Tag: news

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Democrats agree to pass USMCA, Trump’s NAFTA replacement.

Goodbye NAFTA, Hello USMCA

In what “seemingly” constitutes a major victory for Trump, Democratic Lawmakers Agree to Support North America Trade Pact.

House Democrats agreed to support the new U.S. trade deal with Mexico and Canada, marking a victory for President Trump who ran for office in 2016 on a pledge to remake or blow up the North American Free Trade Agreement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the new version of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement a “victory for American workers” at a Tuesday morning news conference. The pact will replace Nafta when ratified and contains provisions aimed at creating more manufacturing jobs, for example, by increasing the proportion of vehicles that must originate in North America for the cars and trucks to receive duty-free treatment.

It also includes updated labor rules and beefed-up enforcement provisions to hold firms in Mexico to account on labor, according to people familiar with the emerging deal.

USMCA had long been supported by Republicans and leading business trade groups but opposed by Democrats over concerns such as the legal language enforcing new labor rules. The Democratic approval Monday comes as a rare bipartisan moment of cooperation on economic policy at a time when Capitol Hill is divided over the impeachment inquiry.

USMCA Key Provisions

1. Mexican Labor: U.S. labor unions and Democrats have long complained that Mexican workers can’t always form unions freely and demand fair pay, a situation they say puts pressure on U.S. manufacturing jobs. The Trump administration’s USMCA has new additional labor rules, not included in the current Nafta, as well as new enforcement procedures demanded by Democrats.

2. Auto Rules: Compared with Nafta, USMCA significantly tightens the rules that the auto industry has to follow in order to trade vehicles duty free in North America. A certain proportion of a car will have to be produced by workers with higher wages, and a greater proportion of components will have to originate in North America.

3. Digital Freedom: USMCA, unlike the current Nafta, includes rules mandating the free flow of data among the three countries. This and other novel provisions on exchange rates and other areas aren’t so crucial for Canada and Mexico but could later be applied to pacts with more restrictive countries or even China.

4. Agriculture: A deal to pass USMCA means farmers of major crops no longer have to worry about President Trump potentially pulling out of the existing Nafta and leaving them fewer major export markets. USMCA also gives dairy farmers more access to Canada.

5. Pharma: Big drugmakers are likely to be disappointed, since Democrats pushed the Trump administration to remove language that would have protected expensive biologic drugs from generic imitators for 10 years. The existing Nafta treaty has no such drug protections.

Point by Point Comments

1: Pelosi wanted more, and settled for less. Five days ago, the Wall Street Journal reported Democrats Want to Invade Mexico. Essentially, the unions demanded that the US be allowed to enforce labor laws in Mexico. However, Mexico would not agree. Canada would not have gone alone either.

2: The devil is in the details. I suspect Mexico will be able to circumvent these rules, if it wants.

3: Digital rules accomplish nothing.

4: Agriculture essentially remains the status quo. Wisconsin dairy farmers do get a minor victory.

5: This is a potential victory for US consumers, but one that Trump did not appear to want. In practice, however, I wonder if it does much.

AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka Tweets

Dramatically Worse

Nearly anything the AFL-CIO supports is, by definition, bad for US consumers.

Thus, if this deal really is a “dramatic improvement”, I propose it is dramatically worse.

The one place Trumka is correct, most likely by accident, is on Big Pharma.

Trump on USMCA

America’s great USMCA Trade Bill is looking good. It will be the best and most important trade deal ever made by the USA. Good for everybody – Farmers, Manufacturers, Energy, Unions – tremendous support. Importantly, we will finally end our Country’s worst Trade Deal, NAFTA!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2019

Devil in the Details

What this comes down to is how easily Mexico can get around key provisions 1 and 2.

The more Mexico adheres to those points, the worse the deal Trump negotiated.

Good for Unions, Bad for Consumers

If it’s Good for Unions, It’s Bad for Consumers.

