WaPo Reports Trump Asked More Intelligence Officials To Help Stop Russia Probe

President Donald Trump is in Israel, but back home, the Washington Post just released the latest anonymously sourced takedown. This time, the paper is alleging that Trump also asked two of his own appointees, National Security Agency head Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, for help pushing back against the Russian investigation.

Once again, the report relies on anonymous “current and former” officials.

WaPo reports:

“Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intellifence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.”

Trump sought their assistance after former FBI Director James Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FB was investigating any links between the Trump campaign and Russian government, WaPo noted.

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials.

 

It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.

Coats and Rogers both deemed the request “inappropriate” and “refused to comply,” WaPo noted, citing two current and two former officials – who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

The editors at WaPo are probably celebrating their latest scoop that will likely be confirmed by the NYT and CNN in short order, and it is clear that the implications of WaPo's allegations are that Trump is impeachable.

But we maintain that these anonymously-sourced, second-hand stories are a problem, and just the other day Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi explained why in a compelling column for the magazine. There are some major inconsistencies in  terms of what the public knows about this investigation, Taibbi noted.

Whether or not Trump is guilty, somebody should come forward with more evidence, or at least some information from an identifiable and credible source about the exact nature of the charges being pursued, because the public deserves to know.

 

Our legal system was constructed with the aim of not allowing someone to linger under a cloud of suspicion, but remain uncharged. Trump deserves that much at least.

via http://ift.tt/2rMGiu1 Tyler Durden

Chinese Media “Applauds” China’s CIA-Spy Killing Spree: “Washington Has No Idea What’s Going On”

China’s Global Times, published by the official People’s Daily, said in an editorial in its Chinese and English-language editions that, if reports of China “systematically dismantling CIA spying operations, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources” are true, it was a victory for China.

As we previously detailed, an influential state-run newspaper applauded China’s anti-espionage efforts on Monday after the New York Times said China had killed or imprisoned up to 20 CIA sources, hobbling U.S. spying operations in a massive intelligence breach.

And now, as Reuters reports, China’s Global Times, published by the official People’s Daily, said in an editorial:

“If this article is telling the truth, we would like to applaud China’s anti-espionage activities. Not only was the CIA’s spy network dismantled, but Washington had no idea what happened and which part of the spy network had gone wrong,” the paper said.

 

“It can be taken as a sweeping victory. Perhaps it means even if the CIA makes efforts to rebuild its spy network in China, it could face the same result,” it said.

However the widely read paper, which is known for its strongly nationalist stance, said one part of the report was false.

“As for one source being shot in a government courtyard, that is a purely fabricated story, most likely a piece of American-style imagination based on ideology,” it said.

The story has attracted thousands of comments on Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, with many people expressing glee that the spy ring was broken.

“Strike hard against spy traitors, protect the country’s security!” wrote one Weibo user.

 

“Well done! Good on you China,” wrote another.

This is the ally that President Trump holds so close?

via http://ift.tt/2qPW1sJ Tyler Durden

Trump’s Saudi Trip Wasn’t a Break From Tradition

Want to see the disconnect between America’s actual foreign policy and the way many media professionals imagine it? Check out Anne Applebaum’s Washington Post column calling Donald Trump’s stop in Saudi Arabia a “bizarre and un-American visit.”

Applebaum complains that Saudi Arabia, a longstanding beneficiary of U.S. largesse, was a “very strange choice for a first trip abroad” because the last four presidents made their first foreign stops in Mexico or Canada instead. This critique is more about optics than substance, but she’s right to see a shift here. The last five presidents, not four—and six of the last seven—had their first foreign excursions in either Canada or Mexico. Ronald Reagan never visited Saudi Arabia. George W. Bush didn’t go there until the last year of his presidency.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, visited in June 2009, not much later in his presidency than Trump, although he had made nine other foreign trips before then. Obama also visited the kingdom a record four times. (No other president had visited more than twice.)

