Month: June 2022

Uvalde school district police chief Pete Arredondo has stopped cooperating with state investigators and has stopped responding to requests for information for several days, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Arredondo was in command during last week’s mass shooting that left 19 fourth-graders and two teachers dead, and has received harsh criticism for ordering officers not to breach the classroom and neutralize the 18-year-old gunman Salvador Ramos for over an hour because Arredondo “believed that it had transitioned from an active shooter to a barricaded subject” and that children were not at risk.

The Texas Tribune reports that Texas Rangers have attempted to continue talking to Arredondo, chief of police for the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, however he hasn’t answered a request made three days ago for a follow-up interview, according to two spokespeople for DPS.

The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District’s police department and the Uvalde Police Department have otherwise been cooperating with the Rangers’ investigation, DPS spokesperson Travis Considine said.

Amid the turmoil, Texas’ largest police union — the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, or CLEAT — urged its members Tuesday in a statement to “cooperate fully” with investigations into the police response to the Uvalde massacre — though they didn’t name Arredondo. -Texas Tribune

The news comes as Arredondo, 50, was quietly sworn in as a city council member Tuesday night after being elected earlier this month before the shooting.

“Out of respect for the families who buried their children today, and who are planning to bury their children in the next few days, no ceremony was held,” said Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin in a statement obtained by ABC News Austin affiliate KVUE.

BREAKING: Uvalde ISD Chief Pete Arredondo was officially sworn in as a city council member today, Mayor Don McLaughlin confirms in a statement. This comes hours after DPS said he is not responding to a request for a followup interview. pic.twitter.com/yKG1ed68AE

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) June 1, 2022

“Our parents deserve answers and I trust the Texas Department of Public Safety/Texas Rangers will leave no stone unturned,” the statement continues. “Our emotions are raw, and hearts are broken, and words are sometimes exchanged because of those emotions.“

Meanwhile,

DPS has walked back a Friday statement that a teacher had propped open a door that’s normally locked, allowing the shooter to gain entry to the campus. Now, according to Travis Considine, chief communications officer for the Texas Department of Public Safety, the teacher ‘removed the rock’ used to prop the door open after hearing gunshots outside of the school. The teacher closed the door but it did not lock, according to the Associated Press.

The reversal came hours after a lawyer representing the teacher told the San Antonio Express-News that the teacher closed the door before the shooter entered the building.

“She remembers pulling the door closed while telling 911 that he was shooting,” Don Flanary, the teacher’s lawyer, told the Express-News. “She thought the door would lock because that door is always supposed to be locked.”

“We did verify she closed the door. The door did not lock. We know that much and now investigators are looking into why it did not lock,” said Considine after investigators viewed additional video footage reviewed since Friday’s claim.

“She came back out while on her phone, she heard someone yell, ‘He has a gun!’, she saw him jump the fence and that he had a gun, so she ran back inside,” and removed the rock when she did, he added.

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Yesterday I argued US President Biden’s inflation-fighting plan boils down to “rates or nothing.” It seems both he and Treasury Secretary Yellen agree, as following a White House meeting with Fed Chair Powell, the president made clear he fully backs the Fed’s independence and wants to give it “space” to act on high inflation. And little else on the topic.

You can tell just how seriously the White House is taking its role in the inflation crisis because the Powell meeting started at 13:15EST, and by 15:00EST the president was meeting South Korean boyband BTS. I presume they all know their inflation rate is 4.8% y-o-y, and the price of ‘Butter’?

Is that White House hospital pass intended to allow the Fed to pause in September, and then start to cut again? Yellen, talking to CNN, offered a mea culpa in saying, “I was mistaken about inflation’s trajectory,” but again stressed, “The Fed is taking necessary actions,” adding, “I think it’s impossible to rule out more inflationary surprises,” to give them a push towards the incoming bone-crunching tackle. (That is as Bloomberg says ‘China Plans for Years of Covid Zero With Tests on Every Corner’. Sorry, global supply chains.)

