Q4 GDP Crashes: US Economy Growing At Slowest Pace In 4 Years

Q4 GDP Crashes: US Economy Growing At Slowest Pace In 4 Years

Following a burst of poor US economic data, including today’s disappointing retail sales and dismal industrial production, the US economic surprise index has slipped back into the negative after peaking in late September.

This slowdown in high frequency economic indicators has not been lost on strategists, and in just the past week, tracking estimates for Q4 GDP have tumbled by over 0.4% in just the past week, with both the Atlanta Fed and New York Fed now expecting a sub-0.40% GDP print in the current quarter.

If one focuses on just the two popular Fed nowcasts, that of the Atlanta and New York Feds…

… US GDP in Q4 is set to print at the lowest level in 4 years at around 0.35%, and would be only the fifth time in 42 quarter since the Q3 2009 exit from recession when US growth has risen by less than 0.5% Q/Q.

Source: Reuters’ Jeoff Hall

We only bring this up to point out that the S&P500, which is printing at all time highs well above 3,100, is clearly no longer reliant on the US economic outlook, even if US GDP is now expected to print dangerously close to contraction due to a sharp slowdown in household spending, capex, residential investment and inventories.

So what does matter, if it’s not the market, or earnings which as we pointed out previously are not only negative for Q3 but also just turned negative for the 4th quarter according to consensus sellside estimates, suggesting a technical earnings recession awaits?

The answer: the Fed’s balance sheet, which has increased by $288 billion in the past two months, a faster rate of increase than that observed during QE3.

Just remember, it’s not QE4… it’s NOT QE, or wait, it is QE but if you call it that, confidence that the economy is recovering may disappear (especially when GDP is set to grow at 0.4%), and investors may ask what the true price of equities would be if it wasn’t for, what else, the Federal Reserve.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/15/2019 – 14:10

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33VjXxK Tyler Durden

Boise’s New Stadium Referendum Requirement Should Be a Model for Other Cities

Voters in Boise, Idaho, voted overwhelmingly last week to require more votes before the city can spend public money on stadiums. It’s an idea that other cities and states should copy.

The so-called “vote for a vote” proposition will require a majority of city voters to approve any future stadium project that uses more than $5 million in public money. More than 50,000 ballots were cast in the Election Day referendum, and more than 75 percent of voters supported the idea. Its passage may complicate the city council’s plans to build a $50 million soccer and/or baseball stadium in the hopes of attracting a minor league franchise.

Boise voters also approved a similar measure that prohibits the city from spending more than $25 million on library construction projects—the city has proposed building an $85 million library—without voter approval.

In both cases, giving taxpayers a more direct say over expensive building projects makes sense. On his Field of Schemes blog, stadium critic Neil deMause favorably compares the new Boise referendum to a similar ballot initiative passed a decade ago in Seattle. The Seattle measure, known as “I-91,” requires that city officials demonstrate stadium projects would generate a return on investment exceeding how much the city could earn by investing the same amount of public money in U.S. Treasury bonds. It has been one of the more effective local limitations on stadium boondoggles across the county, deMause argued in a 2017 piece for Deadspin.

Requiring a public vote on stadium projects is an even better check on bad deals—in part because it would force those deals to be made more transparently. Boise’s new requirement would effectively prevent the kind of shenanigans that occurred in Cobb County, Georgia, in 2013, when county officials and Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves negotiated a secret deal to bring the team to the city’s northern suburbs. Taxpayers were put on the hook for $400 million in stadium construction costs, but there was almost no public discussion of the agreement before county officials voted to approve it. Braves’ president John Schuerholz later admitted that the deal was done in private to avoid a public backlash.

The county commissioner who engineered the whole thing was voted out of office in 2016. That provides a bit of a satisfying ending, but obviously it would be better for taxpayers and voters to be able to stop bad stadium deals before they are made, rather than simply booting politicians who make them.

Requiring a referendum isn’t an automatic death knell for stadiums. Major League Baseball’s Texas Rangers are moving into a new $1 billion stadium in 2020, and the $500 million in public funding was approved by voters in Arlington, Texas, with a 2016 referendum.

It makes sense for cities to ensure that residents have a say in stadium subidies. The benefits of forcing additional transparency into a process where team owners and public officials have a strong incentive to mislead or hide details is itself reason enough to follow Boise’s example.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32Q44qX
via IFTTT

Boise’s New Stadium Referendum Requirement Should Be a Model for Other Cities

Voters in Boise, Idaho, voted overwhelmingly last week to require more votes before the city can spend public money on stadiums. It’s an idea that other cities and states should copy.

The so-called “vote for a vote” proposition will require a majority of city voters to approve any future stadium project that uses more than $5 million in public money. More than 50,000 ballots were cast in the Election Day referendum, and more than 75 percent of voters supported the idea. Its passage may complicate the city council’s plans to build a $50 million soccer and/or baseball stadium in the hopes of attracting a minor league franchise.

Boise voters also approved a similar measure that prohibits the city from spending more than $25 million on library construction projects—the city has proposed building an $85 million library—without voter approval.

In both cases, giving taxpayers a more direct say over expensive building projects makes sense. On his Field of Schemes blog, stadium critic Neil deMause favorably compares the new Boise referendum to a similar ballot initiative passed a decade ago in Seattle. The Seattle measure, known as “I-91,” requires that city officials demonstrate stadium projects would generate a return on investment exceeding how much the city could earn by investing the same amount of public money in U.S. Treasury bonds. It has been one of the more effective local limitations on stadium boondoggles across the county, deMause argued in a 2017 piece for Deadspin.

Requiring a public vote on stadium projects is an even better check on bad deals—in part because it would force those deals to be made more transparently. Boise’s new requirement would effectively prevent the kind of shenanigans that occurred in Cobb County, Georgia, in 2013, when county officials and Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves negotiated a secret deal to bring the team to the city’s northern suburbs. Taxpayers were put on the hook for $400 million in stadium construction costs, but there was almost no public discussion of the agreement before county officials voted to approve it. Braves’ president John Schuerholz later admitted that the deal was done in private to avoid a public backlash.

