another site
It appears America is united in one thing… its hatred of the current choices…
“Laws control the lesser man, right conduct controls the greater one, and neither control politicians.” #TwainOn2016 http://pic.twitter.com/71Jxh0L4As
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 3, 2016
via http://ift.tt/29jlBQh Tyler Durden
By EconMatters
We delve into the topic of Inequality in this video. This debate has really picked up steam the last 10 years, and the pandering of the mainstream media for rating`s purposes to the general populous regarding this issue is quite detrimental to the actual problem. If you want more of the spoils in a capitalistic society you better be exceptional or “unequal” in nature relative to your competition.
Therefore, blaming others for your lack of success in life is wasted and inefficient use of energy. In the end life has consequences for the choices we make throughout our journey in this world. A realization is needed here that the news media is just selling a bill of goods that a large portion of the population likes to hear because it makes them feel better about their current situation, and the choices that individuals have made in their lives instead of holding them accountable for the poor marketable skillsets, personal behaviors, and uncompetitive life choices.
Human beings are inherently unequal, life is inherently unfair (In essence it is Brutally and Uncompromisingly Fair) and a capitalistic society is some sense is a reflection and promotion of these truisms in life. That isn`t to say that charitable aspects and a degree of basic humanitarian and social elements don`t hold value within a capitalistic society because they do have a necessary but complementary role in improving the overall quality, structure and health of a functioning capitalistic model.
But the degree of finger pointing, class warfare, and outright jealousy for those who routinely make better decisions in life is just not a constructive enterprise. More time should be spent on promoting values within a society that lead to more accountability in life. That there are consequences even for wasting time avoiding the “truths” of this world that Political Correctness and Over the Top Liberalism pander to and bury away in neat boxes because we don`t like to talk or think about them. Human Beings are Inherently Unequal – it is a fundamental fact of nature. Denying this fact, hiding it, or glossing over it doesn`t make the underlying truth go away, and is quite destructive in and of itself as an enterprise.
© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle
via http://ift.tt/29p5DGq EconMatters
Two weeks ago, when looking at the performance of bank stocks, Deutsche Bank’s Oleg Melentyev noticed that the ongoing collapse in US bank stocks relative to the change in the S&P from all time highs was starting to hint at patterns last seen just before the last three major market crashes.
Needless to say, European stocks (and especially Melentyev’s own employer, Deutsche Bank) have been in a world of pain of their own. Which in turn brings us to Melentyev’s latest note, one which looks at a world without risk, courtesy of central banks.
A Riskless World
Only a few days into the post-UK referendum world, the market is back on its feet, fearing nothing and laughing at skeptics. So what if a 30yr socio-economic alliance at the heart of post-WWII world has ended? Politicians will figure out a Swiss-like arrangement for the UK, and the ECB will throw the capital keys out of the window. Everything’s gonna be all right.
Such an optimistic narrative does not surprise us in and of itself. What surprises us is zero value being put on a probability of this scenario not playing out. We tend to like markets that present either a discount for uncertainty or a convincing case for improving outlook. It is hard to argue that either one is here today. Even if one believes in the possibility of a watered-down political compromise between the UK and EU, pricing in zero risk of achieving and implementing it leaves no room for error. A long implementation time is not a benefit as it only creates more uncertainty. Several major EU economies are facing elections in the next 18 months, and the markets are going to react every time the word “referendum” is mentioned.
Another potentially weak link in the new narrative is its apparent reliance on strong monetary response. While some equity benchmarks are at pre-referendum levels, bond yields remained close to their recent lows, with 10yr Trsys -25bp from last Thrs, 10yr Bunds -20bp (at -11bp), JGBs -9bp (at -22bp). BOE is expected come out with some form of response two weeks from now, which is likely to have a local, and not global scale.
Who of the big boys of central banking can realistically make a difference here is unclear to us. The Fed was caught wrong-footed in all of this, between domestic news (weak non-farms) to international. It is unlikely to turn its thinking around right away. The ECB and BOJ are tapped-out; as in, their actions at this point are delivering more harm than benefit (underperforming equity and credit markets, lower credit issuance, substantial pressure on bank equities). Abandoning capital keys seems like another desperate move rather than a well thought out strategy. In China, authorities are already dealing with the consequences of reopening the credit spigot earlier this year that reinforced concerns of a credit bubble popping there.
