The Supreme Court ruled today that exigent circumstances allow police to draw blood from an unconscious driver without his permission and without a warrant if the police suspect that the driver is under the influence of alcohol.
Today’s decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin comes just three years after the Court ruled that police generally do need to get a warrant to perform blood tests if a driver does not voluntarily consent. And the Court’s judgment actually dodged the major question presented by the case: Whether a state can force a citizen to consent in advance to unwarranted blood tests as a condition of driving.
The ruling centered on a man named Gerald Mitchell, who was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. Police brought him to a hospital for a blood test, but he was unconscious by the time they arrived and thus could not consent. Wisconsin has an “implied consent” law that authorizes police to draw blood from unconscious drivers if the officers have probable cause to suspect that those drivers are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Drivers essentially have to consent to this search as a condition of driving legally in the state.
Mitchell challenged the constitutionality of this implied consent. The plurality decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh, held that the blood draw is covered by the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment that allows police to conduct warrantless searches in order to prevent the destruction of evidence. Specifically, the justices determined that the potential dissipation of evidence of alcohol in Mitchell’s bloodstream, along with other public safety needs (such as getting Mitchell to the hospital), took precedence over a warrant application and thus justified the blood draw.
To reach this conclusion, Alito drew heavily from a previous Supreme Court precedent, Schmerber v. California (1966), which established that police could draw blood without a warrant if they would otherwise be forced to wait so long that the evidence might be destroyed by the body’s metabolic processes.
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgement. He also wrote separately to say that he thought Alito’s ruling set up overly complicated guidelines for what counts as an exigent circumstance. Thomas argued that police should be able to draw blood without warrants in drunken driving cases to preserve the evidence, period.
Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, questioned whether the exigent circumstances described by the Court’s judgment actually existed. Wisconsin, in fact, did not make any such argument while defending the blood draw and even conceded that the situation was not so pressing that its officers couldn’t take the time to get a warrant. At the trial court stage, the state even admitted that this was not a case of exigent circumstances. Instead, the state leaned heavily on the “implied consent” demand under Wisconsin law. As Sotomayor pointed out, “Wisconsin has not once, in any of its briefing before this Court or the state courts, argued that exigent circumstances were present here. In fact, in the state proceedings, Wisconsin ‘conceded’ that the exigency exception does not justify the warrantless blood draw in this case.” She also noted that advances in technology and communications have made it relatively easy for judges to give warrants “within 5 to 15 minutes.” She concluded:
Acting entirely on its own freewheeling instincts—with no briefing or decision below on the question—the plurality permits officers to order a blood draw of an unconscious person in all but the rarest cases, even when there is ample time to obtain a warrant. The plurality may believe it is helping to ameliorate the scourge of drunk driving, but what it really does is to strike another needless blow at the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. With respect, I dissent.
Justice Neil Gorsuch also dissented, writing briefly to say that he thought the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted because the Court had declined to address the constitutionality of implied consent, which was the whole reason for taking the case up in the first place.
Read the Supreme Court’s decision here. The Reason Foundation (the non-profit that publishes this site) submitted an amicus brief supporting Mitchell and asking the Supreme Court to rule that Wisconsin cannot force drivers to give up their constitutional rights in this manner. Read that brief here.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZLnWKS
via IFTTT
The Supreme Court ruled today that exigent circumstances allow police to draw blood from an unconscious driver without his permission and without a warrant if the police suspect that the driver is under the influence of alcohol.
Today’s decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin comes just three years after the Court ruled that police generally do need to get a warrant to perform blood tests if a driver does not voluntarily consent. And the Court’s judgment actually dodged the major question presented by the case: Whether a state can force a citizen to consent in advance to unwarranted blood tests as a condition of driving.
The ruling centered on a man named Gerald Mitchell, who was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. Police brought him to a hospital for a blood test, but he was unconscious by the time they arrived and thus could not consent. Wisconsin has an “implied consent” law that authorizes police to draw blood from unconscious drivers if the officers have probable cause to suspect that those drivers are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Drivers essentially have to consent to this search as a condition of driving legally in the state.
Mitchell challenged the constitutionality of this implied consent. The plurality decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh, held that the blood draw is covered by the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment that allows police to conduct warrantless searches in order to prevent the destruction of evidence. Specifically, the justices determined that the potential dissipation of evidence of alcohol in Mitchell’s bloodstream, along with other public safety needs (such as getting Mitchell to the hospital), took precedence over a warrant application and thus justified the blood draw.
