Police Find 8 Gas Bombs Outside G-20 Summit Venue

While investors were expecting a multitude of “tape bombs” during the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, it appears local police in the crime-plagued capital city have turned up the real thing.

G20

Argentina’s security minister told the Associated Press that eight makeshift gas bombs have been discovered at a site near the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, in an area where protests against the summit are expected on Friday.

According to Security Minister Patricia Bullrich, police discovered the rudimentary bombs, made from bottles and cloth wicks, during an “operation” more than six miles from the summit’s venue. The bombs were discovered inside a burned out taxi cab. Despite the find, Bullrich said she expects a “day of peace without violence.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2BHOYJI Tyler Durden

Facebook’s Sandberg Ordered Investigation Into Soros Short Sales After Criticism From Billionaire

In a January email to a senior executive, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg ordered an investigation into whether the billionaire activist had been shorting the company’s stock while calling it a “menace to society” in a blistering speech that same month at the World Economic Forum, according to a new report by the New York Times. 

The revelation is a follow-up to a Times exposé two weeks ago which exposed Facebook’s mercenary approach to public relations – including hiring a GOP-linked PR firm, Definers, to label liberal critics of the company as Soros operatives, and to collaborate with another company to create factual-yet-damaging advertisements criticizing Apple and Google amid the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal.

In particular, Facebook used Definers to target a coalition called Freedom from Facebook – which crashed a House Judiciary Committee hearing where a company executive was testifying about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Definers labeled Freedom from Facebook organizers as anti-Semitic, and directed reporters to explore connections to Soros, after the Hungarian-American billionaire levied harsh criticism at the social media giant. 

He [Soros] was a natural target. In a speech at the World Economic Forum in January, he had attacked Facebook and Google, describing them as a monopolist “menace” with “neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions.”

Definers pressed reporters to explore the financial connections between Mr. Soros’s family or philanthropies and groups that were members of Freedom from Facebook, such as Color of Change, an online racial justice organization, as well as a progressive group founded by Mr. Soros’s son. –NYT

While Sandberg initially denied knowledge of the Definers’ work for the company – telling CBS This Morning two days after the Times story broke that she “learned of that in the paper yesterday,” it strains credulity that she would order research into Soros while Definers was simultaneously mounting a PR assault on him. Sandberg acknowledged in a Thanksgiving eve statement that some of the Definers’ work for Facebook had in fact crossed her desk. 

In a response to Thursday’s Times piece, Facebook said that the research into Soros was “already underway” when she sent the email. 

“Mr. Soros is a prominent investor and we looked into his investments and trading activity related to Facebook,” the company said. “That research was already underway when Sheryl sent an email asking if Mr. Soros had shorted Facebook’s stock.” The company said that while Ms. Sandberg “takes full responsibility for any activity that happened on her watch,” she did not personally direct any research on Freedom from Facebook, an anti-Facebook coalition whose members were among the subjects of Definers’ later work. –NYT

Freedom from Facebook spokesman Eddie Vale says he’s skeptical of the company’s story. 

“In light of Sandberg’s continuously changing story on the Soros research, there’s no way their denials about attacking other critics can be taken at face value,” Mr. Vale said. “Facebook must immediately release any emails and any research about targeting the Freedom from Facebook coalition or any member organizations.”

Facebook has defended its research into Soros as a “prudent and necessary step for any public company under attack by a high-profile figure,” according to the Times. Others, however, are spotlighting the aggressive public relations campaign amid the fallout from both the data harvesting scandal and revelations that the company sought to conceal evidence that Russia had used the platform to influence the 2016 US election. 

The Times investigation found that Ms. Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, had ignored warnings about abuse on the platform and sought to conceal from public view evidence that Russia had used it to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign and help elect President Trump. The Times also found that when Facebook was confronted last spring with revelations that the privacy of tens of millions of users had been compromised by Cambridge Analytica, a Trump-linked data firm, Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg sought to downplay the problem and deflect blame. –NYT

Some have called on Sandberg’s ouster from the company despite the former Head of Communications, Elliot Schrage, falling on his sword and taking blame for the work done by Definers. Sandberg, meanwhile, maintains that she hired Definers or directed the firm’s research. 

