Addressing the Senate Floor, Schumer Says Trump is Trying to Bully Sessions Out of Office

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) addressed the Senate floor today, discussing Trump’s Twitter attacks on AG Sessions (I can’t believe I just wrote that), admonishing his character for publicly outing his first establishment ally in the Senate.

“We should all take a moment to think about how shocking these comments are on a human basis,” Schumer said on the Senate floor about some of Trump’s recent statements. “This was the first person who stumped for Donald Trump, who was with him through thick and thin. And now, even if the president has disagreements with him, which I think are ill-founded, self-centered and wrong, you don’t ridicule him in public, someone who is your close friend. That speaks to character.”

It’s clear that President Trump is trying to bully his attorney general out of office. How can anyone draw a different conclusion?” Schumer said, wondering why Trump aired his grievances in public and not in person. “He wants him out.”

Schumer posited the idea that Trump was jockeying to get rid of Sessions before the August recess, at which point he’d appoint a new AG, who would then fire Robert Mueller. Makes sense.

“Before this scheme gains wings, Democrats will never go along with the recess appointment if that situation arises. We have some tools in our toolbox to stymie such action. We’re ready to use every single one of them, anytime day or night,” he said.

“I cannot imagine my friends on the Republican side, particularly in the Republican leadership … would be complicit in creating a constitutional crisis. They must work with us and not open the door to a constitutional crisis during the August recess.”

Creatures from Twitter weigh in.

What do you think? Does Trump have the gumption to pull it off?

via http://ift.tt/2uyqUnm The_Real_Fly

When Will The ECB Run Out Of German Bunds To Buy: Here Is The Math

Speaking earlier on Monday, ECB governing council member Ewald Nowotny said that despite growing market concerns, the ECB “sees no need to set a timetable to end bond buying” adding that “the question is not when but how to continue. That will depend on the economic projections for 2018, which we will have in the fall […] It’s not about an abrupt halt, but about registering that we are no longer confronted by such an acute crisis as we were when we implemented the measures. I consider it wise to step off the gas slowly.”

In other words, just like all other central bank pronouncements, this too was meant to instill confidence in the economy. There is just one problem: the question which Nowotny tried so hard to ignore is precisely the one that matters as we most recently explained in “Both ECB And BOJ Are Just Months Away From Running Out Of Bonds To Buy.” The question is even more relevant considering it has been the ECB’s purchases of corporate (and government) bonds that has led to a record drop in European credit spreads as we showed yesterday.

But back to the math, because apart from the macro economic rationale for tapering the most important, if not only limiting factor which will result in a moderate tapering of the QE programme starting in the coming months is the lack of eligible government bonds, Bunds in particular, for central bank purchases.

As a reminder, the current eligibility criteria (which admittedly can be changed) for government bonds is that they should be euro denominated, have a remaining maturity of 1Y to 31Y and an issue and issuer limit of 33% applies. The issuer limit is different from the issue limit as it takes into account central banks’ holdings of government bonds outside of the asset purchase program as well.

Using ECB data, one can estimate the remaining eligible universe taking into account the reinvestment needs and the impact of gross issuance on the eligible universe. This is what Deutsche Bank has done recently, assuming that 70% of German PSPP purchases are in central govt. bonds with the remaining 30% in regional government bonds and local agencies. The bank then estimates that the remaining eligible universe of bonds is €114bn. Further assuming gross issuance for the remainder of 2017 and 2018 to be € 69bn and € 150bn respectively, I.e. a total of EUR 220bn, the eligible universe increases by 33% of this amount which is €73bn. This takes the total eligible universe by the end of 2018 to approximately €185bn.

At the current pace, Bund purchases until the end of the year should amount to €50bn. Should the ECB continue monetizing debt at the current pace it will not have enough eligible bonds by the end of 2018.

This is where the taper comes in: at an aggregate QE pace of €40bn per month from Jan-18 onward, a €20bn reduction of the current monetization pace, total QE purchases of German govt bonds would amount to €67bn. Additionally, estimating that reinvestment needs until the end of 2018 would amount to €40bn, this takes total QE purchases to €157bn which is comfortably below the available eligible universe of €185bn, however virtually no eligible bonds remain going into 2019.