The Fed’s Bostic also clarified his comments last week about a “September pause” should not be construed as a “Fed put”. He predicts a significant drop in inflation as we will see a fall in the “willingness to spend freely among certain segments of the population”, with the key PCE deflator measure of price pressures expected to drop back from 6.3% y-o-y to 4.0% by year end – but still twice the level it should be.

Then again, there is a more cynical interpretation of yesterday’s meeting (with Powell, not BTS). Could the White House –which those in the know say was leaning on the Fed last year, as is the US tradition– have publicly stressed the Fed is independent *and* told them to pivot in September, to ensure all the blame falls on Powell?

From here Powell either Volckers or Burns. Either way we see hospitalization-inducing volatility.

After yesterday’s shock Eurozone 8.1% y-o-y CPI print –and with lots more food inflation in the pipeline yet to come– we got more ECB chatter of whether a 50bps step might be needed, and whether the neutral rate is 1.00%, which once looked impossible, or 2.00%, which to many still does. Again it looks to be rates or nothing – although with acronymtastic action to try to keep the Eurozone periphery out of danger.

Ironically, yesterday also saw drops in key commodities. In grains and oilseeds, this was due to thoughts of Russian exports from the Black Sea. Nothing can be ruled in or ruled out, but the removal of Western sanctions on Russia, Moscow’s core demand for letting food flow again, is something that is almost certainly not going to happen. In which case, that agri sell-off is not going to last.

On oil, the impact of the EU’s oil embargo was minor, as was French insistence the next step should be on gas (given it is nuclear-powered, naturellement). What moved markets was the Wall Street Journal reporting some OPEC+ members “are considering the idea of suspending Russia in an oil production deal as Western sanctions hurt the nation’s ability to produce more.” That would open the doors for Saudi Arabia to pump – and so oil prices fell. Yet the Saudis insist that there is already enough oil around and the problem is a lack of refineries.

At time of writing, the market did not appear to have fully digested the other big energy news: Europe, the US, and UK are to stop insuring any vessels carrying Russian oil. That could have a serious impact given the lack of alternatives, and a likely Western backlash if other insurance actors step in to provide insurance. That’s also a hospital pass for central banks.

As an aside, there is lots happening regarding Saudi. They have, pointlessly, flirted with selling some oil in CNY, and Russia’s Lavrov arrives in Riyadh soon. However, they are also reportedly close to a gradual move towards joining the US-initiated Abraham Accords with Israel: the US looking serious about backing off from the Iran nuclear deal was key. They are also talking about soon having the world’s largest horizontal buildings – because with oil where it is, it seems we are back to ‘gold toilets’ cliches.

Meanwhile, New Zealand is clearly moving towards the US. PM Ardern and President Biden just released a joint statement on a ‘21st-Century Partnership’ that makes it 100% clear the Kiwis stand with the West, not as a tongue-in-cheek ‘New Xi-Land’. The key highlights are that:

“Our countries will expand our work in the Pacific on infrastructure, including transportation and information-communications technology; cyber security; maritime security, including combatting illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; education and skills training; COVID-19 pandemic assistance and global health security; and economic recovery. At the same time, we will promote democratic governance, free and fair elections, media freedom, and transparency; we will increase respect for human rights and the rule of law.”

All of this with deep US coordination.

“We oppose unlawful maritime claims and activities in the South China Sea that run counter to the rules-based international order, particularly UNCLOS. We reiterate our grave concerns regarding the human-rights violations in Xinjiang, and the erosion of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong… We underscore the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and encourage the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues.”

All the hot-button US issues are now hot for NZ too.

“We acknowledge that security and defence will become an ever-more-important focus of our strategic partnership. We look to increase the interoperability of our forces, including through personnel exchanges, co-deployments, and defence trade. Achieving this vision will require robust and sustained commitment to defence in the Pacific. As New Zealand takes delivery of new capabilities, we will look for opportunities for combined operations and to expand our cooperation in other ways. As the security environment in the Indo-Pacific evolves, so must our defence cooperation.”