This shift doesn’t reflect a specific policy goal of the Trump (or Obama) administration so much as a broader realignment of American priorities. Counterterrorism has taken on an ever more central role in U.S. foreign policy, and Saudi Arabia is America’s largest Muslim-majority ally in the Middle East, despite its record of supporting the sort of Islamist extremism that contributes to terrorism. The U.S. has a long history of linking up with murderous dictatorships when it suits America’s short-term foreign policy goals, with little regard for potential blowback. The unquestioned alliance with Saudi Arabia is part of that proud tradition. Applebaum complains that Saudi Arabia was Trump’s first stop overseas, but what’s really troubling is that the president has abandoned his campaign rhetoric questioning such relationships.

Applebaum is aware of Saudi support for Islamism; indeed, her second complaint is that Saudi Arabia is a “strange place to speak out against Islamic extremism” because the government there subsidizes certain strains of extremism. True enough, though there really isn’t a perfect venue for a speech on Islam. Obama delivered his first-year Islam speech in Cairo, the capital of a secular murderous dictatorship—and also went to Saudi Arabia first to, in his own words, seek the king’s counsel on Islam.

A similar amnesia afflicts Applebaum when she objects to Trump’s participation in the sword dance, a traditional Saudi ritual. “[U]ntil now,” she claims, “American presidents made it clear that, while we have to deal with Saudi leaders, we don’t endorse their culture. Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and others in the delegation did exactly that, by participating in this sinister all-male dance.” There’s just one problem with that take: George W. Bush also participated in the sword dance when he visited Saudi Arabia. And U.S. presidents regularly “endorse” Saudi culture by participating in various cultural activities while there.

It’s U.S. spending, not a sword dance, that underwrites the Saudis’ reactionary and repressive regime; it’s U.S. spending, not a medal or a bow, that raises thorny questions about how much responsibilty we bear for Riyadh’s repression at home or its brutal war in Yemen. But acknowledging that means acknowledging that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is a longstanding, bipartisan project, and not simply the product of a single American president who appears enamored with strongman leaders.

After complaining that the Trump administration appeared to embrace repressive Saudi culture, Applebaum also manages to complain about Tillerson denouncing human rights violations in Iran. “Yes, Americans are often hypocritical about where and when they promote human rights,” she writes. “But to denounce human rights in Iran while standing in Saudi Arabia, a place where there is no political freedom and no religious freedom, brought hypocrisy to a whole new level. Better not to have said anything at all.”

Saudi Arabia and Iran are both serial violators of human rights. But the biggest problem with Tillerson’s critique of Iran’s human rights record isn’t the venue the secretary chose to deliver it. It’s the fact that the U.S. is a poor vessel for such critiques, not just because of its own record of domestic human rights abuses but because of its support of human rights abusers abroad. The U.S. chooses to align with Saudi Arabia over Iran, but in reality it does not have to make that kind of decision. There are no core national security interests serviced by such an entangling alliance. The U.S. would do more to promote human rights and civic freedom by engaging in friendly relations and free trade with all countries interested in the same.

In the meantime, Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia isn’t un-American, no matter how much Applebaum might wish it was. Like it or not, that visit was one of the most American things President Trump has done.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2qaGSRU
via IFTTT

Massive Emergency Services Response After ‘Explosions’ Heard At UK Concert

Two loud explosions were reported this evening at Manchester Arena by people attending a pop concert by Ariana Grande in an event that Greater Manchester Police is now describing as ‘serious’.  Members of the public have been advised to avoid the arena.  People reportedly fled the stadium after hearing “two loud explosions”.

One Twitter user wrote: “Honestly worst night of my existence. Just kept running from Manchester Arena for my life.”

Another added: “Just got out of Manchester arena after seeing Ariana perform. There was a loud bang when the lights came on & everyone ran out screaming.”

 

Emergency services have rushed to the scene.