Summarizing DB’s calculations, if the ECB were to reduce the pace of QE to €40bn per month starting from Jan-18, the ECB should not run out of German government bonds to purchase until early 2019. On the other hand, if it keeps the current pace of QE, it will run out of paper by late 2018, and even with a downward revised €40bn monthly total, the ECB will have almost no German bonds left to buy in early 2019. Furthermore, even tapering to €20Bn in late 2018 or 2019 will only extend total QE by just a few more months at best.

There is a last resort: either by then Germany starts running a huge budget deficit – obviously a very touchy political issue – which the ECB will be delighted to fund, or Greece will finally be eligible for QE and will be delighted to step in to Germany’s shoes, allowing the ECB to monetize Greek bonds, although it will take some very imaginative Goldman financial engineering to allow the ECB to monetize the (defaulted) Greek bonds that it already owns…

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

The Elites Are Privately Warning About A Crash

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

Many everyday citizens assume powerful global financial elites operate behind closed doors in secret conclaves, like the scene of a Spectre board meeting in the recent James Bond film.

Actually, the opposite is true. Most of what the power elite does is hidden in plain sight in speeches, seminars, webcasts and technical papers. These are readily available from institutional websites and media channels.

It’s true that private meetings occur on the sidelines of Davos, the IMF annual meeting and G-20 summits of the kind just concluded. But the results of even those secret meetings are typically announced or leaked or can be reasonably inferred based on subsequent policy coordination.

What the elites rely on is not secrecy but lack of proficiency by the media.

The elites communicate in an intentionally boring style with lots of technical jargon and publish in channels non-experts have never heard of and are unlikely to find. In effect, the elites are communicating with each other in their own language and hoping that no one else notices.

Still, there are some exceptions. Mohamed A. El-Erian is a bona fide member of the global power elite (a former deputy director of the IMF and president of the Harvard Management Co.). Yet he writes in a fairly accessible style on the popular Bloomberg website. When El-Erian talks, we should all listen.

In a recent article he raises serious doubts about the sustainability of the bull market in stocks because of reduced liquidity resulting from simultaneous policy tightening by the Fed, European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of England.

He says stocks rose on a sea of liquidity and they may crash when that liquidity is removed. This is a warning to other elites, but it’s also a warning to you.

But it’s not just El-Erian who’s sounding the alarm…

You’ve heard the expression “the big money.” This is a reference to the largest and most plugged-in investors on Earth. Some are mega-rich individuals and some are large banks and institutional investors with a dense network of contacts and inside information.

At the top of the food chain when it comes to big money are the sovereign wealth funds. These are funds sponsored by mostly wealthy nations to invest a country’s reserves from trade or natural resources in stocks, bonds, private equity and hedge funds.

As a result, sovereign wealth fund managers have the best information networks of any investors. The chief investment officer of a sovereign wealth fund can pick up the phone and speak to the CEO of any major corporation, private equity fund or hedge fund in the world.

Among sovereign wealth funds, the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. (GIC) is one of the largest, with over $354 billion in assets. So what does the head of GIC say about markets today?

Lim Chow Kiat, CEO of GIC, warns that “valuations are stretched, policy uncertainty is high” and investors are being too complacent.

GIC allocates 40% of its assets to cash or highly liquid bonds and only 27% of its assets to developed economy equities.

Meanwhile, the typical American small retail investor probably has 60% or more of her 401(k) in developed economy equities, mostly U.S.

But it may be time for everyday investors to listen to the big money. They are the ones who see financial crashes coming first.

The bottom line is, a financial crisis is certainly coming. In my latest book “The Road to Ruin,” I use 2018 as a target date primarily because the two prior systemic crises, 1998 and 2008, were 10 years apart. I extended the timeline 10 years into the future from the 2008 crisis to maintain the 10-year tempo, and this is how I arrived at 2018.

