Tag: news

In her usual succinct and clarifying manner, The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel took to Twitter overnight to summarize the farcical findings within the Horowitz Report (and Barr and Durham’s responses).

In sixteen short tweets, Strassel destroyed the spin while elucidating the key findings of the Horowitz report (emphasis ours):

Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a “low threshold” this is.

Durham’s statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness.

The report is triumph for former House Intel Chair Devin Nunes, who first blew the whistle on FISA abuse. The report confirms all the elements of the February 2018 Nunes memo, which said dossier was as an “essential” part of applications, and FBI withheld info from FISA court

Conversely, the report is an excoriation of Adam Schiff and his “memo” of Feb 2018.

That doc stated that “FBI and DOJ officials did NOT abuse the [FISA] process” or “omit material information.”

Also claimed FBI didn’t much rely on dossier.

In fact, IG report says dossier played “central and essential role” in getting FISA warrants.

Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings.

The Report is a devastating indictment of Steele, Fusion GPS and the “dossier.”

Report finds that about the only thing FBI ever corroborated in that doc were publicly available times, places, title names. Ouch.

IG finds 17 separate problems with FISA court submissions, including FBI’s overstatement of Steele’s credentials. Also the failure to provide court with exculpatory evidence and issues with Steele’s sources and additional info it got about Steele’s credibility.

Every one of these “issues” is a story all on its own.

Example: The FBI had tapes of Page and Papadopoulos making statements that were inconsistent with FBI’s own collusion theories. They did not provide these to the FISA court.

Another example: FBI later got info from professional contacts with Steele who said he suffered from “lack of self awareness, poor judgement” and “pursued people” with “no intelligence value.” FBI also did not tell the court about these credibility concerns.

And this: FBI failed to tell Court that Page was approved as an “operational contact” for another U.S. agency, and “candidly” reported his interactions with a Russian intel officer. FBI instead used that Russian interaction against Page, with no exculpatory detail.

Overall, IG was so concerned by these “extensive compliance failures” that is has now initiated additional “oversight” to assess how FBI in general complies with “policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons.”

The Report also expressed concerns about FBI’s failure to present any of these issues to DOJ higher ups; its ongoing contacts with Steele after he was fired for talking to media; and its use of spies against the campaign without any DOJ input.

Remember Comey telling us it was no big deal who paid for dossier?

Turns out it was a big deal in FBI/DOJ, where one lawyer (Stuart Evans) expressed “concerns” it had been funded by Clinton/DNC. Because of his “consistent inquiries” we go that convoluted footnote.

IG also slaps FBI for using what was supposed to be a baseline briefing for the Trump campaign of foreign intelligence threats as a surreptitious opportunity to investigate Flynn.

Strassel’s last point is perhaps the most important for those on the left claiming “vindication”…

When IG says he found no “documentary” evidence of bias, he means just that: He didn’t find smoking gun email that says “let’s take out Trump.”

And it isn’t his job to guess at the motivations of FBI employees.

Instead… He straightforwardly lays out facts.

Those facts produce a pattern of FBI playing the FISA Court–overstating some info, omitting other info, cherrypicking details.

Americans can look at totality and make their own judgment as to “why” FBI behaved in such a manner.

Finally, intriguing just how many people at the FBI don’t remember anything about anything. Highly convenient.

Yet another stunning active-shooter incident is unfolding Tuesday afternoon in New Jersey City, as two armed suspects engaged in a firefight with a group of Jersey City police officers, with some media reports claiming that the attackers escaped to nearby rooftops, where they continued firing on the street below with what were described as “long guns.”

Loud gunshots can be heard in videos posted to social media. At the end of the video below, a man can be heard shouting “they took him out”, though more gunshots followed.

Y’all pray for my city #JerseyCity there is a active shooter and one cop got hit… pic.twitter.com/tO7k2cJgjJ

— GT: a Majik FTB 🎩 (aFTB Creator Nba 2k) (@MajikFromXbox) December 10, 2019

Other videos showed ambulances responding to the scene.

