the pattern:

This has been going on for a while and has gone into overdrive since early December, the last real dip in markets: “Since the beginning of December, the combined reserve management purchases plus repo injections has been approximately $400 bn.”

The impact on the market’s behavior is now obvious in the charts, nothing but 45 degree channel price levitation:

And while folks like myself are being dismissed as QE conspiracy theorists the Wall Street Journal has now highlighted the same conclusion:

First they think you’re crazy and then they’ll join you.

The result of all this: Individual stocks have gone vertical and even index charts have joined what can be termed an 80’s party. RSIs in the 80s. RSI’s in the 70’s can be considered overbought. RSIs in the 80s can be considered exuberant chasing, permanent RSIs in the 80’s can be considered what? Dare I say a bubble as market caps are relentlessly exploding to the upside not remotely to be matched by upcoming earnings.

Just documenting history here, but here’s some charts that highlight the point.

$NDX futures chart, weekly RSI above 82, same level as during the January 2018 top:

Daily $XLK technology index, now seemingly permanently jammed in the 80s:

Check some of the individual stocks:

$GOOGL daily RSI at 80.74:

All this artificial liquidity causing reckless vertical price action in stocks?

$TSLA weekly RSI 86+:

$SPCE:

These are mere examples but stye highlight broader market action.

What’s next? RSIs in the 90’s? You don’t have to wait for this. They’re already here:

90 weekly RSI on $AAPL, a $1.4 trillion market cap company.

And yes I couldn’t resist to give the linear version just to highlight how vertical and one way the actions has been:

This is the Fed’s doing, full stop.

I’ve been warning about this and may sound like I’m repeating myself, but I don’t care, this issue is too important not to highlight as many times as it takes.

What’s unfolding here is a perversion of financial markets.

The Fed in their arrogance and cluelessness didn’t realize this would happen, but it is and they are now directly responsible for fueling this massive bubble.
It’s reckless, it’s irresponsible, and the pressure on them is building.

And what are all these interventions producing?

The loosest financial conditions in 27 years, hundreds of billions of liquidity injections, massive asset price inflation, a financial bubble and we’re looking at sub 2% GDP growth:

Leading indicators yesterday:

While yields keep dropping:

You’re staring at a massive asset price distortion with indices and individual stocks dancing at an 80’s RSI party, while yields and growth not confirming any of this.

I maintain the Fed has set in motion perhaps the most dangerous and reckless asset bubble since the year 2000. Nobody will believe it until something bad happens.

  • Will Powell be confronted with any of this next week?

  • Will he get challenged on the obvious effects his not QE lie has on asset prices?

  • Will he get challenged on the claim that the Fed does not target asset prices when it in effect does?

I doubt it. But I like surprises. And now that repo impact on asset prices has gone mainstream I’d submit it would be irresponsible by the media to not confront Powell on this during next week’s press conference. Not with a one liner questions, but with deep, probing questions and follow up. Don’t let him wiggle out of this. The public deserves to know.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 01/24/2020 – 07:57

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aCHnf3 Tyler Durden

How a Fake Rationing Scare Highlighted the Absurdity of California’s Actual Water Policies

Stamping out incorrect social-media information is like trying to halt those computer viruses that multiply bad files every time you close one. You can sometimes convince someone that the story isn’t quite right—only to see it pop up on myriad other feeds. After trying to serve as the “truth police” recently, I finally gave up. There are so many real problems to worry about, but lots of people seem determined to be upset by bogus ones.

The specific story involved water rationing. Former Gov. Jerry Brown signed two conservation-related laws in 2018 that were supposedly going into effect on Jan. 1. According to various social-media and blog posts, the new laws banned Californians from showering and doing laundry on the same day. Apparently, water inspectors would monitor each person’s water usage—and impose fines of $1,000 a day on water-wasting scofflaws.

In reality, the laws do not impose any such individual water limits. They “set water efficiency standards for utilities to follow in the decades to come,” explained The Sacramento Bee. The 55-gallon daily standards are systemwide average targets (by 2023). Any fines would come from the agencies, so ratepayers could technically be on the hook—but only in an indirect way. The allotments are close to the water levels Californians typically use in a day, anyway.

Nevertheless, it’s obvious why this fake news spread faster than water flowing over Oroville Dam’s collapsing spillway. It was yet another example of California’s wacky progressive politics, and the way lawmakers force residents to change their lives in the name of environmental uplift. Because the information was inaccurate, liberal wonks could easily dismiss the hullaballoo as a conspiracy theory with no connection to reality.

Yet despite the story’s bogus claims, conservatives are onto something serious—namely, a state water policy that prioritizes environmental interests over human uses, and that ultimately could lead to the kind of rationing that some people wrongly believed was happening now. The outrage is California policy makers have time to deal with a coming water crisis, but are doing little to avert it. Many seem almost eager for a world of rationing and limits.

The state’s historic drought is over, but Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing a conservation-heavy approach to the water crisis and even is suing to stop the Trump administration’s plan to release more water for farms. California’s lawmakers haven’t built serious new water infrastructure in decades, since the time when the state’s population was roughly half its current size.

If you don’t build freeways, you shouldn’t wonder why the roads are constantly jammed.  If you don’t build water storage, you shouldn’t wonder why the reservoirs are empty during a drought. California officials don’t do much of either, no matter how many tax increases voters approve.

Depending on whose statistics one uses, between 48 percent and 65 percent of California’s water flows unimpeded to the Pacific Ocean. Instead of building new dams to capture water during wet years, California is, for instance, engaged in the largest dam-busting project in the nation—as it plans to demolish some dams on the Klamath River along the Oregon border.

In the midst of the drought, state and federal officials were depleting reservoirs to help a few salmon swim toward the Pacific (where they’re eaten by bass on the way). That epitomizes the state’s water policies—a constant push for “pulse flows,” and less emphasis on saving water for cities and farms. Californians have passed multiple water bonds over the past few years, but very little of it funds new storage. In fact, recent bond money is going to help tear down those Klamath dams, thus reducing storage.

The 602-foot Shasta Dam in the far north was actually designed to reach 800 feet. A plan to raise it a mere 18.5 feet—providing enough water to fill two-thirds of Folsom Lake—has been scuttled after steadfast opposition from environmentalists and state officials. These policies aren’t even helping fish populations, but serve as a handy excuse to always deprive Californians of the water that helps our communities thrive.

“Droughts are nature’s fault,” said U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.). “But water shortages are our fault. They are a deliberate choice we made in the 1970s when we made the construction of new reservoirs endlessly time-consuming and ultimately cost prohibitive.”

Ultimately, we can pursue water abundance or scarcity. That Bee story rebutting the water-rationing scare quotes a State Water Resources Control Board official who thinks a target of only 40 to 45 gallons a person is more reasonable. That gives the game away. The state can keep lowering the targets until there’s no choice but to ration water.

Sure, those social-media posts were wrong to suggest that water-rationing policies already have arrived in California. But unless state officials take a different approach to water policy, that day may be coming sooner than we think.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

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