 

Developing…

via http://ift.tt/2qaNiR1 Tyler Durden

The Final Show Of The Greatest Country On Earth

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

On May 31, 1866, John C. Ringling was born in Iowa to German immigrants in what felt like an extremely bleak year.

The chaos and devastation from the Civil War that had ended in 1865 were still keenly felt, and the US economy was in the midst of a deep recession

The country was still shaken from the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

And the new President, Andrew Johnson, was embroiled in a major political crisis with Congress that would soon lead to his impeachment.

(Johnson was also a noted buffoon, once giving a speech in early 1866 to honor George Washington in which he referred to himself over 200 times and accused Congress of plotting his assassination.)

No doubt those were some of the darkest days in US history. And it would have been hard for Mr. and Mrs. Ringling to imagine a bright future for their children.

But John and four of his brothers went on to build the most successful circus empire in modern history– the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, known as the “Greatest Show on Earth.”

There were countless traveling circuses crisscrossing the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

But what made the Ringling Brothers’ event so spectacular was sheer scale. They didn’t hold anything back– lions, tigers, elephants.

The Ringling brothers were also masters of efficient logistics.

Like Ray Kroc and Henry Ford, the brothers developed an assembly line approach to the construction, deconstruction, and transportation of their event so that they could swiftly move from town to town.

It was a spectacle itself simply to see their train of railway cars packed with exotic animals stretching on for more than a mile.

Their circus was considered the ultimate in entertainment back then, and John Ringling became one of the wealthiest men in America as a result of this success.

It seemed like the empire would last forever.

But it didn’t.

After peaking in the Roaring 20s, the circus took a major hit during the Great Depression that effectively bankrupted John Ringling, the sole surviving brother.

At the time of his death in 1936, in fact, Ringling only had about $5,500 in the bank (that’s after adjusting for inflation to 2017 dollars).

The circus limped along in the Depression and barely made it through World War II.

Towards the end of the War in 1944, right before they thought their luck would turn, the circus had a major accident in Hartford in which the tent caught fire, killing 167 people.

That nearly bankrupted the company a second time, and several executives went to jail for negligence.

In the decades that followed, American consumer tastes changed.

Television, movies, and music were far more interesting than circus performances, and Ringling Brothers went into terminal decline.

Fast forward to the age of Facebook and YouTube, and there simply wasn’t a whole lot left in the circus that was exotic or interesting anymore, not to mention the animal rights issues.

So yesterday, the Greatest Show on Earth held its final performance in Uniondale, New York, after 146-years in the business.

A century ago this would have seemed impossible.

The early 1900s were the absolute peak for Ringling Brothers, and no one imagined a future where consumers weren’t standing in line to buy tickets.

Candidly I find this story to be an interesting metaphor for the United States itself.

Rise from the ashes. Remarkable growth. Peak wealth and power. Bankruptcy. Gross negligence and incompetence. More bankruptcy. Terminal decline.

And just like how people viewed Ringling Brothers 100-years ago, it’s difficult for anyone to imagine a world in which the US isn’t the dominant superpower.

Instead of the Greatest Show on Earth, it’s the Greatest Country on Earth. And most of us have been programmed to believe that this primacy will last forever.

But nothing lasts. History is full of failed dominant superpowers, from the Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire. Many no longer exist.

Their declines were almost invariably due to excessive spending, unsustainable debt, military overreach, and a society that abandoned the core values which made it wealthy and powerful to begin with.

Every successive superpower always believes that they will never suffer the same fate. And every time they’re wrong.

This time is not different.

Yes, it’s still a wonderful country with plenty of positive things going for it.

But at its core the United States still has $20 trillion in public debt (over 100% of GDP) and an additional $46.7 trillion in net, unfunded future social obligations (like Social Security and Medicare).

Plus, the government spends an appalling amount of money, far more than they collect in tax revenue.

(In 2016 their total net loss exceeded an incredible $1 TRILLION.)

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers summed it up when he quipped, “How long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s biggest power?”

The answer is– no one knows. Maybe months. Maybe decades.