To reach this conclusion, Alito drew heavily from a previous Supreme Court precedent, Schmerber v. California (1966), which established that police could draw blood without a warrant if they would otherwise be forced to wait so long that the evidence might be destroyed by the body’s metabolic processes.
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgement. He also wrote separately to say that he thought Alito’s ruling set up overly complicated guidelines for what counts as an exigent circumstance. Thomas argued that police should be able to draw blood without warrants in drunken driving cases to preserve the evidence, period.
Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, questioned whether the exigent circumstances described by the Court’s judgment actually existed. Wisconsin, in fact, did not make any such argument while defending the blood draw and even conceded that the situation was not so pressing that its officers couldn’t take the time to get a warrant. At the trial court stage, the state even admitted that this was not a case of exigent circumstances. Instead, the state leaned heavily on the “implied consent” demand under Wisconsin law. As Sotomayor pointed out, “Wisconsin has not once, in any of its briefing before this Court or the state courts, argued that exigent circumstances were present here. In fact, in the state proceedings, Wisconsin ‘conceded’ that the exigency exception does not justify the warrantless blood draw in this case.” She also noted that advances in technology and communications have made it relatively easy for judges to give warrants “within 5 to 15 minutes.” She concluded:
Acting entirely on its own freewheeling instincts—with no briefing or decision below on the question—the plurality permits officers to order a blood draw of an unconscious person in all but the rarest cases, even when there is ample time to obtain a warrant. The plurality may believe it is helping to ameliorate the scourge of drunk driving, but what it really does is to strike another needless blow at the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. With respect, I dissent.
Justice Neil Gorsuch also dissented, writing briefly to say that he thought the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted because the Court had declined to address the constitutionality of implied consent, which was the whole reason for taking the case up in the first place.
Read the Supreme Court’s decision here. The Reason Foundation (the non-profit that publishes this site) submitted an amicus brief supporting Mitchell and asking the Supreme Court to rule that Wisconsin cannot force drivers to give up their constitutional rights in this manner. Read that brief here.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZLnWKS
via IFTTT
After last night’s snoozefest of political pandering – aka the pre-show of the “Woke Olympics,” the second half of the two-part first Democratic debate in Miami is set for tonight, and the prevailing wisdom is that there is more heft in this lineup than there was for Night One.
Lester Holt: Hello and welcome to the Democratic Party presidential debates, where tonight ten people will pretend to be much further to the left than they actually are so that normal human beings will like them.
Savannah Guthrie: Our first question is for Senator Elizabeth Warren. Senator Warren, you have many plans for America. Many, many plans. Is this correct?
Elizabeth Warren: Yes that is correct. I have many plans to make things better, and Americans must come together and work together as Americans to make America America.
Savannah Guthrie: Thank you. Congressman O’Rourke, how do you feel about taxing the wealthy?
Beto O’Rourke: Me gustaría informar a todos que puedo hablar español.
Savannah Guthrie: Uhh… Okay?
Cory Booker: Hey I can speak Spanish too!
Savannah Guthrie: Yes, yes you both can speak Spanish. This next question is for Senator Warren. Senator, you have many plans for America. Do you think rich people should be allowed to feast on the flesh of poor people?
Elizabeth Warren: No. We should stop allowing rich people to eat poor people because there are laws against this and my plan is to enforce those laws.
Julián Castro: I can actually speak Spanish better than anyone here, so I pretty much win this debate.
Cory Booker: Yeah well I live in a poor neighborhood.
John Delaney: Well I think-
Lester Holt: You shut your whore mouth, Delaney. Senator Warren, we haven’t heard from you in a while. You’ve got lots of plans for America. Do you believe every American should have healthcare?
Elizabeth Warren: Yes, every American should be allowed to have healthcare.
Lester Holt: That’s beautiful. I love you.
Julián Castro: I pronounce Hispanic names correctly, too. Like, perfectly.
Bill de Blasio: May I just interrupt for a moment to say that I am a white guy who would like to be president?
Lester Holt: Yes, you may.
John Delaney: Can I?
Lester Holt: Fuck you, limp dick. Governor Inslee, you’re a white guy who wants to be president. How do you feel about a woman’s right to choose?