I wrote about that construct a couple days ago in France Should Take a Lesson From Ronald Reagan: Fire the Strikers.

Even FDR understood that public unions and public service were impossibly incompatible.

Click on the link for discussion.

Proud Union Hater

I am a proud union hater all my life.

They promote based on seniority, not talent. They keep incompetent teachers in jobs. They keep corrupt police officers in jobs.

They raise taxes for benefits the average person can’t get, then demand more and more in return for less.

— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) December 8, 2019

Unions promote on seniority, not talent. Anyone who wants to get ahead based on performance, not seniority, should not be a union supporter.

Moreover, corrupt union leaders get into bed with corrupt politicians. The combination is the biggest vote-buying racket in the world.

This puts the public at the mercy of militant teachers’ unions, police unions, and firefighter unions all demanding and receiving untenable pension promises.

GM and Ford

GM’s bonds, despite a bailout (necessary because giving into union demands bankrupted the company) are just a step above Junk.

So are Ford bond.

The strike is over. Hooray. But GM has a second date with bankruptcy court. Ford will have a first.

Pensions

Meanwhile, please note that Illinois pensions are among the worst funded in the entire nation. Things are even worse in Chicago where Each Chicagoan Owes $140,000 to Bail Out Chicago Pensions.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s only solution is the same as that of predecessor Rahm Emmanuel: Raise Taxes.

Get The Hell Out Now

These facts, and they keep piling up, is what prompted me to write on October 4, Escape Illinois: Get The Hell Out Now, We Are

Also consider Chicago Headed for Insolvency, Get the Hell Out Now.

In 2020 we are moving to Utah. We have had enough.

Trump Irony

Trump is bragging about USMCA. And most Trump supporters will see it that way.

But at best, the deal represents no significant changes.

Importantly, the more the AFL-CIO and Pelosi are right, the worse Trump’s deal is in practice.

While US equity futures have barely dipped, offshore yuan has tumbled – erasing the earlier optimistic spike – after White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro told Fox News that he has “no indication that December tariffs will not be put on.”

Additionally Navarro said that China “was trying to shape the narrative on trade talks to affect the futures market,” and that is up to the Chinese if a trade deal can get done.

Yuan erased all of the gains from China’s comments this morning…

Source: Bloomberg

And while Yuan plunged, Dow futs dropped only 30 points (for now)…

 

While House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens for what looks like obvious corruption –  Senate Republicans have no interest in calling witnesses to determine whether Trump’s request was justified in the first place.

According to the Washington Examiner, the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry’s stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won’t set foot in the Senate.

Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have “no appetite” for it.

Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out of 53 votes to spare, there is no “appetite” among Republicans to pursue testimony from people that Democrats blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation. Indeed, Republicans might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump’s guilt or innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings unnecessarily. –Washington Examiner

Instead, top Senate Republicans are leaning towards calling a quick vote to acquit Trump once House Democrats and the White House have delivered their arguments.

“At that point, I would expect that most members would be ready to vote and wouldn’t need more information,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming – the #3 ranked Senate Republican. “Many people have their minds pretty well made up.”

“Here’s what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “I want to end this.“

The president is not in danger of being removed from office by the Senate, a move that requires 67 votes.

But in a trial, he is seeking exoneration. Some Republicans question whether that’s possible without hearing from witnesses, whether it be these or other less politically charged figures. “Not sure how you have a fair trial without calling witnesses,” said one Trump ally in the House. But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others privately unhappy with Trump’s behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump’s dream witness list appears impossible.

“How many senators would enjoy a Trump rally? That’s probably your whip count for calling Hunter,” a Republican senator said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. Senate Democrats are not expected to provide any votes to call Biden or the others. Or they might ask so high a price, demanding that in exchange, they be allowed to call Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, that Republicans balk. –Washington Examiner

“It becomes endless motions to call people, and I’m not sure what anybody gains from all that,” said #2 Senate Republican, John Thune of South Dakota.

That may not play well with Trump’s base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine.