BREAKING VIDEO: Massive emergency response, including SWAT, to active shooter situation in Jersey City, New Jersey pic.twitter.com/WYXBnteBjB

— LIVE Breaking News (@NewsBreaking) December 10, 2019

Another video shows officers marching up the street warning pedestrians to take cover.

https://abc7ny.com/live-gunman-opens-fire-on-police-in-jersey-city/5744…

Police said at least one gunman is “shooting at anyone they see on the street,” according to NJ.com. The shooting reportedly started in a cemetery before the shooter fled into a nearby bodega, according to ABC New York.   Another report claimed the two shooters targeted a Jewish grocery store and targets on the street outside, raising the possibility that this could be another anti-semitic attack. ABC said the shooting began at Bay View Cemetery, though there don’t appear to be any kosher groceries close enough to the cemetery.

Police searching that cemetery have reportedly recovered a wounded officer’s vehicle and radio. Surveillance footage has also been recovered showing one of the suspects entering a bodega after exiting from a van on the street.

No deaths have been reported yet, but at least one cop and one civilian have been shot. One of the gunmen has fired at a nearby school, prompting authorities to put all schools in the area on lock-down, and federal agencies, including the ATF, are on the scene near Martin Luther King Drive, where the shooting is taking place. That thoroughfare has been closed in both directions because of the shooting.

The Twitter account for the New Jersey Police PBA asked that readers keep the Jersey City officers in their prayers.

We need a lot of prayers right now for Jersey City officers. Keep all those involved in your thoughts.

— New Jersey State PBA (@NJSPBA) December 10, 2019

Some reports claim that one of the two shooters is a woman, but we haven’t been able to confirm that. There have also been unconfirmed reports of an IED in a store.

Childhood thief and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro called autistic environmentalist Greta Thunberg a “brat” after she highlighted the killing of two indigenous leaders on her Facebook page.

“Greta said that the Indians died because they were defending the Amazon,” Bolsonaro told reporters in Brasilia on Tuesday, adding “it is staggering the amount of coverage the press gives that brat” – using the Portuguese word ‘pirralha.’

Shortly after the insult, Thunberg changed her Twitter profile to say ‘Pirralha.’

The 16-year-old Thunberg shared a news report on Sunday about the killings of indigenous leaders in Brazil, writing “Indigenous people are literally being murdered for trying to protect the forest from illegal deforestation,” according to Bloomberg‘s Bruce Douglas.

In November, Bolsonaro claimed that actor Leonardo DiCaprio is responsible for the recent Amazon fires – claiming that organizations he’s given money to started the blazes.

“DiCaprio is a cool guy, isn’t he? Giving money to set the Amazon on fire,” -Jair Bolsonaro

Bolsonaro was referring to several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) under investigation by his administration, however no evidence exists that they had anything to do with the fires.

The Brazilian president isn’t the first world leader to snap at Thunberg, after both French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed the teen activist – with Putin asking “Go and explain to developing countries why they should continue living in poverty and not be like Sweden,” before suggesting that it was deplorable how some groups are using Thunberg to achieve their own goals.

Ahead of today’s 10Y Treasury auction, there was some concerns that the Zoltan Pozser report  on an upcoming repo crash would spook buyers and we could get dismal demand as a result of the bond’s Dec 16 settlement – same as the quarterly tax remittance day – when liquidity could potentially collapse as we enter the notorious month-end repocalypse 2.0. That did not happen, however, with the $24 billion reopening of CUSIP YS3, pricing at 1.842%, stopping 0.1bps through the When Issued, and slightly higher than last month’s 1.809%.

The Bid to cover was unremarkable, sliding from 2.49 to 2.43, just above the six auction average 2.41. However, the internals were more concerning because even as Directs surged from 12.4% to 19.4%, the highest since January, it was the Indirects that offset this spike, the foreign takedown tumbling from 64.5% to just 56.1%, well below the 61.3% recent average and the lowest since August.