Either way, this trend is one of the biggest stories of our time. And though few people want to acknowledge it, it’s already happening.

We now regularly witness government shutdowns, debt ceiling crises, and gross government incompetence. But this is just the beginning.

The national debt is growing far faster than the economy as a whole. And, especially if interest rates continue to rise, the trend will accelerate.

It’s simple arithmetic.

So while it seems impossible now, the Greatest Country on Earth will some day have its final show as well.

That doesn’t mean the US simply disappears.

But it’s foolish to assume that the insolvency of the world’s largest superpower will forever be consequence-free.

What’s your Plan B?

via http://ift.tt/2ruJzSj Tyler Durden

Comey Hearing Delayed: Chaffetz Postpones Hearing So Comey Can Speak With Special Counsel

Last week, in a frenzied attempt to get to the bottom of the ‘Comey memos’ fiasco, Jason Chaffetz scheduled a hearing for the former FBI Director to appear before the House Oversight Committee this Wednesday at 9:30AM.  That said, per the tweet below, Chaffetz apparently scheduled the hearing before even tracking down Comey’s latest cell phone number. 

 

Now, it appears that Chaffetz was finally able to track down Comey’s new cell number but it only resulted in the meeting being postponed due to Comey’s desire to speak with Special Counsel Mueller before giving public testimony.

 

Of course, Comey has also agreed to a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee though that meeting won’t be scheduled until after Memorial Day. 

So is Comey getting cold feet or does he just need to get his story straight with the Special Counsel before speaking publicly…bit of both?

* * *

Below is our previous notes on Chaffetz’s efforts to obtain the now-infamous “Comey Memos.”

Update: Jason Chaffetz office just released the letter sent to the FBI’s Andrew McCabe demanding all Comey-Trump related memos…

Today, the New York Times reported former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey memorialized the content of phone calls and meetings with the President in a series of internal memoranda. At least one such memorandum reportedly describes a conversation in which the President referenced the FBI investigation of former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and said to Comey, “I hope you can let this go.”

 

According to the report, “Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president.” If true, these memoranda raise questions as to whether the President attempted to influence or impede the FBI’s investigation as it relates to Lt. Gen. Flynn. So the Committee can consider that question, and others, provide, no later than May 24, 2017, all memoranda, notes, summaries, and recordings referring or relating to any communications between Comey and the President.

 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and may at “any time” investigate “any matter” as set forth in House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional information about responding to the Committee’s request. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Original…

Trump and/or Comey are getting increasingly boxed in here – one or other is going to be proved a liar soon enough.

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, following the New York Times latest Trump bombshell (see “Comey’s Revenge: Leaks Memo To NYT Saying Trump Asked Him To End Flynn Investigation“), the impeachment word seems to be getting tossed around a little more loosely this evening.  And, given the serious accusations levied by former FBI Director James Comey, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Jason Chaffetz, has  just promised that he will “get the Comey memo, if it exists,” which was backed up by the not so thinly veiled threat: “I have my subpoena pen ready.”

 

Meanwhile, in the following Q&A with NBC, Chaffetz says his committee has already started “drafting the necessary paperwork” to get Comey’s memo to the extent it is not handed over voluntarily.

“If the memo exists, I need to see it and I need to see it right away.  We are drafting the necessary paperwork to get the mom so we will find out in a hurry if its out there.”

 

“I want to read the memo first but on the surface that seems like an extraordinary use of influence to try to shutdown an investigation being done by the FBI.  I don’t know if it’s true yet but I want to find out if that’s actually out there.”

via http://ift.tt/2ruzmVK Tyler Durden

Hey Libertarians: Prepare To Be Disappointed in Trump’s 10-Year Budget Plan

Tomorrow should be exciting: It’s the day that Donald Trump will release his first full budget plan, which will carry with it a 10-year window over which 3 percent annual economic growth will be restored and outlays and revenues will magically match up in a way they haven’t since fiscal 2001.