Yet I make the point in the book that the exact date is unimportant. What is most important is that the crisis is coming and the time to prepare is now. It could happen in 2018, 2019, or it could happen tomorrow. The conditions for collapse are all in place.

It’s simply a matter of the right catalyst and array of factors in the critical state. Likely triggers could include a major bank failure, a failure to deliver physical gold, a war, a natural disaster, a cyber–financial attack and many other events.

The trigger itself does not really matter. The exact timing does not matter. What matters is that the crisis is inevitable and coming sooner rather than later in my view. That’s why investors need to prepare ahead of time.

The new crisis will be of unprecedented scale. This is because the system itself is of unprecedented scale and interconnectedness. Capital markets and economies are complex systems. Collapse in complex systems is an exponential function of systemic scale.

In complex dynamic systems that reach the critical state, the most catastrophic event that can occur is an exponential function of scale.

This means that if you double the system, you do not double the risk; you increase it by a factor of five or 10.

Since we have vastly increased the scale of the financial system since 2008, with larger banks, greater concentration of banking assets in fewer institutions, larger derivatives positions, and over $70 trillion of new debt, we should expect the next crisis to be much worse than the last.

For these reasons the next crisis will be of unprecedented scale and damage.

The only clean balance sheet and source of liquidity left in the world will be the International Monetary Fund, which can make an emergency issuance of Special Drawing Rights, which you can think of as world money.

Countries around the world are acquiring gold at an accelerated rate in order to diversify their reserve positions. This trend, combined with the huge reserves held by the U.S., Eurozone and the IMF amount to a shadow gold standard.

On the level of the individual investor, losers will fall into two groups when the next crisis strikes…

The first are those who hold wealth in digital form, such as stocks, bonds, money-market funds and bank accounts. This type of wealth is the easiest to freeze in a panic. You will not be able to access this wealth, except perhaps in very small amounts for gas and groceries, in the next panic. The solution is to have hard assets outside the digital system such as gold, silver, fine art, land and private equity where you rely on written contracts and not digital records.

 

The second group are those who rely on fixed-income returns such as life insurance, annuities, retirement accounts, social security and bank interest. These income streams are likely to lose value, since governments will have to resort to inflation to deal with the overwhelming mountain of debt collapsing upon them.

The solution to this is to allocate 10% of your investable assets to physical gold or silver. That will be your insurance when the time comes.

Meanwhile, demand for secure vaulting space in major financial centers like London and Frankfurt is soaring. There are plenty of bank safe deposit boxes in those cities, but investors are insisting on non-bank vaults because investors understand that the banks cannot be trusted in a panic. As a result, proprietors of non-bank vaults can’t build them fast enough.

This is one indicator that reveals three important facts. The first is that investors feel a panic may be near and the time to act is now. The second is that investors don’t trust banks. And the third is that investors are buying gold to protect themselves since that’s the main tangible that people put in their private vaults. Don’t wait until the panic hits to secure your gold and make arrangements for safe storage.

The time to act is now.

via http://ift.tt/2h0Y77V Tyler Durden

Shkreli Says He Won’t Testify As Prosecutors Wrap Up Their Case

Former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli, who is on trial for eight counts of securities and wire fraud, just did something unprecedented: He listened to the advice of his attorney. Shkreli told Judge Kiyo Matsumoto that he won’t be testifying in his own defense after the prosecution finishes making its case later this week. Shkreli’s decision to abstain from testifying means that questions about his public persona will be largely excluded from the trial, according to the New York Times and Bloomberg.

He ‘is not going to testify’ said Benjamin Brafman, one of Shkreli’s lawyers.

 

The judge then asked Mr. Shkreli, who stood up, four questions about whether he had consulted with his lawyers and understood his rights, and whether his decision was his alone.

 

‘Yes.’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Correct,’ Mr. Shkreli said.”

Shkreli’s disclosure came as federal prosecutors for the Eastern District of New York presented what’s likely their final witness, an FBI agent who helped build the case against Shkreli. According to Bloomberg, Shkreli’s decision not to testify could be a sign that his lawyers believe they have poked enough holes in the government’s case against their client.