“She very much placed it on the now departed communications chief,” said Rashad Robinson, head of the racial-justice group Color of Change, targeted in a Definers memo about Soros. 

In a statement, a company spokesman said: “Sheryl never directed research on Freedom from Facebook. But, as she said before, she takes full responsibility for any activity that happened on her watch.”

Apparently “full responsibility” means firing a scapegoat and not stepping down. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2zxEknI Tyler Durden

3 Things That Happened Just Before The 2008 Crisis Are Happening Again Right Now

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Real estate, oil and the employment numbers are all telling us the same thing, and that is really bad news for the U.S. economy.  It really does appear that economic activity is starting to slow down significantly, but just like in 2008 those that are running things don’t want to admit the reality of what we are facing.  Back then, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke insisted that the U.S. economy was not heading into a recession, and we later learned that a recession had already begun when he made that statement.  And as you will see at the end of this article, current Fed Chair Jerome Powell says that he is “very happy” with how the U.S. economy is performing, but he shouldn’t be so thrilled. 

Signs of trouble are everywhere, and we just got several more pieces of troubling news.

Thanks to aggressive rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, the average rate on a 30 year mortgage is now up to about 4.8 percent.  Just like in 2008, that is killing the housing market and it has us on the precipice of another real estate meltdown.

And some of the markets that were once the hottest in the entire country are leading the way down.  For example, just check out what is happening in Manhattan…

In the third quarter, the median price for a one-bedroom Manhattan home was $815,000, down 4% from the same period in 2017. The volume of sales fell 12.7%.

Of course things are even worse at the high end of the market.  Some Manhattan townhouses are selling for millions of dollars less than what they were originally listed for.

Sadly, Manhattan is far from alone.  Pending home sales are down all over the nation.  In October, U.S. pending home sales were down 4.6 percent on a year over year basis, and that was the tenth month in a row that we have seen a decline…

Hope was high for a rebound (after new-home-sales slumped), but that was dashed as pending home sales plunged 2.6% MoM in October (well below the expected 0.5% MoM bounce).

Additionally, Pending Home Sales fell 4.6% YoY – the 10th consecutive month of annual declines…

When something happens for 10 months in a row, I think that you can safely say that a trend has started.

Sales of new homes continue to plummet as well.  In fact, we just witnessed a 12 percent year over year decline for sales of new single family houses last month…

Sales of new single-family houses plunged 12% in October, compared to a year ago, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 544,000 houses, according to estimates by the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

With an inventory of new houses for sale at 336,000 (seasonally adjusted), the supply at the current rate of sales spiked to 7.4 months, from 6.5 months’ supply in September, and from 5.6 months’ supply a year ago.

If all of this sounds eerily similar to 2008, that is because it is eerily similar to what happened just before and during the last financial crisis.

Up until now, at least the economic optimists could point to the employment numbers as a reason for hope, but not anymore.

In fact, initial claims for unemployment benefits have now risen for three weeks in a row…

The number of Americans filing applications for jobless benefits increased to a six-month high last week, which could raise concerns that the labor market could be slowing.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 10,000 to a seasonally adjusted 234,000 for the week ended Nov. 24, the highest level since the mid-May, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Claims have now risen for three straight weeks.

This is also similar to what we witnessed back in 2008.  Jobless claims started to creep up, and then when the crisis fully erupted there was an avalanche of job losses.

And just like 10 years ago, we are starting to see a lot of big corporations start to announce major layoffs.

General Motors greatly upset President Trump when they announced that they were cutting 14,000 jobs just before the holidays, but GM is far from alone.  For a list of some of the large firms that have just announced layoffs, please see my previous article entitled “U.S. Job Losses Accelerate: Here Are 10 Big Companies That Are Cutting Jobs Or Laying Off Workers”.

A third parallel to 2008 is what is happening to the price of oil.

