Communist China Declares War on Single-Use Plastics

Communist China is the latest country to crack down on single-use plastics. On Sunday, the country’s National Development and Reform Commission issued new rules restricting or banning the use of everything from straws to miniature shampoo bottles.

Non-biodegradable plastic bags will be banned in major cities by the end of the year, and in the entire country by the end of 2022.

Restaurants will be banned from distributing plastic straws. They must also reduce their overall use of single-use plastics by 30 percent. Hotels will be prohibited from giving out free single-use plastic items by 2025, reports the BBC. The production of 0.025mm thick plastic bags will also be banned. The new directive includes an exception for bags holding fresh produce.

“Consumption of plastic products, especially single-use items, has been consistently rising,” said the Chinese government upon releasing the new regulations, according to The New York Times. “There needs to be stronger comprehensive planning and a systematic rollout to clean up plastic pollution.”

The English-language newspaper China Daily says that plastic consumption, and plastic pollution, has risen in the country recently thanks to the growing use of food delivery and e-commerce services—both of which use a lot of plastic packaging.

The Chinese government has already taken some steps to address the problem by severely restricting its imports of plastic waste from other countries (a move that has thrown the American recycling industry into disarray) and prohibiting stores from giving out plastic bags for free.

China, according to one 2015 study, is responsible for almost 30 percent of the plastic waste that gets into the ocean each year. Communist-controlled Vietnam and North Korea, alongside other coastal East Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, are also all major plastic polluters.

The U.S., by contrast, is responsible for less than one percent of marine plastic waste.

On the surface, that would appear to make China’s plastics crackdown more justifiable than similar American bans targeting the minuscule number of bags, straws, and takeaway containers that end up as litter.

Yet the mere use of plastic products isn’t, by itself, responsible for China’s plastic pollution problem. As Reason‘s Ron Bailey noted in a 2018 Earth Day post, the “main reasons these countries are such big contributors of plastic marine debris is that their consumers’ garbage is uncollected and frequently ends up in open dumps.”

Rich countries with well-developed waste management systems manage to recycle, landfill, or incinerate almost all of their garbage. This is why wealthy Japan and South Korea emit much less plastic waste into the oceans than their regional neighbors.

Plastic prohibitions in China might cut down on the amount of waste in the near term, but a comprehensive long-term solution will require investing in better garbage collection and disposal.

It’s also important to stress that whatever China’s environmental problems, any prohibition is inevitably going to be enforced by an authoritarian, one-party state. On this front, African nations’ experience with plastic bag bans is instructive. In 2008, Rwanda’s government became one of the first to ban plastic bags. In 2016, Al Jazeera reported on the brutal measures government officials have since taken to stop the illegal importation of plastic bags from neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo:

If caught, smugglers say they are forced to destroy the bags, sometimes with their teeth. Worse, they are detained indefinitely and fined hundreds of dollars, which they have no means of paying. On the Congolese side, they say, beatings are common, and in exchange for sex, officers might allow smugglers to cross the border without paying a bribe.

Kenya has likewise banned plastic bags, only to see police harass scofflaws with fines and drug-war style raids. These very real costs to human freedom must be weighed against any environmental benefits of plastics bans. That’s something the international environmental movement has been really bad at, preferring to praise authoritarian Rwanda as “one of the cleanest nations on earth” and an example of what can be accomplished if “the political will really exists and true efforts are made.”

China would do better to keep growing richer, and then invest its prosperity in better waste management.

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

Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been A Member Of The Federalist Society?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Judicial Conference is thinking of prohibiting judges from being members of the Federalist Society. It’s too political—or so the Judicial Conference believes.

If the Judicial Conference does ban judges from being members of the Federalist Society, it will need to do the same for the ABA. Unlike the Federalist Society, which takes no stand on any legal or political issue, the ABA weighs in on countless issues, always taking the leftward leaning side of things. The ABA files amicus curiae briefs before the Supreme Court, again with a consistent slant to the left. The long march through the institutions infiltrated the ABA long ago.

Similarly, membership in “affinity bar associations” like the National Hispanic Bar Association and the National Bar Association (which is for African American lawyers), and the National Association of Women Lawyers will need to be prohibited. Those left-leaning organizations routinely take stands on controversial issues and file amicus briefs. The Federalist Society never does and never will.

I can’t tell you how proud I am to be a member of the Federalist Society. It’s true that its members are overwhelmingly conservative or libertarian. But to say that it is not monolithic understates it. Lawyers actually engage in civil debate at the Federalist Society. It always attempts to present all sides of legal and public policy debates at its functions (including different strands of conservatism and libertarianism as well as left-of-center views). That does not happen at law schools these days.There is far less ideological diversity on campuses than you routinely find at the Federal Society’s Annual Lawyers Conference.