Jay Inslee: I basically invented it.
Amy Klobuchar: I would like to collect my identity politics points for him saying that please.
Cory Booker: The neighborhood I live in is rather poor actually.
Tulsi Gabbard: War is bad.
Tim Ryan: I also am in this debate.
Lester Holt: It’s time for a commercial break, but we’ll be back with more Elizabeth Warren after this.
Chuck Todd: Oops never mind, one more commercial break.
~
Chuck Todd: And we’re back! Senator Warren, you’ve got a lot of plans for America. Do you think it’s good for people to be murdered with guns, or bad?
Elizabeth Warren: It’s bad.
Chuck Todd: Brilliant. Congresswoman Gabbard, you have said that you hate gay people and you want them all to die and go to hell so you can urinate on their graves by the light of a blood moon. How, specifically, do you sleep at night?
Tulsi Gabbard: I do not hate gay people.
Chuck Todd: Right. Congressman O’Rourke, if I asked you a normal question in plain English, would you please give me a straight answer in response?
Beto O’Rourke: You know one of the most powerful pieces of art in the United States capital is the Trumbull painting of George Washington resigning his commission to the Continental Congress, at the height of his power submitting to the rule of law and the will of the people. That has withstood the test of time for the last 243 years, and some people say well does this mean that neoliberalism can’t work? And I always say you know what? We’re AmeriCANs, not AmeriCAN’Ts. I say we CAN come together, as Americans, as white Americans, as black Americans, as gay, trans and Latino Americans, and we can find a neoliberalism that works for all of us.
Chuck Todd: Please stop standing on top of your podium.
Cory Booker: I too can speak with lots of inspiring-sounding words. I speak them really intensely, like I’m trying to rip into your guts with my voice. I live in a poor neighborhood. People get shot. Shot right in the face. You people don’t even know.
Tim Ryan: I would like to use my small amount of time to argue for the indefinite occupation of Afghanistan because the Taliban attacked us on 9/11.
Tulsi Gabbard: They definitely did not.
Tim Ryan: You are the same as Donald Trump.
Rachel Maddow: So, who wants to Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia? Russia! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!!!
John Delaney: I would like to Russia Russia Russia-
Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd: SHUT THE FUCK UP, DELANEY.
Amy Klobuchar: You know, sometimes giving the rich and powerful people everything they want is the most progressive and revolutionary thing you can do.
Rachel Maddow: Okay we’re running out of time, so everyone quickly give your parting remarks.
Bill de Blasio: I am well-known and I have familiarized myself with the progressive-sounding things to say.
Tulsi Gabbard: I’m like a hundred percent certain I could take Mike Pompeo in a fair fight.
Tim Ryan: This is the weirdest Republican primary debate I’ve ever participated in.
Jay Inslee: I- wait, which one am I again?
Beto O’Rourke: Together, all things are possible in America, where our inspiration to thrive outweighs our differences and overcomes our obstacles, and I don’t know about you, but I believe we can all make positive changes and sail off together into the sunset in a sailboat on a field of wheat.
Julián Castro: Even the names of Central and South American countries. I pronounce them absolutely perfectly.
Amy Klobuchar: Klobuchar 2020! Together, we can make small, incremental changes or leave them the way they are if it’s too politically inconvenient!
Cory Booker: In my very poor neighborhood they call me Crazy Eyes. They say it’s because my eyes are so normal.
Elizabeth Warren: You cannot stop me. I am inevitable.
John Delaney: America-
Chuck Todd: And we’re out of time! Tune in tomorrow for more of the same with Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Iggy Silverstein, Jorp Japson, Merv Meebleton, and many other famous politicians!
But on to Night Two…
As Liberty Nation’s Joe Schaffer details below,while no one denies that Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are top dogs for now in the field of more than 20 candidates, a couple of other second-evening names also being thrown around as weighty still have much to prove.