It could also indicate that the defense is worried about Shkreli’s “long track record of inflammatory remarks,” according to James Goodnow, an attorney at Fennemore Craig, who spoke with Bloomberg.

According to the NYT, it’s “rare and risky for a defendant to take the stand in his own defense because it can allow in evidence that would otherwise be kept out. It also gives prosecutors a clear shot at the defendant in cross examination.”

Judge Matsumoto said she would tell jurors not to infer anything from Mr. Shkreli’s decision to withhold his testimony; she also said she would instruct jurors not to discuss his decision. Any potential jurors who said they knew about the defendant, or followed him on social media, were excused during voir dire, according to the NYT. Shkreli is charged with eight counts of wire and securities fraud stemming from his time running two hedge funds and a pharmaceutical company. Shkreli’s lawyer Brafman has tried to paint his client as a borderline-autistic business genius who devoted long hours to teaching himself chemistry, but was bullied by investors and members of the Retrophin board, a strategy the NYT referred to as “the born this way” defense.  

Shkreli is accused of exaggerating the performance of two of his hedge funds and operating a “Ponzi-like” scheme to mislead investors about their returns. He’s also accused of improperly taking $11 million from Retrophin to pay back his investors by hiring them as consultants at the company after some threatened to sue, according to Bloomberg.  

Shkreli’s decision not to testify is surprising considering how outspoken he has been about his innocence, even trying to persuade prosecutors to drop the charges before he was arrested. Matsumoto issued a partial gag order against Shkreli at the prosecution’s behest, banning him from discussing the case while at or near the courthouse after he hurled insults at the prosecution in front of a gaggle of court reporters. Still, Shkreli has continued to hold livestreams with his supporters every night after court proceedings have finished.

Prosecutors are expected to wrap up their case on Tuesday. Since Shkreli has decided not to testify, Brafman has said “‘there may be no defense case,’” which means the trial, which was expected to continue through the first two weeks of August, could finish up early.
 

via http://ift.tt/2vGd6ay Tyler Durden

Teachers Union President Thinks You’re a Racist if You Yank Your Kids from Their Crappy Schools

Randi WeingartenEthnically diverse Los Angeles boasts a population that’s nearly half Latino, 10 percent Asian, and 10 percent African American. The metropolitan area is also the home of the largest charter school program in the country. In May, Los Angeles voters put school choice supporters in charge of the Los Angeles Unified School District board, a show of support for parents’ right to decide where to send their kids for an education.

Demographic data across the United States show that charter schools are remarkably ethnically diverse. As of 2014, 27 percent of the charter school population was African American and 31 percent was Latino. These are parents who let the public school system know how they feel about the state of education by choosing to send their kids elsewhere.

So it may seem absurd to try to paint school choice as a racist construct. Yet here we are: In what seems like an awfully desperate attempt to rally the public school establishment, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten is attacking the school system’s own customers. In a speech before the union, she dismissed school choice as a tool for racist parents to avoid desegregation:

After the Brown decision, many school districts, especially in the South, resisted integration. In Virginia, white officials in Prince Edward County closed every public school in the district rather than have white and black children go to school together. They opened private schools where only white parents could choose to send their children. And they did it using public money.

By 1963, African American students had been locked out of Prince Edward County public schools for five years. AFT members sent funds and school supplies. And some traveled from New York and Philadelphia to set up schools for African American students in church basements and public parks, so these students could have an education.

And what about the schools Betsy DeVos appallingly called “pioneers of school choice”—historically black colleges and universities? HBCUs actually arose from the discriminatory practices that denied black students access to higher education. HBCUs are vital institutions, but that doesn’t change the truth of their origins: They were born of a shameful lack of educational choices for African American students.

So, let me see if I understand this properly: Racist government officials shut down access to schools, and as a result black children had fewer choices for eductation, she argues. Black colleges arose as a way of giving educational choices to black students they might not have had otherwise.

So the problem here is private school choice? This was clearly a result of government officials being able to control which schools students were able to attend! In Weingarten’s upside-down world, public schools need to be protected from choice, even though historically alternatives to government-run education systems actually helped minorities get access.