It’s not joining The Quad – but given the US is aiming for military interoperability with Japan, India, and the UK, it’s not far off. It also means more Kiwi defence spending.

“We intend…to explore how we can expand bilateral trade and investment in order to strengthen the security of our supply chains and economic resilience. To that end, the US and New Zealand will resume annual Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) discussions.”

Wellington of course fully backs the new US-initiated IPEF trade structure.

Will the above move Kiwi markets today? No. Will it if we see a bifurcated Indo-Pacific region, and/or China importing much less from New Zealand to push-back against its shift towards the US? Yes – and the risks of that just increased markedly. As such, some might see this statement as a hospital pass: yet not acting geopolitically in the present environment would have been one too.

Likewise, the South China Morning Post says, ‘Europe beefs up trade armory for long-term fight with China’. Europe doesn’t fight physically, but boy can it do so in committees, and paper cuts can hurt. The EU is going to address everything ‘China’, from state subsidies to market access, economic coercion to carbon emissions, and forced labor to tech transfer. Europe reportedly sees itself as able to leave the US for dust in these technical areas, doing its bit for the ‘liberal world order’. (As the US oddly once again flirts with the inflation-irrelevant issue of removing China tariffs: but this internal debate may yet end the same way as the Iran deal did.)

That is as Jörg Wuttke, the president of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, says the “allure of China” is waning, as foreign businesses consider their options for new investments. Moreover, the EU just upgraded Thursday’s bilateral trade summit with Taiwan to ministerial level.

Will the above move Eurozone markets today? No. Will it if the end-point is a bifurcated world, and/or China importing much less from Europe to push-back? Or if China exports less to it, when supply-side inflation is already an issue? Yes – and the risks of that just increased markedly. As such, some might see this EU statement as a hospital pass: yet not acting geopolitically in the present environment would have been one too.

Today saw the new Aussie government faced with its first immediate crisis: CoreLogic house prices dropped 0.3% m-o-m. I would have expected a housing stimulus package by lunchtime if it was the last lot, but the new ones need to get their email up and running first. Q1 GDP, for which they are not responsible, meanwhile came in at 0.8% q-o-q vs. 0.7% expected and 3.3% y-o-y vs. 3.0%, with upward revisions to back data. So, Aussie rates are going to rise (after everyone else led them there). And Aussie house prices are going to…. [fill in the blank, RBA]. What a hospital pass for PM Albanese(?)

China’s Caixin manufacturing PMI was out today too and was 48.1 vs. 49.0 expected and 46.0 last month. It’s ‘interesting’ to see that it only half echoed the more upbeat official measures, which picked up more in May despite lockdowns.

Not directly linked to any of the above, but also a hospital pass of sorts, an Israeli tech firm has estimated that up to 12% of Twitter users are ‘bots’. Moreover, Pew research says the top 10% of tweeters account for 92% of all tweets, of which 69% are Democrats and only 26% Republicans. Expect to see more from Elon Musk ‘on Twitter’.

In some of the Kremlin’s strongest words yet denouncing Western arms shipments, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Ukraine that newly ramped up arms transfers including US missile systems being sent to Kiev risks drawing a third country into the war.

In the Wednesday statements, he accused Ukraine of seeking to involve outside countries, and slammed the missile transfer as marking a ‘direct provocation’. His words come on the heels of Biden on Tuesday night announcing longer range missile systems for Ukraine, which however likely can’t reach Russian territory, given they are short to “medium range” systems. Moscow previously called the White House’s expressed desire to avoid direct confrontation with Russia a “rational” policy.

But Lavrov took the opportunity to warn hawks both in the US and Europe: “I will say it frankly: not everyone in the European Union, especially in its northern part [understands this]. There are politicians, who are ready to do this madness in order to satisfy their ambitions. But serious countries in the EU naturally are well aware that such scenarios are unacceptable,” the top diplomat said according to state media.

The blistering attack also seemed aimed a Germany, which just announced new anti-air radar and defense systems for Ukraine:

Germany will supply Ukraine with the IRIS-T modern air defence and radar systems, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said, stepping up arms deliveries amid criticism that Berlin is not doing enough to help Kyiv in its fight against Russia.