Still, in lights of Pozser’s dramatic claim that the Fed is about to lose control of overnight rates resulting in a spike in yields, today’s 10Y was hardly evidence of fears. Or perhaps buyers moved a step ahead, and were pricing in the upcoming QE4 that would inevitably follow a late-year market crash, as it would then allow them to flip today’s purchase right back to the Fed at a generous profit. In any case, we have to wait until year end to see just how this dramatic liquidity tug of war plays out.

 

Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“Jaw-jaw is better than war-war,” is attributed, wrongly, say some historians, to Winston Churchill. Still, the words lately came to mind.

While last week ended with a hopeful U.S.-Iranian prisoner exchange that was hailed by President Donald Trump — “Thank you to Iran for a very fair negotiation. See, we can make a deal together” — a few days earlier, the week produced more ominous news.

In a startling front-page story Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. is to send 14,000 troops to the Middle East, in addition to the 14,000 we have sent since May.

The reason for the reinforcements, said the Journal, is Iran.

“The Trump administration is considering a significant expansion of the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East to counter Iran, including dozens more ships … and as many as 14,000 additional troops.”

By week’s end, Defense Secretary Mark Esper had knocked down the Journal story, saying no major new deployment is planned and U.S. forces in the region are sufficient to deal with the situation in Iran.

And what is that situation?

Strategically, economically and politically, the Islamic Republic of Iran seems to be in almost desperate straits.

U.S. sanctions have slashed Iran’s oil sales from 2.5 million barrels per day to, by one estimate, 400,000 barrels. After the Nov. 15 announcement of a 50% hike in gas prices to close a budget gap, a week of riots exploded. Within days, protesters were calling for the overthrow of the regime.

Security forces answered with gunfire. In the bloodiest political violence since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, hundreds were killed, with thousands wounded. Amnesty International says it has documented more than 200 deaths.

U.S. special representative for Iran Brian Hook said that 1,000 Iranian citizens may have died: “We know for certain it is many, many hundreds.” Iranian officials concede security forces opened fire with live ammunition.

How long can Iran, its oil revenue a fraction of what it was, cope with this deepening crisis? How long before a desperate Iran lashes out?

When Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and reimposed U.S. sanctions, Iran warned that if its oil could not get out of the Persian Gulf, the oil of other Gulf States could be kept off of the world markets.

By harassing attacks on several tankers, Iran first sent a signal.

Then came a missile and drone strike on Saudi oil facilities that briefly cut Saudi production in half, to 5 million barrels a day. While the Houthis in Yemen claimed responsibility, the West believes Iran did it.

But the attack on the Saudi oil facilities went answered.

And what, exactly, is the goal of these U.S. sanctions? What is the strategic objective of the pain we are causing — to punish the Iranians or to persuade them to come to the bargaining table?

If it is to strangle the Iranian economy and cause riots, then it is working.

But what is the diplomatic objective?

• Is it to force Iran to accept a new, tougher and more durable nuclear deal? Does Trump want new controls on Iranian missile tests and a withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria?

• Is it to choke Iran’s economy to death if Tehran does not capitulate to U.S. demands, as we are doing to Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela?

• Is it to ignite a revolution and bring down the government?

• Is it to provoke Iran into launching reprisal attacks on U.S., Israeli or Saudi interests that might result in a war that sees Iran’s naval and missile forces smashed as Saddam Hussein’s forces were smashed?

Yet, a new Mideast war – ignited by Trump’s sanctions, which would break his pledge to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East, and could cripple the U.S. and world economy – might produce a President Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg in 2020.

Baghdad has also been wracked by protests that have killed over 400 people, according to Iraq’s High Commission for Human Rights.

On Dec. 1, the Iraqi parliament accepted the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi. In Lebanon, protests against the Beirut regime, marked by open hostility toward Hezbollah, have also forced the resignation of a prime minister.