In 2008, the price of oil shot up to a record high before falling precipitously.

Well, now a similar thing has happened.  Earlier this year the price of oil shot up to $76 a barrel, but this week it slid beneath the all-important $50 barrier…

Oil’s recent slide has shaved more than a third off its price. Crude fell more than 1% Thursday to as low as $49.41 a barrel. The last time oil closed below $50 was in October 4, 2017. By mid morning the price had climbed back to above $51.

Concerns about oversupply have sent oil prices into a virtual freefall: Crude hit a four-year high above $76 a barrel less than two months ago.

When economists are asked why the price of oil is falling, the primary answer they give is because global economic activity is softening.

And that is definitely the case.  In fact, we just learned that economic confidence in the eurozone has declined for the 11th month in a row…

Euro-area economic confidence slipped for an 11th straight month, further damping expectations that the currency bloc will rebound from a sharp growth slowdown and complicating the European Central Bank’s plans to pare back stimulus.

In addition, we just got news that the Swiss and Swedish economies had negative growth in the third quarter.

The economic news is bad across the board, and it appears to be undeniable that a global economic downturn has begun.

But current Fed Chair Jerome Powell insists that he is “very happy about the state of the economy”…

Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve’s chairman, has also taken an optimistic line, declaring in Texas recently that he was “very happy about the state of the economy.”

That is just great.  He can be as happy as he wants, and he can continue raising interest rates as he sticks his head in the sand, but nothing is going to change economic reality.

Every single Fed rate hiking cycle in history has ended in a market crash and/or a recession, and this time won’t be any different.

The Federal Reserve created the “boom” that we witnessed in recent years, but we must also hold them responsible for the “bust” that is about to happen.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2zAcx5V Tyler Durden

‘Let’s Whoop Some Ass’: St. Louis Cops Charged With Beating Undercover Detective Posing as Protester

Several St. Louis cops face federal charges for beating a man they thought was a protester and then covering up the encounter. Their victim turned out to be an undercover officer himself.

The incident took place in September 2017, when protests erupted over the acquittal of former police officer Jason Stockley. (Stockley had shot and killed black driver Anthony Lamar Smith following a police chase. Stockley, who claimed self-defense, was tried for murder and found not guilty.) As demonstrators took to the streets, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department deployed officers to work crowd control and to crack down on criminal activity.

According to an indictment filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri, four officers—Dustin Boone, Randy Hays, Christopher Myers, and Bailey Colletta—”encountered” a man they believed to be a protester, identified only as L.H.

Boone, Hays, and Myers allegedly took L.H. to the ground and beat him “while he was compliant and not posing a threat to anybody,” the indictment says. “This offense resulted in bodily injury to L.H. and included the use of a dangerous weapon, that is: shod feet and a riot baton.”

L.H. was not actually a protester. He was an undercover detective and 22-year veteran of the police department. His full name is Luther Hall, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, and he apparently suffered severe injuries. His jaw muscles became inflamed after he was kicked in the face, causing him to have trouble eating and lose 20 pounds. He has also had issues with his tailbone, neck, and back, with the latter two requiring surgery.

After realizing L.H. was a cop, Boone, Hays, and Myers allegedly proceeded to cover up their actions. They’re accused of falsely claiming that he resisted arrest, as well as trying to persuade him not to report their actions. The three officers also allegedly lied to potential witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony. Myers stands accused of destroying L.H.’s phone in another attempt to obstruct the investigation.

Colletta, who was romantically involved with Hays at the time, allegedly saw her fellow officers arrest L.H. She’s accused of lying, both to investigators and to a grand jury, about what happened.

The indictment also includes text messages from Boone, Hays, and Myers that seem to show they were looking forward to beating up on protesters. “[L]et’s whoop some ass,” Myers wrote. “It’s gonna get IGNORANT tonight,” Boone responded. “But it’s gonna be a lot of fun beating the hell out of these shitheads once the sun goes down and nobody can tell us apart.” Two days later, Boone wrote to Myers that it’s “a blast beating people that deserve it.” Several weeks after the incident involving L.H., Hays said in a message to Boone that “going rogue does feel good.”