Two personal anecdotes are worth mentioning here.

(1) In 1996, I co-chaired the Yes on Proposition 209 Campaign here in California. That measure, which passed with a strong majority, prohibited the State of California (including its universities) from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based or race, color, sex or ethnicity in the operation of public education, public employment or public contacting. Needless to say, the Left hated it.

At the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in January of 1997, a panel with OVER TWENTY speakers was presented. All of them opposed Proposition 209. Despite being both a law professor present at the conference and the second ranking person in the 209 campaign, I was not invited to speak. (That’s okay.  I’m not exactly Cicero, so maybe the AALS didn’t think I was a good enough speaker.) But there were at least three other law professors who had worked on the campaign who were also ignored

Meanwhile, the Federalist Society put on its own Proposition 209 panel at a nearby hotel to which all law professors were invited. If I remember correctly, the panel had five speakers. Three of them opposed Proposition 209 and two supported it (including me). Yet the Federalist Society is the organization that that Judicial Conference thinks is too political.

(2)  A few years later, I was on a panel at the Federalist Society’s Annual Lawyers’ Convention. The topic was again affirmative action.  The staff had worked to get speakers on both sides of the issue.  But for some reason the left-of-center speaker did not show up.  Much to the Federalist Society’s embarrassment, all it had was an empty chair.  To remedy the problem, after I and the other panelists had given our prepared remarks, I stood up again and argued the other side of the issue the best I could.  (I’m a lawyer.  That’s what lawyers are supposed to be able to do.)  The Federalist crowd really appreciate sit.  I was later told that I was persuasive to at least one member of the audience.

The Judicial Conference tries to sound evenhanded by putting the American Constitutional Society in the same category as the Federalist Society. I should point out that the American Constitutional Society is (so far) a pale imitation of what the Left imagines the Federalist Society to be. It has far fewer active members and (weirdly) is far more political than the Federalist Society. Unlike the Federalist Society, it does take stands on issues and files amicus briefs in cases. But membership in the ACS shouldn’t be prohibited either—not unless membership in organizations like the ABA are prohibited too.

The Judicial Conference can argue that it isn’t preventing judges from being members of the Federalist Society prior to becoming judges. Nor is it preventing judges from attending Federalist Society events. But invariably a prohibition on membership will be taken as a sign that the Federalist Society is something bad … something that lawyers with a judicial temperament will avoid.  The truth is more like the opposite. Lawyers who are interested in hearing all sides of an issue gravitate towards the Federalist Society, not away from it.   The Judicial Conference should be pleased to have judges who are members.

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

The Calvinball Impeachment Trial Begins

The first day of President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial on Tuesday saw Republicans and Democrats quarreling over the rules for the proceedings, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) rejecting a series of amendments proposed by Democrats that would allow them to call additional witnesses and collect documents blocked by the White House. While McConnell initially expressed that he would stick to the Clinton impeachment model, the proceedings are shaping up to be much like Calvinball—the game popularized by Calvin and Hobbes—where players make up the rules as they go along. Indeed, no two impeachments will be the same, it seems.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) proposed 11 amendments that would have subpoenaed documents pertaining to Trump’s interactions with Ukraine and his decision to abruptly freeze congressionally appropriated military aid to the country, which the Government Accountability Office recently labeled a crime. Schumer also sought to compel those in the president’s inner circle, including acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, to testify. Trump blocked several White House officials from appearing during the House’s investigation, citing executive privilege.  

The Senate voted down those amendments 53-47 on party lines. A motion for additional witnesses and documents may be called after opening arguments, similar to the roadmap seen during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. But in a deviation from the Clinton model, McConnell inserted an additional stipulation which will allow a majority of senators to dismiss the need to introduce any new evidence whatsoever before voting on individual witnesses or documents.

Democrats argued that Republicans were setting up setting up the trial to conclude without evidence, making it impossible to render a fair verdict. “If the Senate fails to take this step, you won’t even ask for the evidence,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), an impeachment manager, said on the floor. “This trial and your verdict will be questioned.”  

Republicans say that if there is too little evidence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) is to blame for not pursuing such subpoenas when the Democratic-controlled House was holding its impeachment hearings. The House voted to impeach Trump in December, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his role in attempting to strongarm Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into announcing investigations that targeted Trump’s political rivals.

“If I showed up in any court in this country and I said, ‘Judge, my case is overwhelming, but I’m not ready to go yet. I need more evidence’ … I would get thrown out in two seconds,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone said on the Senate floor. “And that’s exactly what should happen here.”