The county commissioner who engineered the whole thing was voted out of office in 2016. That provides a bit of a satisfying ending, but obviously it would be better for taxpayers and voters to be able to stop bad stadium deals before they are made, rather than simply booting politicians who make them.

Requiring a referendum isn’t an automatic death knell for stadiums. Major League Baseball’s Texas Rangers are moving into a new $1 billion stadium in 2020, and the $500 million in public funding was approved by voters in Arlington, Texas, with a 2016 referendum.

It makes sense for cities to ensure that residents have a say in stadium subidies. The benefits of forcing additional transparency into a process where team owners and public officials have a strong incentive to mislead or hide details is itself reason enough to follow Boise’s example.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32Q44qX
via IFTTT

Heartlanders Bored To Tears By Impeachment Schiff-Show

Heartlanders Bored To Tears By Impeachment Schiff-Show

Authored by Sarah Cowgill via LibertyNation.com,

While a lot of eyes were glued to the television sets this week as the Democrats began their public hearing on the impeachment of President Donald Trump, most flyover folks found the process a butt-numbing, ear-bleeding snooze fest and soon turned the channel.

No one trusts the news to get the facts and when it is as boring and predictable as this Democrat Schiff-show has been, well, they find quirky political news to discuss as a matter of self-preservation.

What To Do During Boring Hearing?

The latest hero for the heartland is none other than Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who did take a hit for the team and watched impeachment hearings – with the goal of keeping his Twitter peeps informed. In a rapid series of cryptic missives imparting the news, a creative subliminal message emerged.  Using each first letter of subsequent tweets, Gosar spelled out “Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself.”

The chatter was nearing sensory overload on social media – from kudos to creativity, warnings to watch his six, and discussions of political strategies involving the ever-present contagiously viral phrase. Words like “hero” and “epic” and “legend” peppered social media outlets.

Purdue University grad, Doug Cooke, claimed it was simply “Political perfection!” and kudos to whoever figured it out and shared. And that prompted Carol Donaldson in Montgomery, AL to surmise where the best offensive might come from, “The Democrats own the Media. The Right owns the Memes!”

The good folks in Michigan were concerned for Gosar’s longevity, however, and Howard Denison in Grand Haven cautioned, “He’d better be careful. He could be ‘Clintoned.’” But the forewarning from Steve Jewell was much more sobering: “Maybe the whistleblower should take a cue from Epstein? Or Epstein’s non-killer, rather…”

Hunter Biden’s Kimono

Heartlanders are beginning to feel a deep-seated pity for the Biden family. The elder can’t keep his teeth in straight, delivers speeches to backscreens looking for an audience, sniffs everyone, and well, has Hunter as a son. As the impeachment hearing droned on like a drunkard’s snores, one interesting tidbit emerged. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent said under oath, regarding the lack of investigation into Burisma Holdings: “We’ve continued to press Ukrainian officials to answer for why allege corrupt prosecutors had closed [the] case. We have until now got an unsatisfactory answer.”

Yes, the very same Burisma that paid the then VP’s son an exorbitant amount of money to do not much of anything.  Suddenly, Hunter Biden got his knickers … er, kimono … in a twist:

“One thing I don’t have to do is sit here and open my kimono as it relates to how much money I make, or made, or did, or didn’t.”

Such an open invitation for what transpired next. You guessed It: it became all about his junk. Shari Greene answered his taunt, “Yeah, you do. And ‘eww’ for the flasher visual by the way.”  Kelley Lowery in South Dakota was right with Shari, requesting, “Keep the kimono closed.”

From the plains in Illinois, Ken Lawson shared his musings, bringing papa “bare” into the discussion, “The female Secret Service agents wished Joe would have kept his kimono shut during his early morning swims.”

But the last word this week goes to a flyover friend in Topeka, KS, Daryl Johnson: “Based on what you just said, you probably didn’t make much if opening kimono measures your wealth.”

Ouch.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/15/2019 – 13:55

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

An Arizona Deputy Pinned a Quadruple Amputee and Then Arrested the Teen Who Filmed Him

A disturbing video shows an Arizona sheriff’s deputy wrestling a quadruple amputee, age 15, just before arresting both the young man and the 16-year-old who recorded the incident.

Joel Feinman is head of the Pima County public defender’s office, which represented both of the teens arrested in the September incident. According to Feinman, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department was responding to a disorderly conduct call at a group home. The amputee, who had been abandoned by his parents, had knocked over a trash can and was yelling; Feinman says he was acting out because he wanted to return to school.

The video, which Feinman’s office provided to the local TV channel KOLD, shows a deputy pinning the teen to the ground, first with his body and then with his arm. The amputee screams for the deputy to get off, and the deputy eventually lets him go. After righting himself, the deputy asks the teen what his “problem” is. The teen replies that he didn’t have one and that the only thing he did was knock the trash over.

While the deputy expresses his frustration at the teen’s decision to continue to move, the teen asks him to lower his voice. The deputy bends over the teen and shouts, “I will raise my voice whenever the fuck I want!”

At this moment, the teen behind the camera intervenes, telling the deputy that the teen on the ground has already answered the question.

The deputy redirects his ire and says, “Shut the hell up! Are you involved in this?”

The deputy tells the second teen to go to his room. The teen says he’s not allowed. The deputy then approaches him and asks him multiple times, “Am I talking to you?” The second teen responds that he “doesn’t care” who the deputy is addressing.

The deputy exits the space briefly, and the second teen hands the camera to someone else. The recording continues long enough to capture two deputies placing handcuffs on the second teen. At one point, the deputies slam his head against the wall. He is then escorted outside.

Both young men were charged with disorderly conduct. On Thursday, the county attorney’s office informed Feinman that the charges had been dismissed.

“It’s horrific. Men with badges and guns should not be acting this way,” Feinman says. He adds that those who do conduct themselves in such a way “should not have badges and guns.”

The sheriff’s department Code of Conduct requires all its employees to “bear in mind that persons having business with the Sheriff’s Department are entitled to courteous and respectful consideration. Department members shall perform their duties efficiently and completely, avoiding harsh, violent, profane, or insolent language, and shall remain calm regardless of provocation.”