Of all the markets, credit had arguably one of the strongest reactions to referendum results outside of FX, and has failed to reverse a substantial extent of it, at least as of the time of this writing. HY ex-commodity cash (DBHYSXC index) initially widened 68bps on Friday and Monday, or as much as it did in the first two days following Lehman bankruptcy, and it retraced 22bps on Tue-Weds, leaving it net 46bp wider for the period. An equivalent IG index (DBHGSXC) has widened out 10bp and retraced 2bps. We find this kind of reaction more reasonable than what happened in equities, but it’s hard to say if the rebound move is over or not. In the meantime, HY funds reported their 2nd-largest daily outflow on record on Tue (-$1.9bn, 2nd only to $2.7bn the day after Third Avenue). HYG put trading volumes have reached the highest levels since Dec as well.
So is the world really riskless thanks to central banks? According to DB (and it should know), the answer is a resounding no.
Fundamentally, we believe our case for the turn in credit cycle has gotten incrementally stronger following the events of last week. All market-based leading indicators we are relying on – from implied volatility to financials to AAs spreads to yield curve – deteriorated substantially over the past week, returning to their Feb levels (first three) or even exceeding them (the last one). Yield curves have also flattened globally on the week, with most major DM 10/2yr curve being 5-15bps flatter for the week, and 10-20bps flatter for the month. Japanese 10/2yr curve is at +8bp today, remains the flattest in the world, and also the flattest it has been in 25 years.
Other leading indicators, such as implied vol, AA spreads and financials, all touched on their mid-February levels over the past few days. We have previously described how low volatility coupled with receding stress in financials could, over time, work to fully neutralize the consequences of credit squeeze from Aug-Jan episode. As vol stays low, risk appetite returns, capital markets thaw, and the most vulnerable issuers get access to new financing. The longer it goes the lower the chances of incremental defaults. Recent events have probably reset that clock back to zero, meaning the lowest-rated issuers will once again face constrained market access for some time.
Aside from our market-driven credit cycle framework, an argument for slower global growth must be stronger today than it was just a week ago. UK could probably experience some form of a recession in the next year or so. It represents a 20% share in the EU GDP, so some impact is likely there as well. Whether it reaches US shores is an open question at the moment.
There is also a view out there that a sharp depreciation of GBP could prevent a recession in the UK. Such an opinion runs contrary to historical experiences. In the past, sharp GBP devaluations preempted but not prevented UK recessions, as was the case in 1992 and 2009.
Overall, we believe the events of the past week have made US credit a beneficiary of more money searching for yield, for longer. This is particularly true of non-US and globally-benchmarked money, which was previously looking at relative value between US and EU credit, for example. EU IG underperformed US IG YTD going into last week (+0.60% vs +0.95% excess returns), and EU HY underperformed US HY (+0.80% vs +1.6%). If EU credit failed to outperform in the early stages of QE and in a benign volatility environment, we find it hard to imagine how it can start outperforming from here.
Finally, and most ironically, if any other countries are thinking of following in the UK’s footsteps, the recent surge in UK stocks will hardly deter them from doing so:
Thinking about longer-term consequences of recent events, it is interesting to observe how UK assets are outperforming EU assets in recent sessions, including equities (Figure 7) and yield curves (Figure 8, UK’s yield curve flattened less than that in EU). If tail risk here is defined as other EU members considering an exit, datapoints like these are not helpful in arguing the case against such an outcome
Although is it really ironic? At this rate, by the time only Greece is left in the European “Union”, the S&P may be at 5,000 and rising on hopes and dreams that central banks will finally put money in everyone’s hands… with a “use by” date, and a provision said money can only be used to buy stawks.
via http://ift.tt/29h1QaK Tyler Durden
Submitted by Steen Jakobsen, CIO & Chief Economist Saxo Bank, via TradingFloor.com,
What's that coming over the hill, is it a new world? Is it a new world?
I am writing this chronicle from South Africa which is almost as far away from Europe and the constant and never ending Brexit talk as you can come. It's hard even here to avoid the turbulence and never ending 'need' for investors and media to understand what comes next.
The best analogy I can use is one from my extensive travels: When you arrive at an airport to check in, you have to pass security control when two options are at hand: The fast track or the slow version (economy class). Using the fast track gets you quicker to the gate and allows you pre-boarding, but what really should matter is that the actual flight time and route is the same for everyone in business and in economy. We arrive at EXACTLY the same time.