Here are the ten candidates who will debate on Night Two:
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, IN
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Author Marianne Williamson
Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Businessman Andrew Yang
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
Want To Be Big Time
Harris and Buttigieg have been touted for months as high-quality contenders for the Dem nomination, but is that really the case? Harris is a far weaker candidate than the media portray her, with substantial shortcomings that hint of future struggles to reach progressive voters on a national level. Her Chris Christie-like “tough prosecutor” theme does not jibe with leftists, who want to see radical criminal justice reform that includes severe reductions in incarceration rates. Moreover, Harris is hardly a star in her home state, the blue bastion of California. A 2018 Morning Consult poll foundthat 28% of state residents surveyed either didn’t know or had no opinion of her. This after she had been a sitting U.S. senator for over a year. Harris has hardly secured her own nest yet, much less made a dent on the national scene. Much as she would like to continue to be defined as a major player in the race, Harris hasn’t done much to move the needle. She doesn’t need a crowning moment in Miami, but Harris must show that there is far more to her campaign than she has shown up to this point.
Pete Buttigieg
Buttigieg has the most to lose of all 20 candidates heading to South Florida. Outrageously favorable media coverage has largely disguised the fact that the small-town mayor has never won a statewide, much less national, election. He clearly feels his homosexuality is a huge selling point for a party in thrall to identity politics, yet the more he harps on the subject, the greater the danger that he will come across as a one-trick pony. He likes to talk about “values” and “vision” but hasn’t outlined these vague notions in terms of unique policy platforms that would justify voters seeking out a young local official with no significant accomplishments to hang his hat on. Buttigieg must cogently explain to a national audience just what it is that makes him a bold new option in this 2020 field. Based on what we’ve seen so far, however, we’re far more likely to get Hallmark Card platitudes than a serious discussion of the issues from the official Mr. Gay Midwesterner candidate.
Will Bernie Be A Tiger?
Biden and Sanders have a chance to take shots at each other if they so choose, though neither has to so early in the race. There will be other debates with smaller fields, and they will offer a better opportunity for personal skirmishes. That said, Sanders has a nice opening at Biden’s rib cage in light of recent media reports of Blue Collar Joe’s pampered political rock star lifestyle. The Washington Post reported on June 25 that Biden has earned millions since leaving the Obama administration. The paper says he charges up to $200,000 for some speeches and demands “Caprese salad and raspberry sorbet with biscotti for dessert” at all engagements he agrees to attend.
Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden
It’s not hard to goad Biden into gaffes, and needling him along these lines may prove profitable for Sanders, who can combine the assault with a renewed declaration of his commitment to working-class voters. Even if he chooses not to target Biden, Sanders will get to contrast his frumpy “democratic socialist” persona with Biden’s well-coiffed establishment figurehead standing to good effect in the eyes of progressive voters.
Not Much After That
The remaining six candidates on Night Two all will be seeking to increase their standing in the crowded field.
Gillibrand was supposed to be a top-shelf candidate, but her muddled campaign to date has done her enormous harm. Gillibrand has yet to find a progressive talking point that she won’t shamelessly pander to and has relentlessly flip-flopped on previous policy positions. Not only is her presidential campaign already on rocky ground, but the sheer incompetence she has displayed lends credence to rumors that her senatorial career may eventually be threatened as well, even though she is not up for re-election until 2024. It is somewhat shocking that a U.S. senator can so utterly fail to capitalize on the advantages that come with high office and run such a trite, meaningless campaign.
The two Coloradans in the race, Bennet and Hickenlooper, are afflicted with the same problem facing the lesser lights that make up most of the Night One field. Both tease now and again that they are more centrist than the rest, but when pushed on particular issues, they remain comfortably ensconced in the progressive Dem cocoon. Quite simply, there is no path for victory for smaller names that parrot the same party line that all the other candidates are already voicing.
Swalwell is the Bill de Blasio of Night Two. Abrasive, self-aggrandizing, and not likable, look for him to try to engineer some kind of contrived controversy in order to garner attention for himself. He will have his appointed time to talk, and then he will be largely forgotten.
Finally, there are the two outside-the-box long shots, Williamson and Yang. Both are running gimmicky campaigns, and it’s a shame to have to say that about Yang because it didn’t have to be that way. While his call for universal basic income has many drawbacks, Yang began his insurgent campaign by eloquently highlighting the most crucial debate topic of the 2020 election: the suffering of the American working and middle class. Unfortunately, the mercurial Yang was not disciplined enough to focus on this vital topic in a laser-like Ross Perot manner.
Instead, he veered off into insane policy positions on gun control and immigration reform and completely lost the momentum he initially generated with his strong critiques on giant, faceless corporations and the damage they do to local U.S. communities. Yang was never going to win the nomination, but it was hoped his presence on the dais could spur a much-needed conversation on the employment crisis facing too many Americans in this country. Those hopes have largely faded. Wellness guru Williamson has nothing to offer at all, and will instantly fade away after her brief moment in the spotlight.