Democrats were successful, however, in pushing for two procedural amendments. McConnell, who has urged the need for a speedy trial, originally gave each party 24 hours over two days to present their arguments, prompting criticisms from Democrats who argued that much of the trial would then occur in the middle of the night. Throughout Clinton’s trial, both sides had 24 hours but no constraints on the number of days allotted. After much pushback, including from Republican Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), each party will now have three days. 

The majority leader also initially stipulated that no House evidence would be automatically entered into the Senate record, but would require a vote to admit it. Now that evidence will only be blocked should the Senate vote to oppose it. During Clinton’s proceedings, senators could not object to House evidence.

The hourslong proceedings were characterized by the same rank partisanship that has colored the entire process thus far, with testy back-and-forths that elicited a stern response from Chief Justice John Roberts. “I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said, addressing Cipollone and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.). “Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NTok6C
via IFTTT

Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been A Member Of The Federalist Society?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Judicial Conference is thinking of prohibiting judges from being members of the Federalist Society. It’s too political—or so the Judicial Conference believes.

If the Judicial Conference does ban judges from being members of the Federalist Society, it will need to do the same for the ABA. Unlike the Federalist Society, which takes no stand on any legal or political issue, the ABA weighs in on countless issues, always taking the leftward leaning side of things. The ABA files amicus curiae briefs before the Supreme Court, again with a consistent slant to the left. The long march through the institutions infiltrated the ABA long ago.

Similarly, membership in “affinity bar associations” like the National Hispanic Bar Association and the National Bar Association (which is for African American lawyers), and the National Association of Women Lawyers will need to be prohibited. Those left-leaning organizations routinely take stands on controversial issues and file amicus briefs. The Federalist Society never does and never will.

I can’t tell you how proud I am to be a member of the Federalist Society. It’s true that its members are overwhelmingly conservative or libertarian. But to say that it is not monolithic understates it. Lawyers actually engage in civil debate at the Federalist Society. It always attempts to present all sides of legal and public policy debates at its functions (including different strands of conservatism and libertarianism as well as left-of-center views). That does not happen at law schools these days.There is far less ideological diversity on campuses than you routinely find at the Federal Society’s Annual Lawyers Conference.

Two personal anecdotes are worth mentioning here.

(1) In 1996, I co-chaired the Yes on Proposition 209 Campaign here in California. That measure, which passed with a strong majority, prohibited the State of California (including its universities) from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based or race, color, sex or ethnicity in the operation of public education, public employment or public contacting. Needless to say, the Left hated it.

At the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in January of 1997, a panel with OVER TWENTY speakers was presented. All of them opposed Proposition 209. Despite being both a law professor present at the conference and the second ranking person in the 209 campaign, I was not invited to speak. (That’s okay.  I’m not exactly Cicero, so maybe the AALS didn’t think I was a good enough speaker.) But there were at least three other law professors who had worked on the campaign who were also ignored

Meanwhile, the Federalist Society put on its own Proposition 209 panel at a nearby hotel to which all law professors were invited. If I remember correctly, the panel had five speakers. Three of them opposed Proposition 209 and two supported it (including me). Yet the Federalist Society is the organization that that Judicial Conference thinks is too political.

(2)  A few years later, I was on a panel at the Federalist Society’s Annual Lawyers’ Convention. The topic was again affirmative action.  The staff had worked to get speakers on both sides of the issue.  But for some reason the left-of-center speaker did not show up.  Much to the Federalist Society’s embarrassment, all it had was an empty chair.  To remedy the problem, after I and the other panelists had given our prepared remarks, I stood up again and argued the other side of the issue the best I could.  (I’m a lawyer.  That’s what lawyers are supposed to be able to do.)  The Federalist crowd really appreciate sit.  I was later told that I was persuasive to at least one member of the audience.

The Judicial Conference tries to sound evenhanded by putting the American Constitutional Society in the same category as the Federalist Society. I should point out that the American Constitutional Society is (so far) a pale imitation of what the Left imagines the Federalist Society to be. It has far fewer active members and (weirdly) is far more political than the Federalist Society. Unlike the Federalist Society, it does take stands on issues and files amicus briefs in cases. But membership in the ACS shouldn’t be prohibited either—not unless membership in organizations like the ABA are prohibited too.

The Judicial Conference can argue that it isn’t preventing judges from being members of the Federalist Society prior to becoming judges. Nor is it preventing judges from attending Federalist Society events. But invariably a prohibition on membership will be taken as a sign that the Federalist Society is something bad … something that lawyers with a judicial temperament will avoid.  The truth is more like the opposite. Lawyers who are interested in hearing all sides of an issue gravitate towards the Federalist Society, not away from it.   The Judicial Conference should be pleased to have judges who are members.