The point? What is now transpiring in an economic sense is that we have entered the fast track courtesy of Brexit, the selloff in GBP, the lowering of growth projections and in some places talk about reform and change which would have happened with or without the Leave vote.
The UK's problem remains their double deficit. The chronic budget and the current account deficits. The last time the UK ran a surplus on the current account was the year Italy won the World Cup in Spain and the top scorer was Paolo Rossi. you guessed it — 1982.
The UK also has the lowest productivity of the G7 countries together with Japan. Yes, the UK needs a lower GBP and desperately so and if the ERM crisis of 1992 is any guideline, what comes next for UK is more employment and stronger GDP as seen in this chart from the excellent research done by Societe General.
It would be naive to anticipate only positive changes from the increased political uncertainty but do realise that the slowdown in the UK but also Europe was happening before the surprise 'Leave' result.
The much needed change that the voters indicated was required will come, but the macro policymakers, the politicians and central bankers, will have one more attempt at selling us an economic model of more intervention and less rigid compliance with both the EU treaty and the economic laws:
For those of you who have forgotten your economics, one-on-one here is what five years in University should teach you:
The real drivers of growth are productivity, demographics, basic research and education and as little as possible red tape and intervention (no macro please).
This should be supported by a market model where capital is allocated to the highest margin return (This rule and the principle of compounding is the only thing you NEED to understand in economics).
Finally if this should be upheld by a Constitution which makes the legal system independent of government and based on respecting property right, human rights and freedom of speech.
Rather simple yet, let me ask you how many countries qualify in today's world? Few that I can think off.
The macro policymakers are now the economic equivalent of comical Ali, the Iraq Minister of information, who claimed on live tv during the invasion of Iraq in 1993, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were winning the war against Nato troops while in the background, American forces were advancing within the frame.
The early response from the EU and its leaders has been one of 'sadness' and a rhetoric line which followed the totally inept scaremongering which preceded the vote.
Trust me, come end of next week everyone and their dogs will be looking for more soft and open-arm policies in discussions with the UK. I noticed that the Father of the EU former Chancellor Helmuth Kohl was out in German media this morning calling for exactly that: Kohl fordert ‘Atempause’ fur Europe.
The UK will be the largest country in population by 2030 in Europe, it has has the biggest military might and the single largest concentration of capital markets and talent outside the US – furthermore the UK runs a massive deficit with Europe, so if the European leaders wants a future Europe/NATO/EA without active participation by the UK military, capital markets, consumer demand, and deficit then please carry on acting like a bunch of cry babies.
The next macro response will have three tracks.
Major difference…this leaves open a patchwork of deals and bartering where Italy's Matteo Renzi probably will be allowed to do state support for the banks (because if not, Europe will be under attack), Greece will get another free pass and France plus Club Med can again expand deficits not only in excess of 3% deficit but almost infinitely.
Yes, this a going to be total remake of the action taken post the fall out in March 2009.
The problem.. We are saturated with low interest rates and QE, 75% of all QE goes to keep existing debt in place and with that being the number one priority, there is little scope or chances for capex and growth to come back. We have simply crowded out investment and productivity by trying to buy more time.
A dogmatic Fed and other major central banks will move deeper into negative yields.
The Fed started the year promising us, but not guaranteeing us that they would hikes rate 3-5 times in 2016. Now the market believes there is more chance of a cut than a hike next time the Fed moves. In the process, the Fed has become predictable (never listen to what it does, but act on what it does do – which most of time is nothing) and has lost what little credibility it had left in the process.
The Fed will not hike in 2016 and recession is now more than 60% likely as the Fed's own Labor Market Indicator continues to make new lows and the Conference Boards Leading Indicator goes down in sympathy.
Source: Bloomberg, Saxo Bank
US corporation earnings is at its lowest since 2005 as my colleague Peter Garnry pointed out this week. In other words US will be lucky to get 1.5% growth this year and we remain more likely to see more downside if the above macro push fails either fails to materialise or get delayed or diluted by the usual compromises.
via http://ift.tt/29nCTx9 Tyler Durden
Now that the UK referendum is in the history books, two of the most pressing questions currently facing the UK are who will succeed David Cameron as the next Prime Minister, and how quickly will that person push to invoke Article 50, officially triggering the negotiations with the EU for an exit.