Night Two then seems mostly to be about a Top Two and a Second Two. Whereas Biden and Sanders will see their fates affected more in later debates, Harris and Buttigieg must make some hay right now. If they do not, their names may very well be listed among the remaining dwarves who survive to move on to Round Two.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YdxtKo Tyler Durden
At the beginning of last night’s presidential debate, moderator Chuck Todd noted that even if Congress enacts a new federal ban on so-called assault weapons, which all of the Democratic presidential contenders seem to favor, “there will still be hundreds of millions of guns in this country.” He asked the 10 candidates on the stage what, if anything, the federal government should do about that inconvenient fact. Their responses revealed that none of them has a satisfying, or even superficially plausible, answer to that question.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said more research is needed.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who has proposed the most ambitious gun control program of anyone in the Democratic field, once again eschewed policy substance in favor of an emotional appeal, declaring that the issue is personal for him because “I hear gunshots in my neighborhood.” What should be done about that? “It is time that we have bold actions and a bold agenda,” he said. “I will get that done as president of the United States because this is not about policy. This is personal.”
But this is about policy, and Booker’s initial response was notably lacking in any specifics. He did eventually get around to mentioning, after Todd had asked a different question, that he favors federal licensing of gun owners. “If you need a license to drive a car,” Booker said, “you should need a license to buy and own a firearm.”
That analogy is not the slam dunk Booker seems to think it is, especially since state government’s routinely treat driving on public roads as a “privilege,” whereas gun ownership is a constitutional right. Nor is it a credible response to the point that Todd raised, since it would apply only to future gun purchases. And as Brian Doherty notes, the evidence that requiring licenses to buy firearms reduces gun violence, to which Booker alluded, is unpersuasive.
Todd noted that Booker has proposed “a federal government buyback program” and wondered, “How is that going to work?” Booker dodged the question completely, which is not surprising, since the track record for voluntary gun buyback programs is unimpressive. Todd later mentioned “gun confiscation,” which would be clearly unconstitutional. No one seemed ready to endorse that idea, although Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who will participate in tonight’s debate, supports the confiscation of whatever guns Congress decides to call “assault weapons”—15 million of them, by his estimate.
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who recently toldThe New York Times that if he had his way “people would not own handguns,” called for “common-sense gun reform” without indicating what that would mean.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) recommended “trauma-based care in every school.”
Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke mentioned “universal background checks,” “red flag” laws, and an “assault weapon” ban—the very policy that Todd cited as plainly inadequate to address the “hundreds of millions of guns” already in circulation.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also boasted of her support for an “assault weapon” ban, and she repeated her inane line about evaluating gun control proposals based on whether they would “hurt my Uncle Dick in his deer stand,” which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said “we want to get these guns off the street,” but he also emphasized the need to improve the relationship between police and the communities they serve. “So we need to have a different conversation in this country about guns,” he said, “but also a different conversation about policing that brings police and the community together.”
De Blasio did not acknowledge the tension between those two goals. His predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, adamantly defended the NYPD’s aggressive “stop and frisk” program as a deterrent to young men who might otherwise carry guns. De Blasio rightly opposed that program, which a federal judge deemed unconstitutional and racially discriminatory. But a commitment to “get[ting] these guns off the street” invites tactics like these, which inevitably sour the relationship between cops and the neighborhoods where they routinely detain and search young black and Latino men, frequently for no credible reason. Bloomberg, who continues to defend suspicionless dragnets as a way to “get these guns off the street,” is a leading financial backer of the gun control movement.
Former Maryland congressman John Delaney said he has encountered voters who are frustrated by inaction on gun control. He did not provide even a hint as to what sort of action they want.
To be fair, there is no satisfying answer to Todd’s question. As long as Americans own hundreds of millions of firearms, any gun control policy Democrats propose will leave plenty of weapons for mass murderers and ordinary criminals, who will easily avoid background checks and gun licensing requirements, no matter what legislation Congress passes. Anything more ambitious would conflict with the Second Amendment. But Democrats want to pretend they have a solution that will “end this crisis by doing the kind of common-sense things that will make our nation safe,” as Booker puts it. Regardless of how you feel about guns or the Second Amendment, these are empty promises.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2RDhh2j
via IFTTT
Exactly three months ago, in late March, the 3 month-10 year spread inverted for the first time since 2007…
… an event which sparked near-panic in the market as historically curve inversion has preceded the last 7 recessions.