The department did not respond to a request for comment in a timely manner. It also has not released a statement on its website or social media feeds as of the time of this reporting. It did, however, tell KOLD that it would be conducting an internal investigation. It had not seen the video before KOLD approached them for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32SzjBE
via IFTTT

An Arizona Deputy Pinned a Quadruple Amputee and Then Arrested the Teen Who Filmed Him

A disturbing video shows an Arizona sheriff’s deputy wrestling a quadruple amputee, age 15, just before arresting both the young man and the 16-year-old who recorded the incident.

Joel Feinman is head of the Pima County public defender’s office, which represented both of the teens arrested in the September incident. According to Feinman, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department was responding to a disorderly conduct call at a group home. The amputee, who had been abandoned by his parents, had knocked over a trash can and was yelling; Feinman says he was acting out because he wanted to return to school.

The video, which Feinman’s office provided to the local TV channel KOLD, shows a deputy pinning the teen to the ground, first with his body and then with his arm. The amputee screams for the deputy to get off, and the deputy eventually lets him go. After righting himself, the deputy asks the teen what his “problem” is. The teen replies that he didn’t have one and that the only thing he did was knock the trash over.

While the deputy expresses his frustration at the teen’s decision to continue to move, the teen asks him to lower his voice. The deputy bends over the teen and shouts, “I will raise my voice whenever the fuck I want!”

At this moment, the teen behind the camera intervenes, telling the deputy that the teen on the ground has already answered the question.

The deputy redirects his ire and says, “Shut the hell up! Are you involved in this?”

The deputy tells the second teen to go to his room. The teen says he’s not allowed. The deputy then approaches him and asks him multiple times, “Am I talking to you?” The second teen responds that he “doesn’t care” who the deputy is addressing.

The deputy exits the space briefly, and the second teen hands the camera to someone else. The recording continues long enough to capture two deputies placing handcuffs on the second teen. At one point, the deputies slam his head against the wall. He is then escorted outside.

Both young men were charged with disorderly conduct. On Thursday, the county attorney’s office informed Feinman that the charges had been dismissed.

“It’s horrific. Men with badges and guns should not be acting this way,” Feinman says. He adds that those who do conduct themselves in such a way “should not have badges and guns.”

The sheriff’s department Code of Conduct requires all its employees to “bear in mind that persons having business with the Sheriff’s Department are entitled to courteous and respectful consideration. Department members shall perform their duties efficiently and completely, avoiding harsh, violent, profane, or insolent language, and shall remain calm regardless of provocation.”

The department did not respond to a request for comment in a timely manner. It also has not released a statement on its website or social media feeds as of the time of this reporting. It did, however, tell KOLD that it would be conducting an internal investigation. It had not seen the video before KOLD approached them for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32SzjBE
via IFTTT

This Is What Hedge Funds Bought And Sold In Q3: Complete 13F Summary

This Is What Hedge Funds Bought And Sold In Q3: Complete 13F Summary

In a world where only two things matter: i) whether there is any “trade deal optimism” on any given day, and ii) whether the Fed is injecting or draining liquidity from the market, it is understandable why the cachet that hedge funds once held in terms of moving the market with their stock picks, and pans, has disappeared. The fact that most hedge funds have also dreadfully underperformed the market – and in fact, the best strategy of the past decade has been to do the opposite of what the most popular hedge fund trades are – certainly has not helped.

And yet, every quarter, we still go through the usual song and dance, where analysts look at the top holdings and position changes revealed by hedge funds in their 13F some 45 days after the end of the quarter in question, and Q3 was no different.

So here is a quick rundown of the most notable changes revealed by hedge funds in the past day or two as the latest batch of 13Fs hit the tape:

  • S&P500: Hedge funds, unable to generate alpha and willing to replace it with beta (while collecting 2 and 20 for basically replicating the market) rushed to place bets on the broader market, spending big bux on ETFs that track the S&P 500 Index.
  • Alibaba: a flurry of hedge funds made the largest Chinese online retailer a top buy. Tiger Global Management was the biggest hedge fund buyer of Alibaba in the quarter. However, last month, Bloomberg reported that the Trump administration is considering forcing a delisting of Chinese companies from U.S. exchanges, a move that could put Alibaba stock holdings into disarray.
  • Facebook: hedge funds piled into the social network with Harvard University’s endowment adding 2 million shares, bringing the value of its position to roughly $400 million. Tiger Global increased its holding, as did Appaloosa Management LP and D1 Capital Partners LP, which favored FAANGs overall. Not every fund was buying: Coatue Management LLC, Viking Global Investors LP and Adage Capital Partners LP all cut their stakes.
  • FAANGs: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google (Alphabet) took a beating after a solid first half, after shares of Netflix were hammered in the third quarter on concerns over customer growth. Viking Global Investors doubled down on the video-streaming giant, bringing its stake to $1.2 billion. Lone Pine took a big new position while Maverick Capital and D1 Capital added to existing ones. On Friday, speculation that Bill Ackman had also built a 10% position in NFLX sent the stock sharply higher.
  • Microsoft: the original software company was one of the less popular stocks for the second quarter in a row. Tiger cubs Viking, Coatue and Maverick Capital Ltd. all decreased their holdings in the tech giant as did Druckenmiller’s Duquesne Family Office. But the software giant was up more than 3% during that period and has been a top performer this year, with shares up near 46%.
  • Apple: even though Apple’s relentless buyback frenzy helped push the stock up to all time highs, hedge funds sold: Renaissance dumped 2.2 million shares, or most of its Apple holding; Buffett also sold a small fraction (0.3%) of his AAPL holdings for the first time; at the same Marshall Wace added 1.3 million shares.
  • Restoration Hardware: Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway built a new position in home furnishings company RH.  The stock surged after the news of his move was disclosed.
  • Uber: Stan Druckenmiller offloaded almost all of his stake in Uber. The stock has dropped almost 14% since the end of last quarter, even as many hedge funds bought a stake in the ridesharing company.
  • Allergan: Dan Loeb took a new position in Allergan, buying 1.1% of the company’s outstanding stock. The shares are up this quarter.
  • KKR: Ken Griffin’s Citadel jumped into private equity giant KKR. The stock has gained 11% so far in the fourth quarter thanks in part to the firm switching to a corporation from a partnership.
  • Berkshire: Warren Buffett’s congloemrate spent the third quarter trimming some of its largest stock bets, including Apple Inc., Wells Fargo and Phillips 66. Buffett’s firm is limited to keeping its ownership of the San Francisco lender below a 10% threshold, and it’s been near that level recently. Berkshire’s Apple stake was reduced but by a modest 0.3%, with the investment valued at $55.7 billion at the end of September. Berkshire’s bet on Apple, influencedby one of his deputies, has swiftly climbed to the top of its $220 billion stock portfolio since his company first disclosed the stake in 2016. Despite selling some Wells, Buffett is currently seeking permission from the Fed to increase Berkshire’s stake in Bank of America Corp. after it crossed the 10% level.