Recently, two leading candidates to become the next British Prime Minster presented two different views on the subject of Article 50 and how quickly the UK should move forward.
Home Secretary Theresa May, the candidate who quietly backed "Remain" during the referendum process, said in an interview with ITV that she believes that the UK shouldn't invoke Article 50 before the end of the year. According to Reuters has established an early lead, gaining the support of more than 100 lawmakers. Critics of May claim that the next leader should come from the "Leave" side of the EU debate, but May vowed to honor the vote when she launched her bid.
"I don't think it's possible to say there's an absolute deadline, because what's important is that we do this in the right timescale and that we do it to get the right deal for the UK. So I've said that we shouldn't invoke Article 50 immediately. I've said it shouldn't be before the end of the year."
Reuters reports that May went on to say "We've got to be clear about what our negotiating stance is before we trigger Article 50, because once we trigger it then all the processes start"
Conversely, Junior Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom, who backed "Leave" during the referendum wants to move more quickly, saying in an interview with BBC that "we need to get on with it," and give certainty as to the plan going forward.
"What I do believe is that we need to get on with it. We need to seize the opportunity, it's not just about leaving the EU but it's about giving certainty to businesses, it's about saying to the world 'we're open for business, let's get some free trade agreements started as soon as we can."
As Reuters explains, Leadsom, the former banker, was one of the most passionate advocates of Brexit but is not well known to many Britons. Leadsom is eclipsing senior colleague Michael Gove, who is struggling to maintain favorability due to what many firmly believe is a betrayal of former London mayor Boris Johnson by announcing his candidacy.
Gove, according to the Financial Times, doesn't believe Article 50 should be triggered until at least next year.
* * *
Five candidates are vying to succeed Cameron as Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister, and the field will be narrowed down to two by the party's leaders over the summer before a winner is selected by September 9. The speed in which Article 50 is invoked will depend in large part on who is selected to lead the UK into the future, and until then, the financial markets will have to continue to completely guess as to how this will ultimately play out.
No worries though, all of the central banks stand at the ready for the next round of easing, so everyone should be able to sleep better at night no matter when Article 50 is invoked.
via http://ift.tt/29cQHWM Tyler Durden
Submitted by MN Gordon via Economic Prism blog,
“Myths and legends die hard in America,” remarked Hunter S. Thompson in The Great Shark Hunt, nearly 40-years ago. Thompson didn’t likely have U.S. Treasury bonds in mind when he made this observation. Though, if he were still alive, he may find the present state of the great Treasury bond bubble to be an amusing anecdote.
[Friday saw US Treasury yields plunge to record lows with 10Y breaking below 2012 lows to 1.3784%]. What compels someone of sound mind and honest convictions to give their hard earned money to the government for 10-years for just a 1.38 percent yield?
Is it the myth that U.S. Treasuries are the safest – default-free – investment in the world? Is it the legend of American exceptionalism? Maybe it’s both…or maybe it’s neither.
As far as we can tell, U.S. Treasury investors suffer the same cognitive dissonance that the broad U.S. populace takes with them to the shore each July 4th as they celebrate Independence. These freedom lovers, descendants of none less than Davey Crockett, eat hotdogs and revel in their illusions of what America is. Their zeal is impressive.
They believe they live in the greatest country ever conceived. They believe they experience more freedom, opportunity, and prosperity than their cohorts in other nations. They believe their system of government provides for their representation.
Yet at the same time they sense that something’s off. That somehow the facts don’t jive with the narrative. If they contemplate it at all, they find they’re unable to reconcile that their fundamental rights have been trampled on by their own government.
Uncompromising independence, rugged individualism, and unbounded personal freedom were once ideals essential to the American character. According to popular American folklore, they still are. We have some reservations.
In practice, the principles that gave rise to the great myths and legends of America died long ago. Freedom. Liberty. Independence. Limited representative government. Sound money. Private property rights. A humble and esteemable populace. Avoidance of foreign entanglements. Rafting down the Mississippi River.
These concepts, in reality, faded away from daily life over the last century like stars in the morning. Over the last 100 years Washington has become a sort of money sucking vortex. At the Capitol Building sits a cadre of legislatures and an army of staffers working up new laws to take your money.