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

Brazilian Federal Prosecutors Target Journalist Glenn Greenwald for Exposing Corruption

Brazil’s authoritarian leadership is charging journalist Glenn Greenwald with being part of a “criminal organization” after he helped expose possible government corruption through leaked private messages.

Greenwald, a co-founder of media site The Intercept, is best known for helping Edward Snowden reveal to the public the truth about America’s domestic surveillance program (he was awarded a Pulitzer for his work). He lives in Brazil, where he’s been reporting critically on behavior by the country’s president, far-right populist Jair Bolsonaro, and his administration.

Greenwald, via The Intercept, had published articles last year that suggested some serious problems with a massive political corruption and bribery investigation known as Operation Car Wash. The investigation has led to arrests and charges against many Brazilian politicians, including Bolsonaro’s predecessor, Michel Temer, and his predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

But according to private messages leaked to Greenwald, a judge involved in the investigation was possibly directing and colluding with prosecutors to target specific people and keep da Silva from running for a third term against Bolsonaro. In short, The Intercept‘s reporting suggests that the political anti-corruption investigation is itself politically corrupt.

The Intercept‘s reporting on Brazil has certainly been a thorn in Bolsonaro’s side and he has threatened retaliation against Greenwald. Now prosecutors in his government are claiming that Greenwald isn’t just a recipient of hacked and leaked messages, but an active participant engaged in hacking. This is remarkably similar to the allegations being used by the United States to attempt to extradite and prosecute Julian Assange.

Greenwald responded in a statement noting that police have already investigated these claims and cleared him of any direct involvement:

Less than two months ago, the Federal Police, examining all the same evidence cited by the Public Ministry, stated explicitly that not only have I never committed any crime but that I exercised extreme caution as a journalist never even to get close to any participation. Even the Federal Police under Minister Moro’s command said what is clear to any rational person: I did nothing more than do my job as a journalist—ethically and within the law.

This accusation—brought by the same prosecutor who just tried and failed to criminally prosecute the head of the Brazilian Bar Association for criticizing Minister Moro—is an obvious attempt to attack a free press in retaliation for the revelations we reported about Minister Moro and the Bolsonaro government. It is also on an attack on the Brazilian Supreme Court, which ruled in July that I am entitled to have my press freedom protected in response to other retaliatory attacks from Minister Moro, and even an attack on the findings of the Federal Police, which concluded explicitly after a comprehensive investigation that I committed no crimes and solely acted as a journalist.

Brazil has constitutional protections for press freedoms, but human rights advocacy group Freedom House notes that these protections are not always enforced. The country has criminal libel and defamation laws, and journalists do sometimes get threatened with prison sentences by judges for publishing information critical of government behavior.

It’s unconscionable for any government to launch criminal attacks against journalists who are trying to expose their corruption and one would think that any person who values freedom would oppose what’s happening. But Greenwald, not unlike Assange, has been a critic of America’s political establishment and foreign policy. He has also been a relentless critic of Hillary Clinton, and while he’s no fan of President Donald Trump (whose attitude toward the press is similar to Bolsonaro’s), he also has been openly critical of how the press has covered the investigation of Trump and believes the media has exaggerated the evidence against Trump, falls too easily for conspiracy theories, and overstates the role of Russia in the manipulation of the 2016 presidential election.

So, of course, when CNN’s Jake Tapper started passing along tweets that supported Greenwald and provided context for what was so dangerous about Bolsonaro targeting journalists, many people responded in anger at the idea of Greenwald being treated like a “real journalist” because they simply don’t like the man. But that’s a horrible attitude toward press freedom that actually bolsters strongmen like Trump and Bolsonaro. Greenwald’s freedom cannot ever be dependent on whether he’s nice to Clinton or whether he supports the Trump impeachment.

Given we’re talking about Twitter responses, we can’t really know how many of these people genuinely believe Greenwald should be tossed into jail by an authoritarian president with no respect for liberty or if they’re just trolls. Nevertheless, nobody who actually places a high premium on freedom of thought and speech should be favoring the Brazilian government’s attempt to punish Greenwald.

Below: Watch Reason TV’s interview with Greenwald in 2015. The Reason Foundation (which publishes Reason.com and Reason magazine) awarded Greenwald the 2014 Lanny Friedlander Prize for his role in exposing the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance of Americans.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30Lvv67
via IFTTT

Lebanon’s New Hezbollah-Backed Government Meets After 3-Month Vacuum Amid Crisis

Lebanon’s New Hezbollah-Backed Government Meets After 3-Month Vacuum Amid Crisis

After in October Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri resigned amid worsening violence and protests related to the nation’s banking crisis, but remained in a caretaker capacity, Lebanon announced Tuesday the formation of a new government, which met for the first time Wednesday. The crisis-hit country has been three months without a government. 