“President Trump’s allies will want to see witnesses called. How many, and which witnesses, will quickly become a dividing line,” said former Trump adviser Jason Miller, who co-hosts an impeachment-centric podcast with Steve Bannon.

Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according to the report.

On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention “extortion” or “quid-pro-quo” – accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the process.

Authored by Jim Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

One of the most important figures in the history of U.S. monetary policy, Paul Volcker, died Sunday at the age of 92.

Volcker is famous for having raised interest rates all the way to 20% in June 1981, the highest rates since the Civil War.

His actions are widely credited for ending the great inflation of the 1970s and setting the stage for the Reagan economy of the ’80s (although his sky-high rates nearly sank the economy at first).

Volcker didn’t kill inflation right away — it took another couple of years to finally end it, but rates were never that high again.

Volcker had a solid understanding of inflation and had opposed going off the gold standard in 1971.

He was one of the people in the room at Camp David when Nixon made the decision to close the gold window. He was actually one of the move’s primary strategists.

People assume Nixon and his team intended to permanently sever the dollar from gold. But it’s not true.

What Nixon actually said — and Paul Volcker confirmed this when I spoke to him — is that they didn’t think the U.S. was permanently going off the gold standard.

Nixon, and others involved with the decision, considered it a temporary suspension until the major global powers could get together, rewrite the system and get back to a gold standard at a much higher gold price (it was then pegged at $35/ounce).

Volcker understood that it was necessary to get the gold price right before a gold standard could resume. After all the money printing that went to fund Vietnam and the Great Society in the 1960s, he knew that a higher gold price was necessary.

In other words, Volcker knew the U.S. would have to avoid the mistake Winston Churchill made in 1925 as Great Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, the equivalent of the U.S. Treasury.

Churchill was determined to fix the gold price (measured in sterling) at the pre-WWI parity. He felt duty-bound to live up to the old value.

But he neglected all the money printing that occurred to pay for the war. A higher gold price was required to reflect the inflation that took place. Otherwise, setting the gold price too low would be extremely deflationary.

And that’s what happened. Churchill fixed gold at the pre-war value.

By failing to set gold at a higher price (again, measured in sterling), Churchill essentially cut the money supply in half. That threw the U.K. into a depression.

While the rest of the world ran into the depression in 1929, in the U.K. it started in 1926. In other words, Churchill’s decision plunged the U.K. into recession three years ahead of the rest of the world.

Going back to gold at a much higher price measured in sterling would have been the right way to do it. Choosing the wrong price was a contributor to the great depression.

So in 1971, Volcker realized that gold would have to be fixed at a higher price to reflect the money-printing that had taken place during the preceding years. Otherwise, it could have dire consequences.

Of course, the point was moot because the U.S. never did reopen the gold window. And the ’70s were certainly marked by inflation, not deflation.

Most people don’t know how close to hyperinflation the U.S. came by the late ’70s, and how close the world was to losing confidence in the dollar.

In 1977, the U.S. had to issue Treasury bonds denominated in Swiss francs because no one wanted dollars, at least at an interest rate that the Treasury was willing to pay.

They were called Carter bonds.

Not surprisingly, the economic morass of the late ’70s cost Carter reelection. Inflation was between 14% and 15% by the time Reagan was sworn in.

Many people forget that Carter appointed Volcker, not Reagan. He began raising rates right away, although they only rose to 20% under Reagan.

Volcker’s extreme interest rates helped send the economy into recession, first in mid-1980 and again in 1982.

Although Volcker had Reagan’s support, many voices in the Republican Party wanted him replaced by a more accommodating Fed chairman. So Volcker was not extremely popular at the time.

But he knew the dollar is ultimately backed by confidence, and he was determined to restore it.

Volcker did tame inflation, which was back down to about 3% in 1983 after peaking near 15% in 1980. The dollar strengthened, the economy recovered and one of the greatest bull markets in stock market history was underway.