A complete rundown of the most notable hedge funds is shown below, courtesy of Bloomberg:

ADAGE CAPITAL PARTNERS LP

  • Top new buys: KMB, LHX, PTON, FISV, GDX, GTES, EXP, CDW, PNM, JKHY
  • Top exits: RTN, JCI, TJX, EL, SAP, GMS, XRX, RCKT, ITW, LEA
  • Boosted stakes in: AGN, CELG, LMT, BURL, AAPL, GOOG, UA, GOOGL, MSFT, AAP
  • Cut stakes in: AMZN, COST, EMR, HON, VLO, CVX, FB, AVY, W, CF

APPALOOSA INVESTMENT LP

  • Top new buys: BABA, AVGO, BA
  • Top exits: I, CNC
  • Boosted stakes in: GOOG, MU, FB, AMZN, ADBE, ET, PCG
  • Cut stakes in: UNH, XOP, HUM, COOP, CWEN, CWEN/A

ARROWGRASS

  • Top new buys: GMHI, Z, RPLA, ACTT, XLE, SNDL, PFPT, BRK/B, AERI, PRU
  • Top exits: LQD, CELG, AGN, MLNX, HYG, WBC, NFLX, CY, CRM, DIS
  • Boosted stakes in: XOP, ABBV, PFE, OKTA, MET, AAL, ALXN, CAT, AMLP, VXX
  • Cut stakes in: UBER, ILMN, DOW, LOW, NKE, T, WYNN, GOOGL, BIDU, FXI

BALYASNY ASSET MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: XLI, XLU, CRM, XLB, ORLY, XBI, JBHT, MAR, LRCX, KSS
  • Top exits: MCD, BUD, BAX, BURL, EOG, RJF, DUK, KO, ADBE, ETR
  • Boosted stakes in: MET, MTB, CMG, QSR, GOOGL, ZION, MSFT, TSN, ROST, ZBH
  • Cut stakes in: WMT, UTX, LH, KMB, SPY, GS, IR, AIG, C, GM

BAUPOST GROUP

  • Top new buys: NUAN, VIST, CARS
  • Top exits: AGN, XPO, SBGI
  • Boosted stakes in: NXST, TBIO, LBTYA, CBS, ATRA, LBTYK
  • Cut stakes in: EBAY, MCK, QRVO, SYF, AR, ABC, LNG, BMY, TMQ, GOSS

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

  • Top new buys: OXY, RH
  • Cut stakes in: WFC, PSX, SIRI, AAPL

BLUEMOUNTAIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: GDX, NGD
  • Top exits: ESI, TEVA, BJ, SOI, SWI, AVTR, VICI, CRWD, INVH, HCM
  • Boosted stakes in: PCG
  • Cut stakes in: XOP, ARR

BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES LP

  • Top new buys: EWT, IVZ, PGR, AMT, BEN, CF, BMY, UNP, BXP, MHK
  • Top exits: BBBY, K, NTAP, CTXS, RLGY, BK, GWW, SCHW, ROK, ENDP
  • Boosted stakes in: EWZ, SPY, ALXN, DVA, LB, WBA, RL, CBS, XLNX, ANTM
  • Cut stakes in: EEM, VWO, IEMG, TIP, EMB, KR, NUE, PVH, CCL, LQD

COATUE MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: SNAP, TWTR, PODD, DXCM, RNG, ILMN, IQV, ALB, IQ, DDOG
  • Top exits: WORK, BRFS, TME, MUSA, BURL, CHUY, SKX, TLRD, SEAS, LZB
  • Boosted stakes in: GPN, SE, BABA, SQ, WDAY, ATVI, M, STNE, DDS, NVDA
  • Cut stakes in: CRM, ADBE, INTU, MSFT, TWLO, FB, SMAR, NOW, PYPL, NTES

CORSAIR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: GDDY, NWSA, CZR, CCK, HYRE, GPRE, GLNG, BHF, METC, VNTR
  • Top exits: FLEX, TIVO, STMP, SRC, MFIN, CLF, ADT
  • Boosted stakes in: REPH, BH, IPI, SATS, FSK, EQH
  • Cut stakes in: BLL, IQV, VOYA, TROX, HGV, IAC, RHP, AON, ATH, KRA

CORVEX MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: ZEN, RTN, WDAY, GOOGL, TWLO, NOW, INFY
  • Top exits: CNC, AYX, DIS, CBOE, CMCSA, WTRH, WCG, GPN, FB
  • Boosted stakes in: MSG, FSCT, ADBE, AMZN, WORK
  • Cut stakes in: TMUS, NFLX, RTLR, FLMN

D1 CAPITAL PARTNERS

  • Top new buys: TME, CRM, PLAN, ARMK, AVTR, NOW, NVST, LVGO
  • Top exits: DHI, MU, GOOGL, OC, BA, BILI, SNAP
  • Boosted stakes in: AMZN, LIN, RACE, FB, CCC, GWRE, NFLX, HLT, ADBE, FIS
  • Cut stakes in: DIS, BABA, JD, TWLO, QTT