“The government has decided that we will send the IRIS-T system – the most modern system that Germany currently possesses,” the German chancellor told parliament.

In separate statements on the same day, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia “does not believe Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s claims that Kiev will not attack Russian territory, should it obtain US-made long-range multiple launch rocket systems.”

Already there have been multiple cross-border incidents in which Russian towns or villages were shelled. According to TASS, Peskov said:

“No,” the spokesman said, answering a question whether the Kremlin trusts Zelensky’s words. “In order to trust, there must be previous experience when such promises were fulfilled. Unfortunately, such experience is completely nonexistent,” Peskov explained.

“On the contrary, the entire history of events proves that, starting with Zelensky’s main campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine’s southeast once and for all, [the promise] was not fulfilled, and the Minsk Agreements were not implemented, they sunk into oblivion, and by Ukraine’s fault at that,” the spokesman pointed out.

“So we don’t really have any trust credit for the Ukrainian side,” he emphasized in follow-up.

Russia is now warning of ‘worst case scenarios’ regarding the missile transfer…

KREMLIN SAYS RUSSIA TAKES ‘VERY NEGATIVE VIEW’ OF U.S. WEAPONS SUPPLIES, THEY DON’T HELP TO ENCOURAGE UKRAINE TO RENEW PEACE TALKS

KREMLIN DECLINES COMMENT ON HOW RUSSIA WILL RESPOND IF UKRAINE FIRES U.S. MISSILES INTO ITS TERRITORY, SAYS LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT WORST SCENARIOS

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 1, 2022

The night before, Biden stated in his NY Times op-ed that “We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia. As much as I disagree with Mr. Putin, and find his actions an outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow,” Biden wrote. “So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces,” he added.

However, it seems Russia is now implicitly warning that it will hold the US accountable for any ‘mishaps’ regarding the US rockets in the hands of Ukrainian forces.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.”  The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias.

According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said:

“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”

If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.

Before the verdict, some of us noted that adverse elements for the prosecution. Few would honestly question that trying a Clinton campaign lawyer in a city that voted over 90 percent for Clinton was not an advantage for the defense. The same is true for some cases tried in conservative areas. In this case, prosecutors challenged some jurors but were overruled by Judge Christopher Cooper. I believe that the court was wrong on a couple of those rulings. In the end, the prosecution was faced with a jury that contained three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter played on the same team as Sussmann’s daughter. As I previously said, that does not mean that the jurors could not be impartial.

The prosecutors were also hit with a series of adverse rulings by the judge that limited the scope of evidence and examinations. That denied the prosecution the ability to show how the campaign knowingly pushed unsupported claims.

Nevertheless, I noted that the outset that “this is not an easy case to prove.” There was overwhelming evidence, in my view, that Sussmann lied to conceal his work with the Clinton campaign. Yet, the defense did a good job in attacking elements like materiality in how the allegedly false statement impacted the FBI.

The juror statement is not something that is likely to be raised with the court. The juror could have still rendered an unbiased decision despite viewing the prosecution as much to do about nothing. If such a statement were made during voir dire, it would have been viewed as more serious as a preexisting view that could impact the impartiality of the juror.

In the end, there is no proof of actual juror nullification. While the evidence of lying seems overwhelming to some of us, there were interstitial questions on how the lying impacted the investigation. Yet, I believe that the court undermined the prosecution in a number of its rulings. Moreover, there is a legitimate concern over how this trial was handled as opposed to the trial of figures like Michael Flynn in the same courthouse.

The more important issue following this verdict is whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to release a public report on his overall findings. Democrats previously demanded such a report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Some even demanded the release without redactions, including grand jury material. In the end, a report was released with a comparably small number of redactions. The same should be true with Durham. This trial resulted in the release of new information, but it is clear that the Durham was strictly limited in what he could reveal at trial. The public has a legitimate interest in a full account of these findings, as it did after the Mueller investigation.