The four officers, who have been placed on unpaid leave, are being represented by the police union’s lawyers. If convicted, each could face decades in prison. “We encourage elected officials, the media and the public to allow them their day in court without speculation about their guilt or innocence,” St. Louis Police Officers’ Association business manager Jeff Roorda tells the Post-Dispatch.

Allegations of police abuse were widespread during the Stockley protests. In September, 14 lawsuits were filed on behalf of people arrested and/or pepper-sprayed during the protests, including several journalists.

The Rev. Darryl Gray, who helped organize the demonstrations, hopes the alleged assault of an undercover cop will help people understand there’s a problem. “Maybe this police officer getting beat up by three of his own, who deliberately went out to hurt someone who was compliant and not resisting, maybe this is what is needed in this country and this city and this region to finally say, ‘We have not gone far enough to hold police accountable,'” Gray tells The Washington Post.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2AAvjdd
via IFTTT

When Putin Met Bin Sally

In the annals of handshake photo-ops, we just may have a new winner (much to the delight of oil bulls who are looking at oil treading $50 and contemplating jumping out of the window).

Meanwhile, earlier…

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KKkxFM Tyler Durden

Is China Spying On Tesla?

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via Oilprice.com,

Tesla and other electric vehicle (EV) companies in China send as many as 61 real-time data points, typically without the drivers’ knowledge, to monitoring centers backed by the Chinese government, The Associated Press reports, raising questions whether the huge amount of data that China requires from automakers to transmit may be used for surveillance.

Tesla and more than 200 other carmakers – including Ford, General Motors, Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler, Nissan, and Mitsubishi – send location information and details about battery and engine function in EVs to government-backed monitoring centers.

While many cars in the U.S., Europe, and Japan send location information back to the car manufacturers who feed the data to car-tracking and amenities apps, the data from passenger cars stops there in those markets. Government agencies and law enforcement can access more personal data in those markets only in case of a specific criminal investigation, lawyers told AP’s Erika Kinetz.

In China, the amount of real-time data sent to and collected at the monitoring centers is much larger, which sparks concerns about privacy, whether the data is used for mass surveillance, and whether proprietary car-manufacturing data about engine/hybrid/batteries could be used to the advantage of Chinese government-backed companies.

The carmakers say that they just follow local laws to send EVs sensors data to the monitoring centers, according to the AP. China claims that the data is used for data analytics to improve infrastructure planning and public safety. But critics of the vast amount of real-time data collected fear that the data goes way beyond the Chinese aims to improve safety and infrastructure.

Carmakers have initially resisted sending so many data points to Chinese monitoring centers, but then the government bound data sharing with incentives – transmitting data is a requirement for incentives, a government consultant who helped assess the policy told AP.

Fears of government surveillance may not be unfounded, considering the Communist country’s aim to keep everyone in line and the recent media attention on China’s plan to roll out a Social Credit System to rank its citizens.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PbXILG Tyler Durden

Journalists Create a Database to Track Bad New Jersey Cops

|||Screenshot via YouTube/NJ.com

An alarming number of New Jersey cops have used excessive force, but the state has done very little to track these incidents. In an effort to promote accountability and transparency in policing, NJ.com has taken up the gauntlet.

The Force Report, released this week, is a database based on 506 public records requests and 72,607 use-of-force reports from 2012 to 2016. With this information, New Jersey residents in any town can see the rates of excessive force in their town.

In Newark, for example, there were 2,580 use-of-force incidents over the course of five years—28.6 incidents for every 1,000 arrests made. That’s the largest number of these incidents in the state.

The report also allows residents to see the relevant officers’ names. Louis Weber, for example, has been identified in at least 36 excessive force incidents in Newark. In 2014, Weber was accused of planting drugs on a suspect to justify excessive force in his arrest.