President Michel Aoun said it’s vital the new government led by caretaker Prime Minister Hassan Diab wins back international confidence at a moment Lebanon is on the verge of deft default and currency devaluation. The new leaders will attempt to instill enough faith to unlock crucial external funding, conditioned on badly needed reforms which have thus far remained elusive. 

Newly-assigned Lebanese Prime Minister, Hassan Diab, via the AP.

“Your mission is delicate,” Aoun told the cabinet in a statement. “It is necessary to work to tackle the economic situation, restore the confidence of the international community in Lebanese institutions and reassure the Lebanese about their future,” Aoun said.

Caretaker PM Diab, formerly the education minister and importantly the candidate put forward by Hezbollah, has unveiled a plan for a new election law meant to promote national unity and placate key demands of protesters after demonstrations have raged for months, at times bringing daily life in the major cities, especially Beirut, to a standstill. This also as a liquidity crisis has resulted in strict capital controls imposed on banks, which has also lately seen account holders limited to withdrawing a mere $200 a week.

It’s now been over two months since commercial banks have enacted severe controls preventing large money transfers abroad and restricting clients’ access to their deposits. Throughout the nationwide protests, which at their height saw one million people hit the streets (a whopping some 20% of the entire population), both national and commercial banks have been routinely targeted for destruction and vandalism. 

The new government includes Minister of Defense Zeina ‘Akkar, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nassif Hatti, Minister of Finance Ghazi Wazneh and Minister of Interior Mohammad Fahmi.

Lebanon’s new government met for the first time Wednesday, via NBC News.

Lebanon’s precarious financial situation has many investors pricing in a sovereign default. A $1.2 billion Eurobond that matures in March saw a record slump last week, fueled by reports local lenders have been selling the instruments to avoid participating in a central bank-initiated voluntary debt swap.

The Lebanese pound has plunged on the black market to some 2,500 against the U.S. dollar since the protests began on Oct. 17, while the central bank has stuck to the official rate of 1,507. Hours before the government was announced, Lebanon’s money changers announced that they would sell dollars at no more than 2,000 starting Thursday in an effort to ease the burden of price gains on consumers. — Bloomberg

PM Diab acknowledged the tumultuous events gripping the small Middle East nation in initial remarks Wednesday: “I salute the uprising that pushed us towards this path. Lebanon won an this government expresses the aspirations of the protesters over the area and country. We will work to fulfill your demands,” he said.

“The scenes that we saw during the past few days were painful and what is important now is to maintain stability and support the Lebanese Army and security forces,” Diab continued. “We have the capabilities to continue. We have our wealth. We will protect it and defend our right to it by all means,” he added.

Diab indicated just after taking the helm that he intends as his first trip abroad a visit to Gulf states which previously provided vital financial aid. 

However, the prospect for Gulf aid could be sensitive, given the new government is for the first time controlled exclusively by Hezbollah (which notably has the backing of Iran), while Lebanese political parties that typically enjoy Western backing have stayed on the sidelines. All of this also means protests are set to continue, and possibly grow more fierce, as promised by a number of activists. 


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/22/2020 – 13:10

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2urtj7K Tyler Durden

Just In Time! Lenders Seek Congressional Approval For No Income Mortgages

Just In Time! Lenders Seek Congressional Approval For No Income Mortgages

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Here we go again. The mortgage lending industry seeks to eliminate debt-to-income rules for home buyers.

At the peak of every boom comes one final act of repetitive stupidity. This may be it.

Please consider CFPB Moves to Eliminate Mortgage Debt-to-Income Rule for Borrowers.

In a letter CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger sent to Congress today, the CFPB asked to amend the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage rule (ATR/QM rule) in order to remove DTI as a qualifying factor in mortgage underwriting.

This rule was created in response to the financial crisis of a decade ago as a way to prevent lending money to borrowers who might not be able to afford the loan.

The move by Kraninger is by request of a group of lenders and industry groups, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Quicken Loans, Caliber Home Loans, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and others.

The finance leaders want to remove the 43 percent DTI requirement on both prime and near-prime loans.

Specifically, current rules includes things like verification of income, credit history and DTI, among others. The only portion the CFPB is asking to amend is the DTI requirement.

Apparently Fannie Mae is not subject to the requirement so the lenders cry about fairness.

Hey, why not? More importantly, why stop there? Besides, if one claims no income, there is no income to verify. It’s all nice and clean.