New rules, proposed rules, and notices are published daily in the Federal Register. A quick read of the daily publication – presently about 80,000 pages – will enlighten and alarm you to the vast array of agencies, departments, and commissions and their vast array of daily nonsense.
With all these rules, it’s become near impossible to earn an honest living, and set aside a few bucks, without the IRS making a federal case out of it. Was overtime pay properly reported? Were company sponsored parking lot fees disclosed as taxable benefits?
Monday is Independence Day. By now many Americans have clocked off early for the weekend to celebrate the occasion. We’re not here to bemoan America’s devolution into absurdity.
The truth bites. So why adhere to it when it’s much, much more agreeable to believe myths and legends?
Thus for one day we’ll not grumble that our government is broke and our leaders are imposters. Nor will we complain that an unelected committee creates digital monetary credits with a few key strokes and then uses it to make interest bearing loans to the government. Instead, we’ll celebrate America for what it is.
In essence, America today is a land of absurdity where lunatics thrive and screwballs flourish. It’s a place where freaks and weirdos succeed in symbiotic disharmony. It’s a place where someone like Kim Kardashian can get rich by publicly behaving like an idiot.
Of course, what must happen, will happen. Obviously, it’s not our place to get in the way of destiny.
Besides, all is not lost – just yet. We can still say the President is a Dumbo eared doofus who wears mom jeans and throws like a girl without fear of being thrown in the hoosegow. That’s liberty, after all, and we won’t take it for granted.
via http://ift.tt/29mACkR Tyler Durden
When it comes to “real-time” measurements of crude demand and supply, the data is notoriously bad (and perhaps, according to some, intentionally manipulated). We pointed this out most recently in early March when we that according to IEA data, crude oil production exceeded consumption by an average of 0.9 million barrels per day in 2014 and 2.0 million bpd in 2015. Of this 1 billion barrels which the IEA said was produced but not consumer, some 420 million are said to be stored on land in OECD member countries and another 75 million can be found stored at sea or in transit by tanker somewhere from the oil fields to the refineries. This means that as of this moment, about 550 million “missing barrels” are unaccounted for “apparently produced but not consumed and not visible in the inventory statistics.“
However, it is not only data at the annual level that is flawed: monthly, and especially weekly data is just as, if not even more distorted. In fact, as Bloomberg’s oil energy analyst Julian Lee asks, “could it be that the U.S. demand that’s helped drive a near doubling of oil prices since mid-February was illusory?“
Lee is referring to a major discrepancy in DoE reporting which through the Energy Information Administration, produces two sets of U.S. demand data that drive sentiment and influence trading. The first shows monthly figures. They’re two months out of date, but they give the most accurate assessment of what’s going on in the world’s largest oil-consuming country.
The second set of numbers come out each Wednesday, giving preliminary estimates for the previous week. For crude markets these weekly figures – though less reliable – are arguably more important, largely because they’re bang up to date.
As Lee puts it, “It’s the discrepancy between the two sets of data that gives cause for concern.”
He adds that “when taking the weekly figures, it looks like U.S. gasoline demand is soaring. According to those data, it’s been on a steady upward path all year, reaching a record high of 9.8 million barrels in the week ending June 17, with the summer driving season barely started.”
But the latest monthly data, showing the numbers for April, paint a very different picture. They show U.S. gasoline consumption falling between March and April and imply a downward revision of April demand of 260,000 barrels a day, or 2.7 percent, from the preliminary figures. That might not seem a lot. But when the same agency forecasts that U.S. gasoline demand will grow overall this year by just 170,000 barrels a day, it’s enough to change the whole outlook for one of the few countries where demand is robust.
The problem isn’t confined to gasoline. According to the weekly numbers, overall U.S. oil demand has exceeded 20 million barrels a day in each of the past three months and, like gasoline, is on a steady upward path.
Here, again, the monthly numbers show something very different. This time the revision is a whopping 800,000 barrels a day!
Strong U.S. oil demand growth, or at least the EIA’s representation thereof, particularly for gasoline, has combined with supply disruptions in places like Canada and Nigeria to support the price rally. That recovery began in February when OPEC and other producers started talking about an output freeze.
The freeze never happened and the supply disruptions are easing. Canadian oil is coming back after the Alberta wildfires disrupted about 1.2 million barrels a day of production. The volume of output still shut in is now less than a third of the peak. Nigerian production is also returning, thanks to a ceasefire between the government and local militants.