So Paul Volcker remains one of the most important Fed chairmen ever.

May he rest in peace.

The ongoing recession in the global auto market has undoubtedly been lead by China – and if November’s trends are any indication, the entire industry could be setting up for an ugly 2020. 

Sales of sedans in China fell 4.2% in November to 1.97 million units, according to the CPCA on Monday.

This marks the 17th decline in the last 18 months and all but ensures that China will see a second straight annual drop for its auto market, according to Bloomberg. 

Last year was the first time the market shrunk in decades, with ripple effects extending to places like Europe, Latin America and the rest of Asia. The industry has faced headwinds in the ongoing trade war, in addition to an overstretched consumer and ride-hailing and car-sharing services. 

Areas outside of China’s big cities suffered the most, as a slowing economy kept consumers out of the showrooms that sold cheaper local brands. Experts are predicting consolidation in the industry as a result. Some brands, like Suzuki and PSA Group, have pulled out of China (or are in the process of selling stakes). 

Bigger names like Toyota and BMW have weathered the storm well due to demand for hybrid cars – but this demand is anything but a guarantee moving forward.

EVs were once a reason for optimism, especially with Volkswagen spending $4.4 billion next year to ramp up EV production in the country and Tesla moving a new plant to Shanghai. 

But last month, wholesales of NEVs fell a stunning 42% to 79,000 units. 

Recall, as we reported days ago, it’s looking like Beijing isn’t so excited to help sustain the EV niche of the market anymore.

We also noted that Beijing’s ambivalence was starting to show up in the numbers. EV sales fell off a cliff after June of this year, when the government slashed purchase subsidies. From July to October, sales of new energy cars were down 28% from the year prior. 

Subsidies are unlikely to come back, we noted. The government is now aiming for “quality instead of just quantity”, noting that subsidies would be more costly than they were a few years ago, when the market was smaller. Instead, Beijing said it will spend the money on building out its infrastructure, like its charging stations. 

A Bloomberg NEF report predicts that the EV market will rebound next year, however, stating: “Potential cuts to subsidies at the beginning of 2020 are keeping the industry in limbo. A shrinking market could force the government to give up its plans on cuts.”

Authored by Jeremiah Poff via The College Fix,

Latin derived word is originally genderless..

College departments across the country are avoiding the term “alumni,” opting instead to use “alumnx,” even though the original term is gender neutral.

A Google search of the term “alumnx” returns a long list of results from American colleges using the term, though most are specific to departments and specialized resource centers. They include the University of California-San Diego, Syracuse University, University of Michigan and Loyola University of Maryland, primarily on LGBTQ+ resource pages.

The term “alumni” is a latin word that derives from the root word “alumnus,” meaning “pupil,” according to the online etymology dictionary. “Alumni” is the gender-neutral plural form of the word. Some websites use “alumnx” and “alumni” interchangeably.

The discovery was made Sunday by Jordan Lancaster, a freelance contributor to The Daily Caller and Washington Examiner. She tweeted a series of screenshots from different schools with the caption “seize the endowments.” They included images from Rutgers University, UC-San Diego, UMich and Vermont College of Fine Arts.

seize the endowments pic.twitter.com/ubhMeFqzqM

— Jordan Lancaster (@jordylancaster) December 8, 2019

The tweet drew attention from many conservative users, who mocked the practice. Lancaster called it “an issue that only matters to people extremely in the university bubble.”

exactly. this is fully an issue that only matters to people extremely in the university bubble lol

— Jordan Lancaster (@jordylancaster) December 8, 2019

UC-San Diego uses “alumnx” on its critical gender studies major website, including in the URL, but the website also uses the more familiar “alumni” in the text of the page. A request for comment Sunday seeking clarification was not immediately returned.

At Syracuse, the LGBT resource center uses “alumnx” in both the URL and throughout the page, only using “alumni” when referencing the school’s alumni association. Syracuse did not immediately respond to The Fix’s request for comment.