NINJA (no income, no job, no asset) loans worked out so well the last time we tried them, it’s clearly time for a repeat performance.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/22/2020 – 12:50

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GqB1BP Tyler Durden

Brazilian Federal Prosecutors Target Journalist Glenn Greenwald for Exposing Corruption

Brazil’s authoritarian leadership is charging journalist Glenn Greenwald with being part of a “criminal organization” after he helped expose possible government corruption through leaked private messages.

Greenwald, a co-founder of media site The Intercept, is best known for helping Edward Snowden reveal to the public the truth about America’s domestic surveillance program (he was awarded a Pulitzer for his work). He lives in Brazil, where he’s been reporting critically on behavior by the country’s president, far-right populist Jair Bolsonaro, and his administration.

Greenwald, via The Intercept, had published articles last year that suggested some serious problems with a massive political corruption and bribery investigation known as Operation Car Wash. The investigation has led to arrests and charges against many Brazilian politicians, including Bolsonaro’s predecessor, Michel Temer, and his predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

But according to private messages leaked to Greenwald, a judge involved in the investigation was possibly directing and colluding with prosecutors to target specific people and keep da Silva from running for a third term against Bolsonaro. In short, The Intercept‘s reporting suggests that the political anti-corruption investigation is itself politically corrupt.

The Intercept‘s reporting on Brazil has certainly been a thorn in Bolsonaro’s side and he has threatened retaliation against Greenwald. Now prosecutors in his government are claiming that Greenwald isn’t just a recipient of hacked and leaked messages, but an active participant engaged in hacking. This is remarkably similar to the allegations being used by the United States to attempt to extradite and prosecute Julian Assange.

Greenwald responded in a statement noting that police have already investigated these claims and cleared him of any direct involvement:

Less than two months ago, the Federal Police, examining all the same evidence cited by the Public Ministry, stated explicitly that not only have I never committed any crime but that I exercised extreme caution as a journalist never even to get close to any participation. Even the Federal Police under Minister Moro’s command said what is clear to any rational person: I did nothing more than do my job as a journalist—ethically and within the law.

This accusation—brought by the same prosecutor who just tried and failed to criminally prosecute the head of the Brazilian Bar Association for criticizing Minister Moro—is an obvious attempt to attack a free press in retaliation for the revelations we reported about Minister Moro and the Bolsonaro government. It is also on an attack on the Brazilian Supreme Court, which ruled in July that I am entitled to have my press freedom protected in response to other retaliatory attacks from Minister Moro, and even an attack on the findings of the Federal Police, which concluded explicitly after a comprehensive investigation that I committed no crimes and solely acted as a journalist.

Brazil has constitutional protections for press freedoms, but human rights advocacy group Freedom House notes that these protections are not always enforced. The country has criminal libel and defamation laws, and journalists do sometimes get threatened with prison sentences by judges for publishing information critical of government behavior.

It’s unconscionable for any government to launch criminal attacks against journalists who are trying to expose their corruption and one would think that any person who values freedom would oppose what’s happening. But Greenwald, not unlike Assange, has been a critic of America’s political establishment and foreign policy. He has also been a relentless critic of Hillary Clinton, and while he’s no fan of President Donald Trump (whose attitude toward the press is similar to Bolsonaro’s), he also has been openly critical of how the press has covered the investigation of Trump and believes the media has exaggerated the evidence against Trump, falls too easily for conspiracy theories, and overstates the role of Russia in the manipulation of the 2016 presidential election.

So, of course, when CNN’s Jake Tapper started passing along tweets that supported Greenwald and provided context for what was so dangerous about Bolsonaro targeting journalists, many people responded in anger at the idea of Greenwald being treated like a “real journalist” because they simply don’t like the man. But that’s a horrible attitude toward press freedom that actually bolsters strongmen like Trump and Bolsonaro. Greenwald’s freedom cannot ever be dependent on whether he’s nice to Clinton or whether he supports the Trump impeachment.

Given we’re talking about Twitter responses, we can’t really know how many of these people genuinely believe Greenwald should be tossed into jail by an authoritarian president with no respect for liberty or if they’re just trolls. Nevertheless, nobody who actually places a high premium on freedom of thought and speech should be favoring the Brazilian government’s attempt to punish Greenwald.

Below: Watch Reason TV’s interview with Greenwald in 2015. The Reason Foundation (which publishes Reason.com and Reason magazine) awarded Greenwald the 2014 Lanny Friedlander Prize for his role in exposing the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance of Americans.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30Lvv67
via IFTTT

Trump Says Tesla Must Build “Very Big” US Plant, Warns He’s “So Disappointed” In Boeing

Trump Says Tesla Must Build “Very Big” US Plant, Warns He’s “So Disappointed” In Boeing

Continuing his Davos media blitz, President Trump sat down for a lengthy, wide-ranging interview with CNBC host Joe Kernen where he discussed the impeachment hoax, his underappreciated economic successes, the successes and failures of Tesla and Boeing, and the American effort to suppress the spread of the mysterious new Chinese coronavirus.