DE SHAW

  • Top new buys: HYG, BX, CVNA, XLU, CCK, PNW, HAS, UAL, XLF, MDP
  • Top exits: LYFT, ITUB, SMH, ROKU, MUR, WY, OKE, EMB, RF, AZN
  • Boosted stakes in: MSFT, PYPL, LOW, ADP, C, WMT, ADBE, UNH, DOCU, AXP
  • Cut stakes in: FIS, AMZN, MDT, ATVI, SQ, CAT, WFC, TMUS, ORCL, MPC

DUQUESNE FAMILY OFFICE

  • Top new buys: SHOP, PLAN, INDA, HDB, MDCO, OKTA, EA, ISRG, RETA, ZM
  • Top exits: EEM, SNAP, CRM, PCG, ILMN, TMUS, PYPL, JD, MRK, I
  • Boosted stakes in: NOW, GE, AYX, V, AMZN, SE, FB, WDAY, SMAR, TWLO
  • Cut stakes in: MSFT, ADBE, UBER, NFLX, BABA, MA, FIS, MELI, COUP, SAIL

ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: T, MINI, CARB, CISN
  • Top exits: FE, XLV, DXC, HYG, MAC, SHO, GWR, CXP, USWS
  • Boosted stakes in: MPC, VNO, RRTS, DELL, COMM, CRMD, BTU
  • Cut stakes in: HES, ARNC, OPB

EMINENCE CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: RJF, CI, DPZ, PTON, MNST, CSOD, CTVA, Z, ULTA, MDLZ
  • Top exits: TSN, MIDD, GPK, LBTYA
  • Boosted stakes in: CPRI, GDDY, AXP, SCHW, CFG, VER, NTNX, SPOT, TMO, RCL
  • Cut stakes in: USFD, HAE, EQIX, INXN, CNC, SYY, VMC, LEN, PSTG, FIS

ENGAGED CAPITAL

  • Top exits: MGLN

FIR TREE

  • Top new buys: CTXS, RTN, UNH, ANTM, HUM, DEAC, OAC
  • Top exits: C, ACHC, NSCO, SPCE, NAVI, UPLC, HKRSQ
  • Boosted stakes in: AGN, AMPY, TMUS, SATS
  • Cut stakes in: CNC, MHK, TPGH, MOSC, MSFT, BKNG, SNE, LHC, AHCO, LAUR

FRONTFOUR CAPITAL GROUP

  • Top exits: HGV, BERY, ANF
  • Boosted stakes in: OBE
  • Cut stakes in: GRP/U, VAC, ASH, CLNY, JASN, MDCA

GLENVIEW CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: FISV, GPN, MYGN, FIS, NWL, AGN, TPR, SSNC, ADT
  • Top exits: NVT, MSFT, BAX, JBL
  • Boosted stakes in: THC, BHC, NUAN, TMUS, FLEX, CAR, ENDP, TAK, WCG, UNVR
  • Cut stakes in: FMC, LYB, UHS, NXPI, LBTYK, IQV, LBTYA, MCK, HUM, HOLX

GREENLIGHT CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: NBSE
  • Top exits: HGV, KAR, VAL, CARS
  • Boosted stakes in: BHF, CC, GM, ADNT
  • Cut stakes in: DDS

ICAHN

  • Top new buys: HPQ, CLDR
  • Boosted stakes in: HTZ, CZR, CNDT, IEP
  • Cut stakes in: OXY, LNG, FCX

IMPALA ASSET MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: UPS, LPX, CLR, KBH, TTWO, AA, MTH, PCAR, WYNN, HAL
  • Top exits: MHK, URI, HOG, FLT, ITT
  • Boosted stakes in: QCOM, BLDR, UFI, HES, TECK
  • Cut stakes in: NSC, CAT, RIO, LEA, KEX, HCC, KTOS, ANF, GD, VMC

JANA PARTNERS

  • Top new buys: BLMN, INST
  • Top exits: FLMN
  • Boosted stakes in: SPY
  • Cut stakes in: ZBH, AXTA, HDS, JACK

KCL CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: TSM, MU, AAPL
  • Top exits: SPOT, TWTE, ADBE
  • Boosted stakes: AVGO, AMD, FB, AMZN
  • Cut stakes: ZNGA, STM, NFLX, WDC

LANSDOWNE

  • Top new buys: GS, VRAY, REGI
  • Top exits: HCC, AGI
  • Boosted stakes in: AMAT, TSM, MU, LRCX, UTX, PSX, CVE, DHT, IQ
  • Cut stakes in: DAL, UAL, ETN, AAL, GRUB, GE, FSLR, MANU, CNQ, VXX

LONE PINE

  • Top new buys: NFLX, GPN, EFX, HUM, HLF, MDLA, SMAR, TWLO
  • Top exits: WYNN, STNE
  • Boosted stakes in: CRM, TEAM, SQ, BABA, AMZN, DPZ, ATVI, COUP, NOW, UNH
  • Cut stakes in: IQV, UNP, DHI, FB, CP, BKNG, MSFT, ADBE, TDG, TIF

LONG POND

  • Top new buys: LVS, SBRA, KRC, VER, ALX
  • Top exits: SRC, LSI, SHO, DRE, UE, DRH, VICI, CCL, PFSI
  • Boosted stakes in: MSG, DIA, LEN, HST, LPT, RRR, VNO, HLT, AIV, EXP
  • Cut stakes in: HPP, OHI, JLL, FR

MAGNETAR FINANCIAL

  • Top new buys: ACIA, UBER, GCI, CRZO, SEMG, NOVA, PAA, MRK, SPY, CCH
  • Top exits: RTLR, HCA, LKSD, INVH, ARE, LULU, SWI, QDEL
  • Boosted stakes in: AGN, MCRN, CZR, LH, CRL, BAX, AZN, ALXN, ABBV, CHWY
  • Cut stakes in: WCG, S, WBC, MLNX, STC, EXTN, ONCE, ADSW, PACB, CY