Yet if past is prologue—and by past, I mean the budget plans offered over the years by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations—don’t expect a document worth the pixels it is printed on.

Bush pushed tax cuts through and while revenue dipped at first, it started climbing back up after a few years, he ultimately raised real federal outlays by about 50 percent over his two terms. He was never credible, then, either on pushing for a balanced budget and, as important, in reducing the spending of government and hence its impact on all of our lives (as Milton Friedman used to say, government spending is the ultimate measure of government influence over the economy; whether spending is paid-for or based on borrowed money, it represents a tax on us now or in the future).

Barack Obama’s fiscal trajectory is a little more complicated. Via his stimulus plan and expansion of various bailouts, he helped Bush grow fiscal 2009 spending to record levels but after the 2010 midterms, he lost his congressional majority and per-capita spending actually dropped year-over-year before resuming its seemingly inexorable climb. It’s hard to believe that Obama had actually campaigned in 2008 on a net spending cut because he never even made the lamest feint in that direction. And of course, the national debt soared on his watch—and the very notion of passing a budget rather than using continuing resolutions sunk to the bottom of the tidal basin.

So what might we expect from Trump’s budget plan? His earlier iteration of his “skinny budget” only covered discretionary spending (a category that accounts for outlays that must be renewed every year and comprises about one-third of all federal spending) didn’t cut overall spending. Yes, it proposed some double-digit trims to various programs and agencies but it funneled all savings into a bigger defense budget.

Since 2008, overall spending levels have been north of 20 percent of GDP, which is considerably higher than the historical average for the last 50-plus years of the postwar 20th century. There’s no reason to believe that Trump will put a stop to that, especially since he has promised not to touch the major drivers of government spending, Social Security and Medicare. Neither of those plans is self-sustaining, so each require larger and larger subsidies from taxpayers, especially as more and more baby boomers hit the Depends years. While USA Today and others are reporting that Trump will call for massive cuts to Medicaid, most of that will come from recent increases tied to expansions under Obamacare. Yet a huge amount of Medicaid actually goes to pay for longtime care for elderly people and won’t be affected by Trump’s likely trims.

Then there’s this:

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has said the administration wants to reach 3% levels of growth. While that’s the historic average, experts say 3% growth will be difficult to achieve because of a slowdown in the growth of labor, capital and productivity. The main reason for that is the aging population — which is also driving the projected increases in spending for Social Security and Medicare.

As Nicholas Eberstadt notes, between 1946 and 2000, annual per-capita economic growth averaged 2.3 percent, already below Mulvaney’s 3 percent. Since 2000, however, the United States has been looking at average per-capita growth of less than 1 percent a year. Sure, tax cuts might help kickstart the economy to some degree, but the plain fact is that there’s every reason to think any increases in activity will be more than swallowed up by automatic increases in spending tied to Medicare, Social Security, and probably defense spending. From USA Today’s crystal-ball article:

Hardline conservatives have been pushing for a balanced budget, and Mulvaney has said he wants to get there in 10 years. But even he acknowledged that’s difficult. Deficits are projected to more than double over the next decade. Experts, such as those at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, say they will be on the lookout for “gimmicks” that would make a path to a balanced budget look easier than it is. Those include: overly optimistic projections of economic growth, unspecified savings and unrealistic proposals.

Here’s hoping that budget hawks continue not just to push for a balanced budget, but that they do so by pushing for spending cuts. There is a generational storm on the horizon, as Millennials will be footing the bill for unsustainable and immoral old-age entitlements that benefit relatively older and wealthy Americans at the expense of younger and poorer ones. Cutting spending will not only reduce long-term deficits and debt, which tend to have a smothering effect on economic growth, but there is ample reason to believe that reductions in government spending spur private-sector activity.