Before flying to Lisbon to meet Secretary Mike Pompeo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exulted: “We’re seeing the Iranian empire totter. We see demonstrations in Tehran, demonstrations in Baghdad, demonstrations in Beirut.” Bibi is not wrong.

France, Britain and Germany, co-signers of the nuclear deal who have sought to maintain the agreement, now appear to believe the Iranians are violating the spirit if not the letter of the deal by testing nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif calls the allegation “a desperate falsehood.” The Europeans are “bowing to US bullying,” and covering up their own “miserable incompetence,” he said.

Two U.S. Defense Secretaries, Leon Panetta and James Mattis, called this weekend for U.S.-Iranian negotiations. And Trump’s tweet on the prisoner exchange indicates a receptivity to the idea.

For all involved, jaw-jaw would seem a better option than war-war.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Support for impeachment, regardless of political affiliation, peaked in October.

For a Brief Moment

Polls courtesy of FiveThirtyEight, anecdotes mine.

Partisan Brawl

The New York Times reports With White House Absent, Impeachment Devolves Into Partisan Brawl.

President Trump is refusing to engage and Democrats have concluded they will press ahead anyway, rendering a historic undertaking little more than a foregone conclusion.

Excuse me for pointing out the result was a foregone conclusion whether the White House was present or not.

“That is a tragedy,” said Philip Bobbitt, a Columbia University law professor and a leading expert on the history of impeachment. The framers of the Constitution were careful to design a process for removing a president from office that they hoped would rise above the nation’s petty political squabbles, he said.

Tragedy?

Yes, witch hunts are a tragedy. Republicans found that out when they foolishly went after Bill Clinton.

Boycott the Process

Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama, called it “deeply dangerous” for the target of an impeachment like Mr. Trump to simply boycott the entire process.

Does the law prohibit a boycott? Does the law require the president to testify against himself? Is it dangerous to accept the advice of legal council?

Rule Book

“The fact is that the House Democrats are essentially giving Trump the same process as previous presidents have received, and it’s Trump who is trying to throw out the rule book” and attack the process at every turn, he said. “Our founders put impeachment in the Constitution as a critical safeguard for the people, and what Trump is trying to do with these baseless attacks is read the impeachment clauses out of the Constitution.”

His response has been an all-out attack on the process itself. He has ordered administration officials not to testify or hand over documents. And he is urging Republicans not to cooperate with their counterparts the way they did during Mr. Clinton’s impeachment.

Excuse me for pointing out that the law is the rule book.

What law has trump violated by boycotting the process?

Shocking?

Of course it is.

Trump continually followed the advice of legal council instead of sticking his foot in his mouth and Tweeting about it.

Quite shocking.

Hijacking the Committee

Here’s an interesting take.

Business Insider reports Republicans Hijacked the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Hearings and Turned them Into a Circus.

I expect better from the Business Insider than that kind of mushy nonsense.

The only way Republicans could “hijack” the hearings is if inept Democrats called on inept witnesses and Republican made them look like fools.

That is precisely what happened.

Democrat Impeachment Star Witnesses Useful as Dust

In case you missed it, please consider Democrat Impeachment Star Witnesses Useful as Dust

Click on that link for an amusing video and transcript.

Comments on the Unreal World

Back in the real world, or do I mean unreal world, I get accused of having TDS every time I attack Trump’s idiotic trade policy.

I also get accused of being an extreme Left-Wing nutcase when I defend Trump.

The fact is, I don’t like Trump but I voted for him and would again vs Hillary.

I am a staunch anti-war, fiscal conservative, Libertarian, who does not give a damn about anyone’s race, religion, sex, or age. I believe in equal rights. I also believe in the right to choose. If two women or two men want to get married, I believe it’s none of my business.

I believe that’s a winning platform.

Alas, one cannot get nominated on that platform. Thus, I always have extreme voting compromises to make.

Independents the Key

The 2020 election will depend on independents.

Democrats may make the choice easy, as explained in How to Re-Elect Trump in One Easy Lesson.