During the opening minutes of the interview, after a brief preamble, Kernen jumped into questions about the coronavirus, asking Trump whether he is worried about a global pandemic.

Trump replied that the situation is completely under control.

“No. Not at all. And – we’re – we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s – going to be just fine.”

Trump added that he trusts President Xi, and that the US can trust that the Chinese health officials are on top of the situation, and are no longer dissembling about the true severity of the virus.

“I do. I do. I have a great relationship with President Xi. We just signed probably the biggest deal ever made. It certainly has the potential to be the biggest deal ever made. And – it was a very interesting period of time time.”

When it comes to impeachment, Trump told Kernen that he didn’t have much time yesterday to pay attention to proceedings. But based on what he saw, Trump felt his team did “really good” while once again denouncing the Democrats’ impeachment push as a “total hoax.”

“I got – I had a busy day yesterday, as you know. You were there. And we had the speech and we had lots of meetings with different leaders, including Pakistan and others. Other countries. In addition to businessmen all over the place. But I did get to see some of it. It’s a hoax. It’s a total hoax. It’s a perfect conversation.”

[…]

“I think the team was really good. And – the facts are all on our side. The Republican party has never been this unified. You saw that. 195 to nothing. I guess twice. In fact we got three Democrats voting for us. That was with the House. I think – “

On the subject of whether the Dems will succeed in calling witnesses, something that doesn’t look likely after Republicans managed to shut out most of the Democratic amendments from yesterday’s rules resolution, Trump said he “really [doesn’t] know.”

“–I really don’t know. I think that– if everybody tells the truth, it’s perfect. All you have to do is read the transcript. Read– if you take a look at the transcript– and it’s really two transcripts. It’s– you know, I had a first call which was perfect, and I had a second call which was perfect. You notice they don’t mention the calls, though. They never mention the calls. They talk about everything but the calls. All they have to do is read the transcripts. I put it out all the time. The other thing is speak to the president of Ukraine. He’s been great, I have to tell you. And his foreign minister’s been great.”

For somebody who spent most of his campaign bashing the global elites like his one-time rival Hillary Clinton, Trump acknowledged that, although many of the power players in attendance might not admit it, they’re fans of his economic policies, including his dedication to global stimulus. Kernen pointed out that all the CEOs who appeared on CNBC yesterday directly from Davos seemed to fixate on the strength of the US economy, instead of the impeachment fracas.

Trump happily took credit for the robust economy, claiming – in spite of some cracks in the facade that emerged earlier this month – that the American consumer has “never been so rich.”

 Well, I appreciate that very much. We do. We have an incredible economy. The consumer has never been so rich. They– you know, they’re– between the tax cuts and the regulation cuts– people forget about regulation. I think it might have been more important than the tax cuts. But we have– a consumer in the United States that has never done so well. And I think we’re really poised to have I think we have tremendous potential. You know, we’re at a point where we’ve done so well, I think we’re going do much better. We have tremendous potential.

Interviewers can’t discuss the American economy with Trump without the president going on a tangent about the Fed, and all Kernen had to do was ask whether Trump believes the Fed’s balance sheet expansion is correlated to stocks’ 50% rally since inauguration day for the president to launch into a tirade about the Powell Fed.

When the Fed raised interest rates, it did so “too fast,” Trump said. And when it came time to cut once again, the central bank didn’t do it “fast enough.”

“Well, I think it’s the opposite, actually. The Fed raised too fast interest. They brought up the rate too fast, and they didn’t drop it fast enough. And that was very– you know, that was a lot of increases, and it was a lot of increase. And I think it’s really the opposite of what you’re saying. Now they’ve dropped it, but it was very late. And you look at other countries where they actually have negative interest rates, negative in a positive way. I mean they’re actually getting paid– they make a loan and they end up–“

Additionally, Trump cited the strength of the dollar as evidence that interest rates are still too high – even as most market participants expect the Fed to stay on hold this year – while arguing that if Powell would continue cutting rates, “many good things would happen.”

No, because I think the dollar’s very, very strong. And I think the rate should go down. We have a very strong dollar, and that sounds good, and it is good in many ways, but it’s very bad in terms of manufacturing. I’ve created almost 700,000 manufacturing jobs. The past administration said manufacturing is dead, which I said, “Tell me about that. How do you– you can’t do that.” And we have had a tremendous success, but it’s harder with a strong dollar. And– I want this dollar to be strong. I want it to be so powerful. I want it to be great. But if you lower the interest rates, so many good things would happen.