Tune in tomorrow for specific responses to Trump’s budget plan.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2qdzWCC
via IFTTT

China Imposes Sugar Import Tariffs As High As 95%

While tense trade negotiations between the US and Mexico over the price and quota for U.S. imports of Mexican sugar continue (a happy ending appears unlikely, especially after a Mexican sugar company on Friday called on the government to take action against American fructose producers and protect the local industry from US deals), a new protectionist measure involving sugar half way around the globe was unveiled on Monday when China – the world’s biggest importer of the sweet substance – said it will impose significant penalties on sugar imports following lobbying by domestic mills.

According to the ruling first described by Reuters, up to a third of China’s annual sugar imports will be impacted by an extra tariff for the next three years on shipments that the government said had “seriously damaged” the domestic industry.

The details: China currently allows just over 1.9 million tonnes of imports at a tariff of 15% as part of its commitment to the World Trade Organization. All imports above this amount are slapped with a 50% levy. After Monday’s ruling, the total sugar duty will nearly double, with Beijing imposing an additional 45% tax to these imports in the current fiscal year taking the total to 95%. This will fall to 90% next year and 85% a year later, China’s Commerce Ministry said in a statement. The ruling exempted 190 smaller countries and regions from the new duty, including smaller producers such as the Philippines, Pakistan and Myanmar.

Today’s decision will drastically reduce imports from top growers such as Brazil and Thailand as it will close the big gap between Chinese sugar prices – currently double those on the London market – and international prices. However, according to traders, the higher tariffs will also likely spur increased smuggling across China’s southern border, while some imports from major producers may be shipped through third-party nations excluded from the tariffs.

While China has traditionally been a low-cost farming powerhouse, sugar is one of the few commodities where China struggles to compete given the higher costs of its smallholder farmers, who produce about 10.5 million tonnes of cane and beet sugar a year. The country then imports another 3 million tonnes a year, even as Beijing has been trying to crack down on illegal shipments of as much as 2 million tonnes a year, Reuters reports. Which is why today’s move has prompted some consternation: “while smuggling has temporarily slowed, there is a risk that the incentives for smuggling are still strong and in fact could increase if domestic prices rise,” said Tom McNeill, director of Green Pool Commodities in Brisbane.

Another reason why the tariff may backfire: it won’t take a big drop in sugar prices to offset the tariff’s impact: “Of course it will support the domestic industry for a short time,” said a China-based trader. “(But) the global raw sugar market just needs to drop a little below 15 cents” to make it profitable to import into China. Worse, Beijing may have no choice but to intervene directly in the domestic market by selling some of its state reserves to prevent supplies tightening and prices spiking.

In response to the tariff, sugar futures initially fell more than 1% as traders interpreted the move, which was in line with a draft proposal issued in April, as too lenient to staunch shipments.

Thailand, the world’s third largest producer, played down the impact of the duty. Its millers have a much lower shipping cost to China than rivals, Brazil and Australia, said Viboon Panitwong, chairman of the Thai Sugar Millers Corp Ltd, who did not expect the duty to significantly affect sugar exports. Thailand exports about 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes of sugar to China a year.

Ultimately, China’s decision is unlikely to do much to defend its domestic infustry, at least until an even higher tariff is imposed by Beijing, and the downstream effects impact global prices. It is however notable that the country which recently spoke of itself as the flag-bearer for new and improved globalization, promptly engaged in precisely the kinds of protectionist measures that it blasted the Trump administration for proposing.

via http://ift.tt/2qdsc3K Tyler Durden

Krieger: America Has Become A Total Joke

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

I’ve stopped calling what our government has done a cover-up. Cover-up suggests a passive activity. What they’re doing now I call aggressive deception.

 

– Former Senator Bob Graham, co-chair of Congress’s 9/11 Joint Inquiry

This country is becoming a total joke and it’s not merely because of Donald Trump. While he’s certainly becoming a key player in our national embarrassment, this country’s decent into a reckless Banana Republic has been a long time coming.