The academic program of “intergroup relations” at the University of Michigan includes the term on its page, but uses it interchangeably with “alumni” and “alumna” on the site, with no clear pattern. A request for comment Sunday was not immediately returned.

The LGBTQ+ services website for Loyola University of Maryland uses “alumnx” for its website, but uses “alumni” as well.

“Welcome to Loyola’s LGBTQ+ Alumnx page! As Loyola starts to expand LGBTQ+ visibility, we are looking to maintain an active database of a/sexuality and a/gender diverse alumni to support, encourage, and connect current students with alumni of Loyola University Maryland,” the website reads, again showing no clear pattern of the use of the terms.

The Fix’s request for comment was not immediately returned.

Consumers in Brazil are facing a crisis: barbeques, which are a mainstay of Brazilian cuisine and have inspired countless Brazilian steakhouses, are under threat.

The price of beef, pork and chicken in the country are experiencing a sharp rise, even while inflation elsewhere in the country remains low, according to Bloomberg. The meats are up 8.1% month over month in November, threatening to take the main course off the table at many Brazilian celebrations this upcoming holiday season. 

Renata Ziller, a teacher and mother of three in Brasilia, said:

“We’ll have to do something with rice, I guess. I’ll have to use some creativity because the prices are so high.”

The price rise has been a result of increased demand for Brazilian meat from China, in addition a drought impacting the quality of many cattle pastures. The price rise has political and economic implications, Bloomberg writes.

Meat was invoked by leftist former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who said he would fight for the rights of Brazilian workers to “hold family gatherings, have a barbecue, and drink a little beer, which is what makes us happy.”

President Jair Bolsonaro also commented on the price hikes: “People are complaining, rightly, that the price of meat has gone up. The world has started to buy more meat from us. Unfortunately that’s what happens.” 

Bolsonaro supports the free market, and said there was little he could do about the price spike – a refreshing take from a politician. 

The price of a chicken in the country was up 8% year over year while pork rose 15% and a filet mignon has risen by about 20%. Meat had the largest impact of all products on the country’s inflation numbers for November. 

Rafael Cortez, from the consultancy Tendencias Consultoria, said: “Inflation in general ought to be a positive factor for the government, however this current rise in a product that is so dear to the average Brazilian could favor the opposition narrative. We are already starting to see this on social media.”

Geovana Santos, a 20-year-old trash collector with a one-year old daughter, said the price spikes have caused her to change her diet:

“Basically I just have to buy sausage, because it’s cheaper,” she concluded.

Eventually, as prices rise, less Brazilians like Santos will eat meat and demand will hopefully taper, causing prices to again slide lower. With free market concepts like these so simple intuitive and effective, it’s no wonder Central Banks can’t appreciate them. 

Via Cliff Mass Weather and Climate blog,

There is a special place in the underworld for those who promote anxiety, desperation, and terror in the most vulnerable.  A place where the infernal warmth is particularly torrid.

And one does not have to spend much time looking for candidates for this netherworld–the front page of the Seattle Times will do fine.

On Sunday, our local tabloid featured a story about fearful/desperate folks dealing with their apocalyptic fears about climate change.

Courtesy of the Seattle Times

A forest burning behind them. And if that didn’t get the message across, a burning world/head within the article made it clear.

Courtesy of the Seattle Times

Among certain vulnerable people in our region, talk of eco-grief and anxiety has become signs of psychological crises. The UW Bothell has entire class given over to eco-grief, and non-profits like Climate Action Families have sessions for folks that are paralyzed with fear and grief over climate change.  Some local Seattle therapists are specializing in climate grief therapy, and even the UW has sessions for students:

Unbelievably, even the Pacific Science Center is doing a session on dealing with eco-anxiety (see below).

But why stop at the borders of Seattle?

Major media from the Guardian to the NY Times are covering climate anxiety, with anxiety-racked climate stars like Greta Thunberg are tearfully describing how their dreams and their childhood have been stolen by climate change.