So with the supply-side dynamics offering less of a prop to the crude price, more weight is being placed on demand. Yet analysts are becoming more pessimistic. Barclays has reduced its forecast of global demand growth this year to 1.1 million barrels a day from 1.2 million, after cutting its economic growth expectations because of the U.K. decision to leave the EU.
Last month, the World Bank lowered its forecast of global GDP growth in 2016 to 2.4 percent from 2.9 percent — and that was before Brexit. With all this in mind, it’s natural to look at the EIA’s monthly U.S. data and wonder about the crude rally’s robustness.
Finally, recall that according to JPM calculations, as much as 1.2 million barrels in “demand” is about to be taken out of the demand side of the equation since this was oil that China was importing to fill up its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is now near completion.
Which means that with Chinese demand growth about to tumble, it was all up to the US to provide the global demand boost. The problem, however, is that if indeed the EIA was overly optimistic in its weekly gasoline and crude demand estimates (or merely “cooking the books”), then once the monthly reality catches up with the weekly (fake) euphoria, the oil-trading algos will be slammed with a triple whammy of rising supply as Canadian and Nigerian production disruptions become a thing of the past, while surging Chinese and US demand is exposed to have been the result of one-time events and/or accounting gimmicks.
Last year, the big swoon lower in oil start in July/August. Since nothing has changed, and since even the central banks admit the global economy is now in far worse shape than it was a year ago, expect a similar repricing of the crude reality in the coming weeks.
via http://ift.tt/29nr9uS Tyler Durden
On a sleep Sunday afternoon in the middle of a long weekend, Elon Musk decided to release Tesla sales and production data for Q2 2016 and it is not pretty for the billionaire (and his corporate relations).
While production soared from 15,510 to 18,345, sales tumbled from 14,810 to just 14,370 (down 3% QoQ) – drastically missing expectations of 17,000 sold and the first QoQ drop in Tesla's history…
Tesla produced 18,345 vehicles in Q2, an increase of 20% from Q1, and exited the quarter consistently producing just under 2,000 vehicles per week. Due to the steep production ramp, almost half of the quarter's production occurred in the final four weeks.
With continued productivity improvements, Tesla expects output to reach 2,200 vehicles per week in Q3 and 2,400 vehicles per week in Q4. Current order rate trends and backlog support production at those levels. In total, Tesla expects to produce and deliver about 50,000 vehicles during the second half of 2016, approximately equal to all of 2015.
Due to the extreme production ramp in Q2 and the high mix of customer-ordered vehicles still on trucks and ships at the end of the quarter, Tesla Q2 deliveries were lower than anticipated at 14,370 vehicles, consisting of 9,745 Model S and 4,625 Model X. In total, 5,150 customer-ordered vehicles were still in transit at the end of the quarter and will be delivered in early Q3. That amount was higher than expected (there were 2,615 vehicles in transit to customers at the end of Q1) and is more than a third of the number of cars that completed delivery in Q2.
So back-end loaded production and front-loaded supply in Q3? It seems Tesla always has an excuse and as ever Musk remains hopeful, offering analysts a bone to defend the company to their clients, suggesting the carmaker will produce 50,000 in H2 2016… good luck with that.
We can only imagine the buying-panic this dismal news will create in the stock.
via http://ift.tt/29nr4Hs Tyler Durden
Authored by Yves Smith via NakedCapitalism.com,
This documentary on the California primary is very disturbing. It has accounts from numerous poll workers of voters being told that the computer system showed specific voters as having requested to vote by mail, which meant they were supposedly mailed a ballot. Not only did many say they never got a ballot, many said they had never signed up to vote by mail. And this includes voters who said they had never heard of vote by mail.
Those voters who showed up at the polls who were listed as “vote by mail” would only be given provisional ballot. On top of that, if they were registered “no party preference” they would have to ask specifically for a “crossover ballot” in order to vote. In fairness, I was told that many poll workers were more helpful, but this description from Greg Palast makes clear how the intent was to suppress their vote:
This is from the official [California] Election Officer Training Manual page 49:
“A No Party Preference voter will need to request a crossover ballot from the Roster Index Officer. (Do not offer them a crossover ballot if they do not ask).”