MAVERICK CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: HLT, AGCO, FLT, WCG, QSR, IPHI, NWL, PYPL, GIS, FL
  • Top exits: CTVA, IAA, NKE, EXP, SNPS, WYNN, DAL, JACK, VFC, M
  • Boosted stakes in: MNST, WLK, NFLX, GPK, DD, GOOG, MDCO, BABA, ATRA, KSS
  • Cut stakes in: HUM, LOW, LVS, MGM, DOW, FISV, ALNY, ADBE, BKNG, DECK

MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: FLT, FISV, DG, ADYEN, SE, COUP, CROX, JD, HAS, TEAM
  • Top exits: DPZ, VEEV, WDAY, VRSN, ALGN, WWE, WORK, HTZ, COO, SYY
  • Boosted stakes in: FIS, BKNG, LH, TTWO, BABA, CRM, NOW, FB, ADBE, CSGP
  • Cut stakes in: AMZN, NFLX, MCD, PAGS, LVS, V, IQV, LEN, CVNA, PYPL

MOORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: APO, NTES, RTN, LQD, AAP, USFD, LYFT, ROK, DKS, SAM
  • Top exits: NFLX, BURL, WEX, EEM, DIS, CTXS, WEN, RCL, LOW, HYG
  • Boosted stakes in: INXN, EDU, GOOGL, BA, SNAP, GDX, HUN, VALE, GOLD, UNP
  • Cut stakes in: PGR, AMZN, FB, JD, FIS, NOC, SE, SYF, AMP, BABA

OAKTREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: AFYA, YPF, IHRT, VIST, ASRT, CBB
  • Top exits: WB, CTRA, BGNE
  • Boosted stakes in: SBLK, BELFB, HUYA, TV, AMPY, INDA, LOMA, CX, VRS, TGS
  • Cut stakes in: PCG, ITUB, AZUL, AU, PBR/A, CEO, IBN, EURN, YNDX, BCEI

OMEGA ADVISORS

  • Top new buys: FISV, GLD, GTN, GCI, STKL, DT, MDLA, NET
  • Top exits: NLSN, LORL, NRZ, PFSI, TPCO
  • Boosted stakes in: NEWM, WPX, VICI, CCL, TRN, COOP, ASPS, EFC, MGY, FLMN
  • Cut stakes in: TMO, AMCX, PARR

PAULSON & CO

  • Top new buys: CPE, PSDO, OSG
  • Top exits: STC
  • Boosted stakes in: AGN, HZNP, ONCE, MYL, S, PCRX, VIAB, GOLD
  • Cut stakes in: LYFT, TMUS, PCG, WCG, TSU, INSW, QEP, CELG

POINT72

  • Top new buys: BABA, YUMC, V, BIDU, IQ, MU, WDC, MRK, AMAT, PTON
  • Top exits: HTHT, CBPO, FB, TTWO, HD, FDX, NOW, CAT, CHWY, BRK/B
  • Boosted stakes in: TCOM, SPY, MLCO, ZTO, GOOGL, MTCH, CMS, UNP, CTVA, OGE
  • Cut stakes in: HUYA, JD, SE, MOMO, BKNG, EBAY, AMD, MRVL, SCHW, AVGO

POINTSTATE CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: RTN, UAL, CI, FICO, AXTA, LIN, MAS, UNH, LEN, UNVR
  • Top exits: COF, GLD, ANTM, ADSK, MDB, SPOT, OKTA, PBF, SVMK, URI
  • Boosted stakes in: MA, FISV, UTX, CSGP, SHW, UNP, MPC, LHX, TSN, DLTR
  • Cut stakes in: NFLX, CRM, BA, AMZN, ADBE, PAM, HUM, PCG, EEM, CNC

PERSHING SQUARE

  • Top exits: ADP
  • Boosted stakes in: BRK/B
  • Cut stakes in: HLT, QSR, LOW, CMG

RAGING CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: TPR, Z, ADS, CPRI, CSLT, SMAR, GLUU, GOOGL, MDLA, PAYS
  • Top exits: JELD, GRUB, FND, CHWY, HCHC
  • Boosted stakes in: SBGI, UPLD, BPOP, KEM, PD, AGO, IMMR, NTP, HIIQ, AXDX
  • Cut stakes in: TDW, BLDR, AMBC, QCOM, MRAM, DSPG, FB, HLIT, BMCH, TWTR

SACHEM HEAD CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: AGN, WWE, FLEX, GDS, TWOU
  • Cut stakes in: PCG, YNDX, EXP, USFD, CRM

SANDELL ASSET MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: GWR, DIS, FIS, VOD, AXL, DLPH, MANU, HUN
  • Top exits: CSX, APTV, RACE
  • Boosted stakes in: AGN, CY, TIVO, AAL, PCRX
  • Cut stakes in: WCG, ONCE, ADSW, ZAYO, CELG, URI, MAXR

SENATOR INVESTMENTS

  • Top new buys: FISV, W, INVH, GS, JNJ, NSC, UTX, DPZ, PLAY, COP
  • Top exits: MRK, CBOE, DIS, MRVL, AXTA, COLD, LIN, SHW, PTC, QCOM
  • Boosted stakes in: FIS, WM, VICI, LBRDK, CHTR, VRTX, SE, TW
  • Cut stakes in: AVTR, LYFT, FB, APTV, BA, BDX, BSX, DHR, EFX, GOOG

SOROBAN CAPITAL

  • Top new buys: LIN, DPZ, SAP
  • Top exits: LRCX, AMAT, STZ
  • Boosted stakes in: RTN, NSC, UNP, WIX, BABA, AXTA
  • Cut stakes in: SNE, UTX, GOOGL, NXPI, QRVO

SOROS

  • Top new buys: PTON, ALC, ALLY, ORCC, COG, D, TDG, LNG, FTCH, EEFT
  • Top exits: QQQ, DIS, IWB, VMC, CAG, MKC, CL, WORK, LYFT, AGN
  • Boosted stakes in: CELG, EPC, VST, NLY, C, NLOK, AGNC, EBAY, MNRL, MDLZ
  • Cut stakes in: CZR, VICI, MS, ADM, LBRDK, MTB, VNOM, CF, OIBR/C, CY