I have gotten so many calls and emails from desperate folks I can’t list them here.  One woman tearfully told me her mother was desperately ill in California, but she couldn’t move to be with her because she was afraid of the effects of climate change in that state.  Another woman called, terribly worried about fires in western Washington from global warming.  A few others asked about where they should move to escape our local apocalyptical conditions.

Global warming is a very serious issue, but most of the impacts are in the future.  There is much we can do to address global warming, both in terms of adaptation and mitigation. There is, in fact, much reason for optimism.

So why are all these people so anxiety-ridden and desperate?   I believe it is the unconscionable exaggeration, hype, and fear-mongering of our media, special interest groups, some activist scientists, and a number of politicians.  And it is unethical, ungrounded in science, and hurting the most vulnerable among us.

The Seattle Times is one of the worst offenders.  I can provide a few dozen example of fear-mongering headlines, completely adrift from the truth.  Like the June story claiming heat waves will claim hundreds of lives (actually 725) for each heat wave later in century (see below).  It was complete nonsense, with extreme assumptions about warming rates and assuming no one would buy an air conditioner.

By the way, the stories in the Seattle Times are so confused, they can’t event get the key facts right, with one claiming carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide is the problem (I kid you not, proof below).

So the Seattle Times is both producing exaggerated, fear-inducing stories and covering the psychological damage those stories are creating.  Is there something wrong here?

Stories in a number of media outlets, amplified by special interest groups, talk about “tipping points”, and that it will be too late in 1, 10 or 12 years.  No hope after that.  Unfounded in the science.  And enough to push some emotionally sensitive people over the edge.

Here in the Washington State there are claims that recent fires are the result of climate change, and that it is about to get even worse.  The truth is very different— there used to be MANY more wildfires in our region and the relationship of our fires with climate variations is very weak.  But that hasn’t stopped irresponsible politicians from claiming just the opposite.

And, of course, there is all this talk about existential threats (yes, the means threats to your EXISTENCE), which have no support in the reports of the international scientific community (the IPCC) or the U.S. Climate Assessment.  They predict a minor reduction in the future GDP, no more.

I could do ten blogs on this topic, but I won’t.  The truth is that some very irresponsible folks are hyping and exaggerating the impacts of the minor global warming we have had so far, sending vulnerable folks into a panic.   And these irresponsible folks and individuals are painting an apocalyptic view of the future that is completely at odds with the best science.  Some do it for more money (advertising clicks), some do it for political reasons, and others like the attention.

But it is just wrong, and the harm they are doing to members of our community is substantial and unconscionable

In February of 2018, Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released separate reports after spending months looking at the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 US election.

The Republicans, led by then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), claimed:

• The FBI used the unverified ‘Steele dossier’ in October 2016 to obtain a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

• The agency concealed the fact that the Steele dossier was funded in part by the Clinton campaign, as well as the fact that the salacious document was in its “infancy” at the time of the FISA application.

• Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr funneled her anti-Trump research to her husband Bruce, who was then the #4 at the DOJ (and since demoted for lying about his involvement with Steele – a former MI6 operative working for Fusion GPS dig up dirt on Donald Trump and his campaign).

• The dossier was “only minimally corroborated” according to FBI officials, who could not verify its claims

Democrats, led by then-minority leader (and current chairman) Adam Schiff (D-CA), claimed in response: 

• The FBI and DOJ did not exclude information from the FISA warrant application.

• The DOJ provided corroborating information in subsequent FISA renewals which backed Steele’s claims.

• The FBI was able to collect “valuable intelligence” from the FISA warrant on Carter Page.

• The DOJ made Steele’s credentials clear to the FISA court and did not omit material facts about the former UK spy.

• The FBI underwent a “rigorous process” to investigate and vet Steele’s claims

• Steele’s previous work had been used in “criminal proceedings.