Let’s take stock of where things stand in mid-2017. Our opposition Democratic Party (Hillary in a leather jacket yelling about Russia) is a joke. Our corporate media is a joke. Our foreign policy is a joke. Our economy is a joke. Our justice system is a joke. It’s all a joke, and it might even be somewhat humorous if it wasn’t so incredibly dangerous.

Today’s post will focus on Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, a revolting spectacle which I could barely bring myself to follow. It all started Saturday morning as I tried to enjoy a beautiful day with my growing family and parents who were in town for a visit. My day was more or less ruined upon witnessing the appalling spectacle of Trump and his top advisors dancing with the rulers of the terrorist sponsoring state of Saudi Arabia while clutching swords. I’m sorry for doing this to you, but in case you missed it.

Then there was the speech. It was an inspiring display of soaring oratory if empty platitudes and aggressive neocon foreign policy is your thing. On various occasions Mr. Trump alluded to the fact that the U.S.-Saudi alliance was a “partnership based on shared interests and values.” Which got me thinking…which of the following was he referring to exactly.

Or perhaps it’s just a partnership based on oil and imperial ambitions. Nah, don’t be a conspiracy theorist.

It’s remarkable the transformation Trump’s undergone since winning the Presidency. You know, kind of like what happened to Mr. “Hope and Change” after he won. Funny things tend to happen to people once they capture the throne.

That said, Trump’s transformation has been particularly brazen (and public), which has led many of us to wonder what happened to this guy…

Turns out daddy’s money still works after all, with Trump happily groveling for more during his trip. For example, just before he mentioned the recent Saudi arms deal in his speech, Trump introduced it by saying he has “even more blessed news” to share. Not a joke.

Who will actually benefit from all this “blessed news”? We get a hint from CNBC‘s headline this morning.

Specifically:

Defense stocks took off on Monday after President Donald Trump signed a nearly $110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia. The deal will be worth $350 billion over 10 years.

 

Shortly after market open, Lockheed Martin was up about 2 percent, Raytheon was up more than 1.4 percent, Northrop Grumman climbed 1 percent and General Dynamics was up about half a percent. All four stocks reached new highs.

It seems arming the Saudis to unleash further horror and humanitarian suffering in neighboring Yemen (and throughout the region), is very good for business.

Blessed are the arm dealers, for they shall inherit the earth.

Meanwhile, Trump ended his Saudi speech by blasting Iran for its terrorism. I suppose somebody forgot to show him the following graphic showing country of origin for terrorist attacks on American soil.

For more on how elements of the Saudi state were involved in the 9/11 attacks, see:

Meet the Lawyer Who’s Suing Saudi Arabia for Financing the 9/11 Attacks

The 28-Pages Are Way Worse Than I Thought

While the above is cringeworthy enough, perhaps the most grotesque, ignorant and disturbing part of the visit came to us via comments from billionaire financier and current Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. In a CNBC interview earlier today he was downright jubilant when describing the fact there were no protesters in Saudi Arabia to disrupt the adults present as they plotted their next moves of regional domination as they cuddled glowing orbs. He was also downright mesmerized by a couple of bags of dates given to him by Saudi security.

From MarketWatch:

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Monday he was heartened by the absence of even a single protester during President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend.

Ross noted:

I think the other thing that was fascinating to me, there was not a single hint of a protestor anywhere there during the whole time we were there, not one guy with a bad placard.

 

CNBC anchor Becky Quick attempted to point out that Saudi Arabia bans all political protests, but Ross did not let that spoil his good mood.

 

“In theory that could be true. But, boy, there was certainly no sign of it, there was not a single effort at any incursion. There wasn’t anything. The mood was a genuinely good mood. And at the end of the trip, as I was getting back on the plane, the security guards from the Saudi side who’d been helping us over the weekend all wanted to pose for a big photo-op. And then they gave me two gigantic bushels of dates, as a present, as a thank you for the trip that we had had. That was a pretty from-the-heart, very genuine gesture. It really touched me.”

Translation: Why can’t we do the same thing in America.

Indeed, I’m sure a few ceremonial mass beheadings here at home will certianly improve the national mood.