However, while the inversion was certainly a memorable event, the question on everyone’s lips is how do risk assets perform once the curve flattens and/or inverts. According to backtests from Goldman, since the mid-1980s, significant stock drawdowns (i.e. market crashes) began only when term slope started steepening after being inverted.
Fast forward to today, when in his latest bearish missive, SocGen’s permabear Albert Edwards picks up where we left off, and in a note titled “the final recession shoe has now fallen”, he notes that while inversion of the US yield curve is seen as a reliable precursor to US recessions, “it has a long and variable lead time”, and instead “a far more immediate and present danger of recession occurs when after inversion, a rapid steepening occurs.”
Sound familiar?
In any case, as we first commented in early 2019, Edwards notes that this subsequent steepening “usually informs investors the cycle is over and it is time to flee for the hills.“
Well, for those who haven’t figured out the punchline yet, rapid curve steepening is now occurring, and as Edwards gleefully concludes, this “suggests recession may indeed either be imminent or else it has already arrived.”
Should Edwards be right, the implications are clearly huge, and not just for the economy and markets – perhaps the most dramatic consequence will be what happens with the world’s most powerful institution: the Federal Reserve.
“As a long time harsh critic of the Fed (and other central banks) for their obscenely easy money policies” Edwards writes that he is loath to criticize President Trumps nearly constant slams of Fed Chair Powell, especially since President Trump has a very clear agenda: namely, he is going to make sure the Fed gets the blame from the electorate if the economy goes into recession and the equity market plunges ahead of the next presidential election.
“And by hook or by crook, Powell will be out on his ear”, Edwards says.
Which is good news and bad news, because while Powell clearly threw in the towel on the hawkish monster that he was perceived as less than a year ago when he spooked markets that the Fed would keep hiking until the mid-3’s, and is now as dovish and meek as Yellen or even Bernanke, it’s not like his departure would also end the Fed.
Quite the opposite, because considering that this is what President Trump is like now, imagine what he will be if the US leads the global economy into another deep recession and financial crisis like 2008:
Even before the irascible Trump became President, I said the Fed would lose its (supposed) independence if they were the midwife to another crisis. There will be no deft, disingenuous shifting of blame to the commercial banks this time around. The Fed will carry the can.
As a result, Trump will promptly appoint a Fed chair who is the most dovish one can find, and here Kashkari comes to mind: after all, the former Goldman IT banker and “architect” of the 2008 bank bailout plan (or rather Paulson’s smokescreen) not accidentally said he was hoping for a 50bps rate cut earlier this week – he is clearly angling for Powell’s job.
Meanwhile, and going back to the recession narrative, it’s not just the re-steepening of the 3M-10Y. As Edwards ominously concludes, there is another key indicator that everyone is focused on: “we (and others), have also pointed out that the alarm bells for an imminent recession would really start ringing if the 10y-2y curve began to steepen.” To be sure, it is reassuring that this has not happenied – yet – but, as Edwards concludes “the rest of the yield curve (which leads to 10y-2y steepening) is now shouting recession from the rooftops.”
So how long until Neel “the Chump” Kashkari is Fed chair? The good news is that it will probably not happen tomorrow, so readers at least have enough time to buy some more gold and cryptos before the new Fed chair unleashes the biggest – and last – liquidity tsunami in US history, one which culminates with the dollar losing it reserve currency status. Whether that leaves Zuckerberg as the world’s central bank, or the IMF finally digitizes the SDR in Libra’s footsteps, remains to be seen.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2IRLuYT Tyler Durden
Bitcoin is down $3,000 from its highs yesterday, extending its plunge yesterday back below the $11,000 level.
This sudden selling pressure has erased all the week’s gains for most of crypto but Bitcoin is stil up 11%… for now…
But, as CoinTelegraph reports, Fundstrat Global Advisers Co-Founder Thomas Lee suggests that bitcoin’s volatility makes a long-term approach towards it more appropriate for most traders in a tweet published on June 27.