STARBOARD

  • Top new buys: BOX
  • Top exits: CARS, DLTR, MRVL, NTUS, KAR
  • Boosted stakes in: NLOK, ACM, CERN
  • Cut stakes in: PRGO, AAP, RPM, EBAY, IWR, SCOR

TEMASEK HOLDINGS

  • Top new buys: FIS, PAGS, TME, TAL
  • Top exits: TW, AMRS, SVMK, AYX
  • Boosted stakes in: PYPL, V, HDB, WORK, STNE
  • Cut stakes in: DELL

TIGER GLOBAL

  • Top new buys: NEWR, W, PLAN, WORK, BYND, WDAY, DDOG, DT, LVGO, DOYU
  • Top exits: PVTL, LK
  • Boosted stakes in: BABA, FB, CVNA, RUN, RNG, SMAR, PDD, MDB, CRM, TEAM
  • Cut stakes in: FCAU, SVMK, SPOT, STNE, RDFN

THIRD POINT

  • Top new buys: AGN, FIS, FIVE, HDS, ZEN, ANSS, GDDY, NVST, SDC, AFYA
  • Top exits: MPC, NFLX, ROST, CC, PINS, TWLO, ZM, PSN, CRWD, VICI
  • Boosted stakes in: BURL, CRM, IQV, SPGI, SHY
  • Cut stakes in: BAX, FOXA, PYPL, ADBE, BSX, TW, CNC, CCO, CPB

TRIAN

  • Top exits: PPG
  • Boosted stakes in: PG, MDLZ, LM, GE
  • Cut stakes in: WEN, BK

TUDOR INVESTMENT

  • Top new buys: PSA, MAR, VIAB, ANTM, V, TRCB, DHI, MET, FRT, JNJ
  • Top exits: EMB, SPG, CNC, LHX, LLY, EXPE, LSI, CMG, CSX
  • Boosted stakes in: SPY, STI, AGN, CELG, SBUX, EXR, AYX, TEAM, CFG, DAL
  • Cut stakes in: EEM, CSCO, CRM, WORK, ETSY, AAPL, HUBS, DBX, FB, EBAY

VALUEACT

  • Top new buys: LKQ, PCG
  • Top exits: BKNG, XPO, EIX
  • Boosted stakes in: STRA, HE, EVA, DAR, UFI, AES, TRN
  • Cut stakes in: C, MS, CBRE, ACA, PSN, LIND, KKR

VIKING GLOBAL INVESTORS

  • Top new buys: NOW, FTV, GH, MOH, MIDD, PGR, URI, EW, SAGE, NVST
  • Top exits: UNH, MU, WORK, DVA, NVDA, AOS, WCG, BERY, NXPI, CHWY
  • Boosted stakes in: SQ, NFLX, LOW, CRM, BABA, GDI, AIZ, ILMN, EQH, AMZN
  • Cut stakes in: UTX, ANTM, ATVI, ADBE, FB, MSFT, JD, CNC, ALGN, BA

WHALE ROCK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

  • Top new buys: PLAN, MTCH ESTC, FIVN
  • Top exits: PYPL, NFLX, ADI, SQ
  • Boosted stakes: SNAP, CVNA, STNE, SE
  • Cut stakes: MSFT, MRVL, OKTA, TWLO, MINE


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/15/2019 – 13:40

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QnD2F1 Tyler Durden

Ivy League Schools Drop “Culturally-Biased” Standardized-Test Requirement

Ivy League Schools Drop “Culturally-Biased” Standardized-Test Requirement

Authored by Celine Ryan via Campus Reform,

Two Ivy League universities have announced that many graduate programs will no longer require the traditional standardized Graduate Records Examination testing requirements for applications, citing reasons pertaining to “diversity” and concerns that such tests are “biased” against minority and low-income students.

Both Princeton University and Brown University recently announced that they are moving away from standardized testing requirements for graduate admission in the name of creating a more diverse student body.

Princeton announced its decision to do away with the standardized test for 14 different graduate programs in September, calling the Graduate Records Examination (GRE) biased against minority groups.

Princeton Graduate School associate dean for access, diversity, and inclusion Renita Miller cited a need for “intellectual diversity” within graduate programs, as well as the importance of “demographic diversity.” She insists that doing away with the requirement will help Princeton to achieve its goal “to identify, attract and develop the most promising individuals from as many segments of society as possible.”

“Universities like Princeton have done a good job at expanding and diversifying their undergraduate populations,” Miller added.

“If we want to make similar strides on the graduate level, we must find new ways to recruit and enroll graduate students who may be the first in their families to attend college, and from low-income and underrepresented backgrounds.”

The assertion is that one way to do this is to do away with standardized testing, because, as Princeton director of graduate studies for classics Johannes Haubold puts it, “there is concern that standardized tests are culturally biased in favor of certain groups; and that they end up testing primarily how good one is at taking tests.” Haubold also brought up resource concerns, noting that some students can afford coaching for standardized tests while others cannot.

Brown University announced a similar initiative earlier in October, eliminating GRE requirements for 24 doctoral programs. The university reasoned that doing so would “attract a wider pool of applicants” and “reduce barriers that discourage some students from groups historically underrepresented in higher education and from low-income backgrounds from applying for admission.”

Brown Graduate School Dean Andrew G. Campbell insisted that “by removing the Graduate School’s GRE requirement and allowing programs to decide whether to require the exam, we will broaden the talent pool of students who apply to and have access to graduate education at Brown.”

Both universities’ new policies will go into effect for applications for programs starting in fall 2020. Among programs with modified requirements are both universities’ neuroscience programs, as well as Princeton’s molecular biology graduate program and Brown’s biomedical engineering and biotechnology programs.