The report’s metadata covers the racial breakdown of incidents, the poor incident reporting system, and the different types of force used. To read the whole thing, go here.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2zy6TkA
via IFTTT

WTI Tumbles Below $50 – Biggest Monthly Plunge Since 2008

Oil tanked back below $50 this morning and is headed for its biggest monthly decline in 10 years – less than a month after Goldman herded its clients into the collapsing assets, predicting Brent would hit $80 by the end of the year – as Russia reiterated it’s comfortable with current prices, just a week before it meets with OPEC to discuss possible production curbs.

“As things stand, the Russians and Saudis are still far from being on the same page over the finer details of looming output restrictions,” Stephen Brennock, an analyst at PVM Oil Associates in London, wrote in a report.

“Against this backdrop, the most likely outcome of next week’s OPEC meeting is a fudge.”

Crude’s next leg hinges on Saudi Arabia’s dilemma of busting the budget or angering Trump, but as prices plunge, China is grabbing every barrel it can get.

November is now the 2nd worst month for WTI since Jan 1991…

Meanwhile, all eyes are on energy junk bonds: as Goldman wrote overnight, “WTI below $50/bbl will unquestionably constrain risk appetite in the HY market”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PaY6KH Tyler Durden

Trump And Putin Will NOT Hold “Brief Impromptu Meeting” At G-20

Update: It appears Adam Shiff didn’t like it – The White House has just confirmed that Presidents Trump and Putin will NOT have a “scheduled pull aside” meeting at the G-20 meetings.

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, Adam Schiff isn’t going to like this.

One day after President Trump said he wouldn’t be meeting with his Russian counterpart because of Russia’s refusals to return three Ukrainian ships and release two dozen sailors captured during Sunday’s confrontation near the Kerch Strait, the Kremlin is claiming that Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet for a brief “impromptu” meeting during the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, according to CNBC.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Putin will have a “brief impromptu meeting” with President Trump, just as he expects to meet with other leaders at the G-20 summit.

Trump

Russia said Thursday that it regretted Trump’s decision, but that it was still “ready for contact,” while also warning that by not meeting with Putin, Trump risked “indefinitely” postponing important talks about issues that affect both countries.

Assuming Putin does meet with both Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, it would mean that the three most influential figures for global oil markets will have had a chance to talk during the summit.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2zyqRff Tyler Durden

The NAFTA Rewrite Is Flawed, but Not Getting It to Congress This Year Might Be an Even Bigger Mistake

For all the talk of his deal-making prowess, President Donald Trump has precious little to show for it during his nearly two years in office. Unless his administration takes quick action to get the rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) before Congress, even that mild accomplishment may be relegated to legislative limbo.

This morning Trump held a high-profile signing ceremony with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto at the G-20 summit in Argentina. The leaders of the three countries put their signatures to the final version of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), but the deal must still be ratified by each domestic government.

If the Trump administration wants to get the USMCA through Congress solely with Republican votes, the clock is running out. Realistically, today is the deadline for getting the proposal in front of Congress. Under the terms of what’s known as “Trade Promotion Authority,” Congress granted Trump the power to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA, but the legislative branch must ratify the agreement with an up-or-down vote after a mandatory 30-day review period. The current session of Congress ends on January 3. After that, Democrats will control the House.

The approaching Democratic takeover does not foreclose the possibility of Congress voting to ratify the USMCA, but certainly complicates the pact’s path forward. Politically, of course, Democrats may hold up the passage of the USMCA merely to deny Trump a policy win. Practically, Democratic leaders may demand changes to the agreement that Senate Republicans or the Trump administration (or the governments of Canada or Mexico) will not abide.

For that matter, it’s not clear that the USMCA would pass even with Republicans in control of both chambers. That’s because some congressional Republicans disagree with the Trump administration on trade issues and correctly see the USMCA as moving North America further from free trade.

“On balance, it leaves us with diminished trading opportunities, rather than expanded trading opportunities with Mexico and Canada,” says Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Pa.), who has emerged as Senate Republicans’ most vocal critic of the USMCA. Toomey says he would be a “no” vote on the USMCA as currently written.