Litecoin is still up around 300% YTD (and Bitcoin 200%)…
In his tweet, Lee intended to remind others that “bitcoin is a hypervolatile asset” and that this makes it “great for volatility and other dedicated traders.” Still, he noted that most should probably use a different approach instead:
“For most, taking a long-term view is more appropriate.”
Lee’s remarks were an answer to a Bloomberg’s tweet pointing out that bitcoin is up 39% this week, but that it has lost over $1,800 of value within about 10 minutes today in a correction.
Representing the opposite view, Washington Post columnist Michelle Singletary suggested in an article published today that people tempted to invest in bitcoin should “keep in mind these investing bubbles that burst — tulip bulbs and Beanie Babies.” She further notes:
“The current price surge for bitcoin has many people fearing they will miss out on a big opportunity to make a lot of money. But buying bitcoin is still akin to gambling.”
At the beginning of last night’s presidential debate, moderator Chuck Todd noted that even if Congress enacts a new federal ban on so-called assault weapons, which all of the Democratic presidential contenders seem to favor, “there will still be hundreds of millions of guns in this country.” He asked the 10 candidates on the stage what, if anything, the federal government should do about that inconvenient fact. Their responses revealed that none of them has a satisfying, or even superficially plausible, answer to that question.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said more research is needed.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who has proposed the most ambitious gun control program of anyone in the Democratic field, once again eschewed policy substance in favor of an emotional appeal, declaring that the issue is personal for him because “I hear gunshots in my neighborhood.” What should be done about that? “It is time that we have bold actions and a bold agenda,” he said. “I will get that done as president of the United States because this is not about policy. This is personal.”
But this is about policy, and Booker’s initial response was notably lacking in any specifics. He did eventually get around to mentioning, after Todd had asked a different question, that he favors federal licensing of gun owners. “If you need a license to drive a car,” Booker said, “you should need a license to buy and own a firearm.”
That analogy is not the slam dunk Booker seems to think it is, especially since state government’s routinely treat driving on public roads as a “privilege,” whereas gun ownership is a constitutional right. Nor is it a credible response to the point that Todd raised, since it would apply only to future gun purchases. And as Brian Doherty notes, the evidence that requiring licenses to buy firearms reduces gun violence, to which Booker alluded, is unpersuasive.
Todd noted that Booker has proposed “a federal government buyback program” and wondered, “How is that going to work?” Booker dodged the question completely, which is not surprising, since the track record for voluntary gun buyback programs is unimpressive. Todd later mentioned “gun confiscation,” which would be clearly unconstitutional. No one seemed ready to endorse that idea, although Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who will participate in tonight’s debate, supports the confiscation of whatever guns Congress decides to call “assault weapons”—15 million of them, by his estimate.
Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who recently toldThe New York Times that if he had his way “people would not own handguns,” called for “common-sense gun reform” without indicating what that would mean.
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) recommended “trauma-based care in every school.”
Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke mentioned “universal background checks,” “red flag” laws, and an “assault weapon” ban—the very policy that Todd cited as plainly inadequate to address the “hundreds of millions of guns” already in circulation.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also boasted of her support for an “assault weapon” ban, and she repeated her inane line about evaluating gun control proposals based on whether they would “hurt my Uncle Dick in his deer stand,” which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said “we want to get these guns off the street,” but he also emphasized the need to improve the relationship between police and the communities they serve. “So we need to have a different conversation in this country about guns,” he said, “but also a different conversation about policing that brings police and the community together.”
De Blasio did not acknowledge the tension between those two goals. His predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, adamantly defended the NYPD’s aggressive “stop and frisk” program as a deterrent to young men who might otherwise carry guns. De Blasio rightly opposed that program, which a federal judge deemed unconstitutional and racially discriminatory. But a commitment to “get[ting] these guns off the street” invites tactics like these, which inevitably sour the relationship between cops and the neighborhoods where they routinely detain and search young black and Latino men, frequently for no credible reason. Bloomberg, who continues to defend suspicionless dragnets as a way to “get these guns off the street,” is a leading financial backer of the gun control movement.
Former Maryland congressman John Delaney said he has encountered voters who are frustrated by inaction on gun control. He did not provide even a hint as to what sort of action they want.