FLASHBACK: @RepAdamSchiff on March 20, 2017 reading highlights of the now-debunked Steele dossier into the congressional record. https://t.co/bYTVfXCBkp

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) December 10, 2019

Au contraire, Schiff… Monday’s FISA report supports the ‘Nunes memo’ and debunks the ‘Schiff memo’ – as explained by The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway:

Horowitz found that FBI and DOJ officials did in fact omit critical material information from the FISA warrant, including several items exculpatory to Page. Material facts were not just omitted but willfully hidden through doctoring of evidence.

The warrants were based on Steele’s dossier, which was known by January 2017 to be ridiculously uncorroborated. The renewals did not find information that corroborated Steele’s reporting. The warrants clearly didn’t allow the FBI to collect valuable intelligence. And Steele’s prior reporting was not used in criminal proceedings. –The Federalist

“We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,” reads the executive summary of the IG report.

Hemingway continues:

Via The Federalist

The media joined Department of Justice bureaucrats in bitterly opposing the release of the Nunes memo. The Justice Department released a letter to the press saying the action was “extraordinarily reckless,”would be “damaging” to “national security,” and would risk “damage to our intelligence community or the important work it does in safeguarding the American people.”

Then, when the report was released, the media made a variety of contradictory claims, all of them downplaying or dismissing the memo as nothing whatsoever. “Why Were The Democrats So Worried About The Nunes Memo?” asked The New Yorker. Rachel Maddow said that, far from destroying national security, instead the memo delivered “a sad trombone for Trump.” “It’s a joke and a sham,” claimed Washington Post writers.

“The memo purports to show that the process by which the FBI and Justice Department obtained approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct surveillance on former Trump adviser Carter Page was deeply tainted,” the Post article says. “It does this by straining every which way to suggest that the basis for the warrant was the so-called ‘Steele dossier,’ which contains Democratic-funded research by former British spy Christopher Steele.” (The IG confirmed this week that the efforts to secure a warrant to spy on Page were dropped due to lack of evidence until Steele delivered his memos.)

On the other hand, Salon called the memo “fake news.” New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, who fervently believes that Trump is a traitor who colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, all evidence to the contrary, went even further. “The Nunes Memo Is Fake and the Russia Scandal Is Very Real,” he claimed. “While the evidence that the DOJ has been corrupt or even sloppy in its investigation has disintegrated, evidence for the seriousness of the investigation itself has grown progressively stronger,” Chait claimed.

CNN had their good buddy James Clapper, an Obama intelligence chief, say that the memo was a “blatant political act.” John Brennan, Obama’s CIA chief who was also implicated in the spying on the Trump campaign, told Politico that the memo was “exceptionally partisan.” Politico claimed the memo “makes no sense.”

“Nunes Memo Accidentally Confirms the Legitimacy of the FBI’s Investigation,” asserted The Intercept. “All Smoke, No Fire,” claimed resistance member Orin Kerr in The New York Times. “The Nunes Memo Continues To Backfire,” declared the hyperpartisan Washington Post editorial board.

A great example of the general media treatment of the issue of FISA abuse was offered up by U.S. News and World Report. “Nail in the Coffin for Nunes Memo,” declared the headline of an article that effusively praised Schiff while utterly condemning Nunes. “Nunes’ memo was a bad joke from the start,” the author writes, going on to assert that Page was a dangerous agent of Russia, multiple Trump campaign operatives were surveilled for excellent reason, and the ex-British spy secretly hired by Hillary Clinton to produce the dossier alleging Trump was a secret agent of Russia was simply beyond reproach.

“If the GOP’s defense of Page is puzzling so is its targeting of Steele, an accomplished British former spy with an expertise in Russia and Vladimir Putin,” claimed the U.S. News and World Report article. Steele’s reputation with most reporters was not based in reality and he doesn’t even claim he verified any of the information in his report, which a sprawling special counsel investigation was unable to corroborate in any of its central and major claims.

It is unclear if the media will revisit, much less apologize for, their false claims about the Nunes memo or credulous support of Schiff’s memo.

—-