The next batch of questions pertained to several of the most influential American corporations who have been in the headlines lately, starting with Tesla, which saw its shares vaunt above a critical threshold for CEO Elon Musk, who appears to be on track to receive a massive payday thanks to a pay package that was totally reliant on Tesla stock performance.

The president said that he admires Elon and that he’s “one of our very smart people.” However, Tesla must build another “very big plant” in the US, Trump said, to pay back America for all it has done for the company.

“He likes rockets. And – he does good at rockets too,” President Trump tells CNBC about Elon Musk. “He’s one of our very smart people. He’s going to be building a very big plant in the United States. He has to, because we help him, so he has to help us.”

Trump was also asked to weigh in on Apple’s refusal to unlock the iPhone of the Pensacola shooter. The president angrily answered that Apple “has to help us.”

“We should start finding some of the bad people out there that we can do with Apple…Apple has to help us. And I’m very strong on it.”

“They have the keys to so many criminals and criminal minds, and we can do things.”

As calls for Boeing to change the name of its tainted 737 MAX 8 intensify, President Trump has once again been proven right, as he suggested last year that Boeing should rebrand the Max.

But with the vague timeline for the MAX returning to service, Trump said he’s “so disappointed” in Boeing, and exclaimed that the company’s struggles could wipe more than half a percentage point off of GDP.

“I am so disappointed in Boeing – had a tremendous impact,” President Trump says about the planemaker that said Max plan won’t be cleared until the middle of the year. “You know, when you talk about growth, it’s so big that some people say it’s more than a half a point of GDP. So Boeing – big, big disappointment to me. Big disappointment.”

Trump was busy on Wednesday, giving interviews and a press conference to the press assembled at Davos, During a separate interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo, Trump said a Middle Class tax cut would be coming if Republicans take back the House in November.

“I’m going to make a tax cut, and we’re probably going to make the other permanent,” Trump said, adding that his administration would be announcing the new tax initiative in the next 90 days. The president also delivered a press conference that largely echoed the themes from his opening keynote speech yesterday after arriving in Switzerland.

Watch the full interview below:


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/22/2020 – 12:35

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

Tripoli’s Only Commercial Airport Targeted By 6 Missiles After Berlin ‘Ceasefire’ Fails

Tripoli’s Only Commercial Airport Targeted By 6 Missiles After Berlin ‘Ceasefire’ Fails

So much for any “progress” or talk of ceasefire touted days ago at the Berlin conference, when world leaders gathered to try and broker Libya peace. Wednesday’s Libya headlines featured rocket attacks on Tripoli’s only functioning international airport, forcing a temporary shutdown of the entire commercial hub. 

Authorities at Tripoli’s Mitiga have said it’s since reopened after being closed for an hour due to six military-grade Grad rockets being fired at the airport. A spokesman for the Government of National Accord (GNA) called the attack a “flagrant threat” air traffic safety and a “new violation” of the ceasefire. 

Tripoli’s Mitiga Airport, via AFP.

The GNA statement further blamed the “war criminal Haftar” for the attack, amid his Libyan National Army (LNA) continuing the months long offensive on the capital, part of a broader two-years long campaign to take the entire country and its oil. 

It has only been nine days since Mitiga airport’s reopening following a truce with the LNA, which clearly didn’t hold. In years past, Tripoli International Airport was the major international hub, but had in the years since the 2011 NATO war witnessed intense fighting in its vicinity, causing immense damage. Other than Mitiga, Tripoli residents are often forced to use Misrata Airport, about 125 miles away. 

Turkey has also weighed in on the newest attack and apparent failure the potentially internationally-brokered ceasefire, which also had Russian and Turkish involvement.  “Warlord Haftar, who posed a clear threat against the air traffic in the airport with this assault, has persistently disregarded the ceasefire call of the world,” a top Turkish security official was quoted in Middle East Eye as saying. 

For its part, Haftar’s LNA has alleged Tripoli’s main aviation hub has become a legitimate military target given it’s hosted Turkish aircraft, including according to pro-Haftar forces drone activity. 

Turkish-supplied drones have actually been operating over Tripoli for months, which a handful shot down over the past half-year. There are also reports that Turkey has assisted in setting up anti-air defensive measures in and around Mitiga airport.

Haftar last Saturday took the drastic step of blocking all Libyan oil exports, slashing production by at least 50%, in protest of Turkey’s military intervention on behalf of Tripoli. 


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/22/2020 – 12:20

Tags
War Conflict
Politics

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