To be fair, there is no satisfying answer to Todd’s question. As long as Americans own hundreds of millions of firearms, any gun control policy Democrats propose will leave plenty of weapons for mass murderers and ordinary criminals, who will easily avoid background checks and gun licensing requirements, no matter what legislation Congress passes. Anything more ambitious would conflict with the Second Amendment. But Democrats want to pretend they have a solution that will “end this crisis by doing the kind of common-sense things that will make our nation safe,” as Booker puts it. Regardless of how you feel about guns or the Second Amendment, these are empty promises.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2RDhh2j
via IFTTT
Twitter announced on Thursday that it would censor President Trump’s tweets going into the 2020 election by “down-ranking” those which violate their rules via algorithms.
Offensive material from the POTUS will also receive a label that applies to all verified political candidates and government officials with over 100,000 followers, according to the Washington Post.
Before users can view the language in newly flagged tweets, they will need to click on a screen that says, “The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain available.”
The company also said it will set up a special team tasked with enforcing the policy, and the notification label would appear only on rare occasions. –Washington Post
Twitter will deprioritize the labeled tweets so that they would be seen by fewer people according to the report, which adds that the policy will go into effect immediately and will not apply to other influencers and leaders. It is also not retroactive.
I’m sure @Twitter will apply this fairly across the board & won’t use it to target conservatives. 🙄🙄🙄
Big Tech is so determined to stop @realDonaldTrump‘s reelection that they’re willing to kill what made their platforms popular in the first place (free speech!) to stop him. https://t.co/MiKFN8wak9
“In the past, we’ve allowed certain Tweets that violated our rules to remain on Twitter because they were in the public’s interest, but it wasn’t clear when and how we made those determinations,” the company wrote in a Thursday blog post. “To fix that, we’re introducing a new notice that will provide additional clarity in these situations, and sharing more on when and why we’ll use it.”
What will we do without being able to see tweets like this?
Barney Frank looked disgusting–nipples protruding–in his blue shirt before Congress. Very very disrespectful.
Newly uncovered photos from the border protest attended by a tearful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez show that she was crying over an empty parking lot.
Many have accused the Congresswoman and her supporters of staging a photo-op after the images, taken during a 2018 event outside a migrant “tent city” in Tornillo, Texas, went viral earlier this week.
The photos show an emotional AOC holding her face and appearing to cry. Her attention appears to be directed towards whatever is on the other side of the fence.
However, a photo from a different angle shows there is nothing there aside from an empty parking lot and some police officers.
Another image shows a photographer being careful to capture AOC’s reaction as she gets emotional over what appears to be little other than a vehicle and a tree.
As we previously reported, Ocasio-Cortez attended to star-studded “protest” wearing a pristine white outfit, bright red lipstick and a $600 dollar watch.
This prompted many of her critics to accuse the Congresswoman and her supporters of staging the photos, arguing that the images did not show a spontaneous, authentic reaction.
* * *
There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KG4xaI Tyler Durden
Video hosting platform Vimeo – whose CEO contributed to the 2016 Clinton campaign – has completely banned Project Veritas over a viral video of a surreptitiously recorded Google employee admitting that the search giant is training its algorithms to to avoid the “next Trump situation,” raising questions of 2020 election meddling.
🚨🚨🚨 BREAKING @Vimeo has REMOVED Project Veritas saying: “You cannot upload videos that are hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory.” Perhaps we embarrassed @Google but NOTHING we said was hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory. They’re trying to erase us from the internet. pic.twitter.com/mBfmeHo4i0
BREAKING UPDATE: @Vimeo has BANNED our account days after @YouTube PULLED our video. They keep citing “privacy violations.” BEING EMBARRASSED BY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATE JOURNALISM is not a “privacy violation.” Video STILL ON BITCHUTE. DOWNLOAD + SHARE: https://t.co/chDsGF0QCkpic.twitter.com/HSrcJjaZ4H
The Google employee, Jen Gennai, claims that she was referring to election meddling in terms of preventing another “Trump situation,” however the Department of Justice is on recrord saying that Russian attempts to influence the 2016 US election did not alter the outcome.
Google Exec Jen Gennai on Hidden Cam says @ewarren is “very misguided” on big tech break-up, “smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next @realdonaldtrump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.” #DemDebatepic.twitter.com/9oFCxdpq3i
Meanwhile, for content creators worried about YouTube or Vimeo arbitrarily demonetizing or otherwise deplatforming them, check out BitChute, which has created a method to automatically transfer YouTube videos to the platform.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JeIvbJ Tyler Durden