They’re not kidding. Poll worker Jeff Lewis filed a description of the training in an official declaration to a federal court:
Someone raised their hand and asked a follow-up question: ‘So, what if someone gets a nonpartisan ballot, notices it doesn’t have the presidential candidates on it, and asks you where they are?’ The answer poll workers are instructed to give: ‘Sorry, NPP ballots don’t have presidential candidates on them.’ That’s correct: even when people ask questions of that nature, obviously intending to vote with a party.
Remember, “no party preference” voters were expected to skew heavily to Sanders. In addition, there are first person accounts of voters who were registered as Democrat listed at the polling station as “no party preference” or Republican, or similarly that their party preference had been switched when they got their mail-in ballot.
Moreover, if someone filed a provisional ballot and there was a ballot mailed in for them, the vote by mail ballot takes precedence. Doesn’t this seem like a prescription for fraud?
As Inqusitr reveals, Secretary of State for California Alex Padilla has until July 15 to certify the vote results for the Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders primaries that took place on June 7. In the meantime, voters in California have been waiting for paper mail-in ballots to get counted.
Interestingly, it is these paper mail-in ballots that have caused Alex Padilla to get sued for the second time for election fraud. It is related to the first lawsuit against Alex Padilla for election fraud because it concerns the mail-in ballots that got mixed up in California.
Adding to the confusion in social media about what exactly Alex Padilla is in trouble for, there was a Snopes report from June 15 that highlighted the misleading nature of a “Stanford University study” about election fraud “through exit polls discrepancies” in California.
Although it was a “paper” by grad students and not a study published with peer review on an academic level, Snopes explains the paper “[asserts the authors of the paper] uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.”
On June 15, Heavy reported about how California voters could protect votes from election fraud and gave details about how election fraud occurs so that it can be reported.
On June 22, the Washington Post somewhat eschewed the idea of election fraud in California by Alex Padilla because there is still time left for the vote count and quoted long-time journalist Greg Palast, who stated the following.
“I can tell you this: Senator Sanders won California. Let me do the math for you. Most of those late mailed-in ballots were what are called NPP, No Party Preference. These independent ballots were the ones that came in late because people had to switch their ballots. It’s a complex process, in California, that’s all I can tell you. The late ballots are Sanders ballots.”
Put down all sharp objects and refrain from having any food or liquids in your mouth…
h/t Catherine A
via http://ift.tt/29nn21V Tyler Durden
It is well known that the FBI still does not have roughly 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server due to Clinton categorizing them as personal and not work related. We have also reported that Russia may be in possession of those emails, and according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, there is a debate going on in the Kremlin about whether or not to release them.
Given that the FBI still doesn't have the emails, Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton (of the US is "under-incarcerated" fame), who is a Trump supporter and also serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has become so frustrated that Cotton suggests the FBI is about to ask Putin for his copies. Cotton also took a jab at Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, saying that his plane was also on the tarmac, and he thought Bill Clinton may be waiting to climb on board to talk with him as well.
As Breitbart reports
A combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, Sen. Thomas Cotton (R.-Ark.) said he was glad to make it on time for his speech after a series of travel delays.
“We were on the tarmac, I thought Bill Clinton might be boarding my plane to talk to me,” said the former Army Airborne Ranger officer.
Cotton said it was shocking, but not shocking to him, that the former president would meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch — whose department is investigating both his wife and himself for his handling of the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton’s decision to conduct all her official business on her own private email account on her own private server and the way she has handled official and media inquires about it was just teaser of how her administration will approach transparency and national security, Cotton said.
The FBI still does not have 30,000 emails the expected Democratic nominee for president claimed to have deleted.
“It has gotten so bad, the FBI is on the verge of asking Vladimir Putin for his copies of Hillary’s emails,” Cotton said.
In addition to the criminal nature of the former first lady scheme, he said, conducting official and classified business on an unsecured server exposed American national security to our enemies.
Americans should not be surprised that the former secretary of state would put America at risk, he said. Working with President Barack Obama, Clinton oversaw a foreign policy that treated allies as troublemakers and our enemies as victims with legitimate complaints about the United States. Chief among the enemies is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Obama-Clinton empowered by lifting sanctions, thawing frozen assets, and ignoring Iran’s support of violent terrorism.
* * *
Truth be told, it may not be a bad idea.
via http://ift.tt/29ETSaX Tyler Durden