His objections are good ones. The USMCA imposes new requirements for the origin of cars and car parts, mandating that at least 75 percent of cars’ content must be produced in North America and at least 40 percent must be produced by workers earning $16 an hour (or the equivalent in other currency) in order to cross national borders tariff-free. That’s likely to raise the cost of making cars in North America and could lead automakers to move more production overseas. The agreement also sets quotas for imported cars from Canada and Mexico, and raises the threat of further automotive tariffs. Finally, Toomey objects to the USMCA’s sunset provision, which would see parts of the agreement expire automatically after 16 years. “It’s a bad idea to have a trade agreement that’s designed to go away,” Toomey says, citing the need for investor certainty.

While Toomey is alone in putting his vote on the USMCA on the record, he’s not the only senator to raise concerns with the deal. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) has said the greement appears to be “empowering government bureaucrats rather than markets to determine the components in cars and other goods.” Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) took his complaints about “how bad the new trade deal with Mexico is for Florida” to Twitter on Wednesday—though Rubio appears to be seeking more protectionism, not freer trade.

Still, threading the needle on the USMCA will only become more difficult after January 3, when the current Congress ends.

If Democrats are willing to consider the trade deal at all—keep in mind that Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) killed a Bush-era trade deal with Colombia in 2008 by refusing even to schedule a vote on it—they may try to move it in a more protectionist direction. Some of Trump’s priorities, like the minimum wage rule and import quotas, align more closely with Democrats’ long-term views on NAFTA, but Democrats are likely to push for even more changes to avoid giving Trump an easy win and to appeal to their own progressive base. Remember, Democrats running for president in 2016 unanimously opposed the Obama-era Trans-Pacific Partnership deal (even Hillary Clinton, who had previously supported it), while every major Republican candidate except Trump favored it.

Rep. Richard Neal (D–Mass.), who is in position to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee in January, may have tipped the Democrats’ hand in October when he said that “the bar for supporting a new NAFTA will be high” and that he was “not confident at all” that the deal would clear Congress. And that was before the Democrats won the election.

As The New York Times has outlined, Democrats’ opposition to the USMCA will likely focus on upping the effective minimum wage rate for automakers, indexing it to inflation, and setting stricter environmental regulations across all three countries.

Even if Trump goes along with those demands, any changes to the USMCA that erect further barriers to trade would make pro-trade Senate Republicans more likely to jump ship.

It’s tempting to think that the USMCA falling apart in Congress is for the best. While it does include some improvements over NAFTA—freer trade of Canadian agricultural products, some sensibly updated rules for technology—the USMCA is, on the whole, a more protectionist framework than what it would be replacing. Just let it die, right?

Toomey disagrees. If the White House is unable to get the USMCA through Congress next year, he worries the president will do what he’s long threatened to: Unilaterally yank the United States out of NAFTA without a replacement ready. That would be disastrous for the economy, Toomey warned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. It could also send Washington spiraling into another constitutional crisis, because it’s not clear whether Trump would have the authority to do that without congressional approval.

Still, if Trump wanted to get his NAFTA rewrite through Congress quickly and easily, the best choice would have been to dial down the protectionism and seek approval soon after a deal with struck with Canada and Mexico last month. At this late moment, the chances that the USMCA will be approved before Democrats take the House are slim to none. Getting it passed in December is “probably, sadly impractical,” Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) tells The Weekly Standard‘s Haley Byrd. The Trump administration, Cornyn says, does not seem to have any sense of urgency to get the deal done.

Depending on how cynically you view Trump, it’s possible to conclude that the president is trying to create Toomey’s nightmare scenario—where lack of congressional agreement on the USMCA gives Trump the impetus to act alone on killing NAFTA, something he wanted to do soon after taking office only to be dissuaded by aides who urged the renegotiation approach.

“The path to getting this ratified, if the administration chooses to wait, is not at all clear to me,” says Toomey. “It almost certainly means it moves in a more protectionist direction.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2zB5mdF
via IFTTT