In theory.

Meanwhile, I’ll just leave this right here.

 

America is already a Banana Republic and it’s only going to get worse.

via http://ift.tt/2qOyfzD Tyler Durden

Biggest Subprime Auto Lender Skipped Income Verification On 92% Of Auto Loans

We first introduced readers to the “New Century of auto finance” (aka “Santander Consumer USA”) several years ago when we first took note of their aggressive auto ABS facilities.  In fact, here is a quick look at one of their ABS deals from 2015 which sported an average FICO of 595, LTV of 110%, APR of 16.2% and a term of 70 months. 

Santander is the largest subprime auto lender in the country with more than $15 billion in outstanding loans to underqualified buyers. Not surprisingly, the company also dominates the subprime auto ABS space accounting for a disproportionate share of YTD issuance. We noted that Santander’s first deal of 2015 (SDART 2015-1) carried an average FICO of 595, an average APR of 16.20%, and an average term of 70 months…

 

 

And if that isn’t enough evidence to convince you that today’s auto sales are nothing more than another subprime, debt-fueled bubble then perhaps you should also take note of today’s Bloomberg article that highlights the fact that Santander USA apparently only took the time to verify income on roughly 8% of the loans they subsequently dumped into ABS facilities and sold off pension and insurance companies. 

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., one of the biggest subprime auto finance companies, verified income on just 8 percent of borrowers whose loans it recently bundled into bonds, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

 

The low level of due diligence on applicants compares with 64 percent for loans in a recent securitization sold by General Motors Financial Co.’s AmeriCredit unit. The lack of checks may be one factor in explaining higher loan losses experienced by Santander Consumer in bond deals that it has sold in recent years, Moody’s analysts Jody Shenn and Nick Monzillo wrote in a May 17 report, which reviewed data required of asset-backed bond issuers that’s recently been made available.

 

Limited verification of loan applicants’ stated incomes and employment “creates more uncertainty around whether borrowers will be able to afford their monthly payments, which becomes particularly important if they have poor credit records and risky loan terms,” the analysts wrote.

Andrew Kang, Santander Consumer’s treasurer, acknowledged the minimal level of income verification and said the company’s practice has been consistent over time even if it’s lower than levels reported among competitors.

Meanwhile, as we pointed out last week (see “UBS Hints At Rampant Auto Lending Fraud; ‘It’s Not Just Smoke And Mirrors Anymore’“), this news comes just as there is growing concern among auto ABS investors that consumers, auto dealers and/or banks have been going beyond simply relaxing underwriting standards and have instead been forced to commit outright fraud in order to attract that incremental auto volume growth.  As UBS Strategist Matthew Mish told Bloomberg, “something is definitely going on under the hood…it’s not just smoke and mirrors anymore.”

The evidence is growing. First, the explosion of technology makes gaining access to information to improve credit scores very simple. Internet searches for ‘credit score’ are at record levels. Second, our survey finds 21% of auto loan borrowers admitted to some form of inaccuracy in their loan applications. Third, there is growing concern reported among auto lenders around fraud, which is the extreme case of this behavior.

 

Overall, the explosion and adoption of technology makes gaining access to “proven” methods for improving credit scores extremely simple. To this point, the popularity of internet searches for “credit score” has been rising consistently and is near peak post-crisis levels (Figure 7). Similarly, our survey finds that 21% of auto loan borrowers admitted to some inaccuracy in their application for non-mortgage related debt (auto, student or credit card loan). More concerning, this trend may be systemic as 29% of other consumer loan (i.e., student loan, credit card) borrowers acknowledged some form of inaccuracy in their applications (Figure 8).

Auto

 

All of which helps explain those surging delinquencies….

Subprime

 

…and loss severities in ABS structures…

Subprime

 

…and what increasingly seems to be a long-term trend in SC’s stock.

Santander

 

All great signs of a “plateau.”

via http://ift.tt/2rasnSa Tyler Durden