The moves by Princeton and Brown to drop GRE requirements for some graduate programs comes just months after another Ivy League school, Cornell University, dropped the same requirement from its biomedical engineering program over concerns that such requirements “can be biased against” women, minorities.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 11/15/2019 – 13:15

Tags
Education
Social Issues

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

Far From Avoiding ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Talk, Calling Trump’s Conduct Bribery Requires It

Casting about for a short, easily understood description of Donald Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, House Democrats seem to have settled on bribery. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking to reporters yesterday, said “the devastating testimony” heard by the House Intelligence Committee during impeachment hearings this week “corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry.”

The word bribery has a few obvious advantages. It is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an example of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that justify impeachment; it is the offense that most readily springs to mind when people think about public corruption; and it (initially, at least) avoids potential confusion about the meaning and significance of the “quid pro quo” that Republicans deny and Democrats think is obvious. “After weeks of describing the president’s actions as a ‘quid pro quo,'” The New York Times reports, “lawmakers are looking for a more straightforward and digestible way to describe what happened to their constituents.”

But describing Trump’s actions as bribery also poses problems as a communications strategy. Trump is accused of withholding benefits—military aid and a White House meeting—from Ukraine to pressure its government into launching (or at least announcing) investigations that would be politically useful to him. That sounds a lot like extortion, especially since the military aid had already been approved by Congress and would have been delivered on schedule if Trump had not blocked it.

Pelosi herself, in explaining why Trump is guilty of bribery, ended up describing extortion. “The president abused his power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting” if Ukraine failed to launch “an investigation into his political rival,” Pelosi said, calling that “a clear attempt by the president to give himself an advantage in the 2020 election.”

As George Mason law professor Ilya Somin notes, there is a federal extortion statute that seems to fit these facts pretty well. 18 USC 1601 applies to someone who “knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…any payment or benefit of a program of the United States” if that payment or benefit “is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.”

Pushing the bribery angle, Pelosi said “the bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections.” That makes it sound like Trump is accused of bribing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. But federal bribery laws apply to American officials, not foreign officials, so the relevant question is not whether Trump tried to bribe Zelenskiy but whether he solicited a bribe from Zelenskiy.

If Democrats are determined to frame Trump’s actions as bribery, the most obviously germane statute is 18 USC 201, which applies to any federal official who “corruptly…seeks…anything of value…in return for…being influenced in the performance of any official act.” In this case, the “thing of value” would be an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, and the official acts would be unblocking the military aid and scheduling a White House meeting. That’s not entirely implausible, but the extortion statute seems like a more natural fit.

Either way, the Democrats cannot avoid talking about a quid pro quo, since that is an essential element of both crimes. A bribery conviction under 18 USC 201, the Supreme Court has said, requires “a quid pro quo—a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” Under 18 USC 1601, the deprivation of benefits likewise has to be aimed at “caus[ing]” the victim to contribute a “thing of value.”

Whether you think of Trump’s actions as extortion, solicitation of a bribe, or simply a troubling abuse of power that does not necessarily violate any criminal statutes, the connection between military aid (or a White House meeting) and the politically beneficial investigations is crucial. To my mind, that link has been established pretty clearly by the rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 telephone conversation with Zelenskiy and by the testimony of administration officials. Others may disagree. But the question of whether there was a quid pro quo remains at the heart of the debate.

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

Far From Avoiding ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Talk, Calling Trump’s Conduct Bribery Requires It

Casting about for a short, easily understood description of Donald Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, House Democrats seem to have settled on bribery. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking to reporters yesterday, said “the devastating testimony” heard by the House Intelligence Committee during impeachment hearings this week “corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry.”

The word bribery has a few obvious advantages. It is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an example of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that justify impeachment; it is the offense that most readily springs to mind when people think about public corruption; and it (initially, at least) avoids potential confusion about the meaning and significance of the “quid pro quo” that Republicans deny and Democrats think is obvious. “After weeks of describing the president’s actions as a ‘quid pro quo,'” The New York Times reports, “lawmakers are looking for a more straightforward and digestible way to describe what happened to their constituents.”

But describing Trump’s actions as bribery also poses problems as a communications strategy. Trump is accused of withholding benefits—military aid and a White House meeting—from Ukraine to pressure its government into launching (or at least announcing) investigations that would be politically useful to him. That sounds a lot like extortion, especially since the military aid had already been approved by Congress and would have been delivered on schedule if Trump had not blocked it.

Pelosi herself, in explaining why Trump is guilty of bribery, ended up describing extortion. “The president abused his power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting” if Ukraine failed to launch “an investigation into his political rival,” Pelosi said, calling that “a clear attempt by the president to give himself an advantage in the 2020 election.”

As George Mason law professor Ilya Somin notes, there is a federal extortion statute that seems to fit these facts pretty well. 18 USC 1601 applies to someone who “knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of…any payment or benefit of a program of the United States” if that payment or benefit “is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress.”

Pushing the bribery angle, Pelosi said “the bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections.” That makes it sound like Trump is accused of bribing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. But federal bribery laws apply to American officials, not foreign officials, so the relevant question is not whether Trump tried to bribe Zelenskiy but whether he solicited a bribe from Zelenskiy.

If Democrats are determined to frame Trump’s actions as bribery, the most obviously germane statute is 18 USC 201, which applies to any federal official who “corruptly…seeks…anything of value…in return for…being influenced in the performance of any official act.” In this case, the “thing of value” would be an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, and the official acts would be unblocking the military aid and scheduling a White House meeting. That’s not entirely implausible, but the extortion statute seems like a more natural fit.

Either way, the Democrats cannot avoid talking about a quid pro quo, since that is an essential element of both crimes. A bribery conviction under 18 USC 201, the Supreme Court has said, requires “a quid pro quo—a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” Under 18 USC 1601, the deprivation of benefits likewise has to be aimed at “caus[ing]” the victim to contribute a “thing of value.”

Whether you think of Trump’s actions as extortion, solicitation of a bribe, or simply a troubling abuse of power that does not necessarily violate any criminal statutes, the connection between military aid (or a White House meeting) and the politically beneficial investigations is crucial. To my mind, that link has been established pretty clearly by the rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 telephone conversation with Zelenskiy and by the testimony of administration officials. Others may disagree. But the question of whether there was a quid pro quo remains at the heart of the debate.

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