Well, it’s a good thing public schools have gotten rid of their segregation, right? Except they haven’t. If anything, public schools are becoming more and more segregated, according to a Government Accountability Office study last year. And with school choice options, more poor and minority students are opting to leave, rendering them even less diverse.

Let’s not mince words: School choice is a boon for poor and minority students, giving them more possibilities that wealthy whites take for granted. It also represents a threat to the interests of Weingarten and the AFT, who have a significant financial stake in protecting their monopoly. Despite the tremendous power, finances, and political influence of education unions, she presented the school choice fight as an actual “David vs. Goliath” scenario where she and the AFT are “David.”

In 2016, AFT spent $20 million in contributions to political races, $7.3 million on outside political spending, and $1.3 million on lobbying. Open Secrets ranked them 21st out of more than 18,500 political donors.

But there’s something even more telling in that Weingarten sees the AFT as the “David” vs. the “Goliath” of privatization interests: She inadvertently acknowledges that it’s a battle for control over the system itself and leaves the parents completely out of it.

It’s the parents who are the “Davids” in this half-baked metaphor. They’re the ones who are fighting a massive system designed to thwart their desires in favor of those who control it (the very people Weingarten represents).

The AFT is fighting a losing battle, and they know it. Parents, the actual customers of the education system, are desperately looking to take their money and business elsewhere. They’re even suing school districts to try to turn their public schools into charters. School choice advocates can very easily trot out any number of students who have benefited from leaving the public school system—and they’re not all rich, white kids.

Black students in charter schools have been shown to outperform their public school counterparts. Voucher schools took a hit recently due to reports that students underperform, but a longer view suggests that, over time, these students recover and even score better than public school counterparts in some areas.

Establishment representatives like Weingarten simply cannot acknowledge that they’re the villains of this story, and that they’ve chosen to cling to control of a system that benefits government employees over the needs of the parents and students. Don’t try to convince the public that you care about the fate of poor and minority public school students when teachers’ union contracts keep schools in those very communities from getting rid of bad educators.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2vXHmx9
via IFTTT

Politics of the Next 4 Years – Part 2 (Last Chance for the Democrats)

In yesterday’s post, Politics of the Next 4 Years – Part 1 (Rise of the ‘Dirtbag Left’), I discussed the fact that a very potent grassroots movement has emerged to the left of corporate, neoliberal Democrats. This self-described “Dirtbag Left” and its allies have the potential to not just drive the Democratic Party into extinction, but also ultimately challenge Trump on the national stage. Although I’m not a Democrat or a leftist (I’m not a Republican or conservative either), I welcome this development for a number of reasons.

First, if economic populism becomes aggressively embraced by those who lean left, it will force Trump to become genuinely populist on at least some issues in order to compete in 2020, as opposed to the fake populism he enthusiastically embraced since the election. Second, it will present corporate Democrats with a choice, either “bend the knee” as the folks at Chapo suggested, or die. Nobody believes in neoliberal ideology other than donors and their corporate media spokespeople. The entire thing is a discredited failure and isn’t coming back. As such, today’ post will explain why this is the last chance for the Democratic Party.

The political world was abuzz yesterday with chatter related to Charles “Chucky” Schumer’s op-ed in The New York Times in which he suddenly proclaims himself an economic populist, and incredulously claims the Democratic Party has somehow changed. It consisted of many comforting phrases, but I wouldn’t believe a single line of it until I see actual action on the ground. It’s easy to talk a big game when you have zero power. Talk is cheap, as we all should have learned from both Barrack Obama and Donald Trump.

Before I get into some specifics about what I think all of this means, let’s take a look at some excerpts.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2tzRQ51
via IFTTT

Ahead Of The Fed: Strongest Demand For 2Y Paper Since 2015; Lowest Dealer Award On Record

With the FOMC members currently huddling deep inside the bowels of the Marriner Eccles building, perhaps scheming how to spook markets by announcing a surprise rate hike tomorrow, one would have assumed demand for 2 Year paper in today’s auction would be less than stellar. One would be wrong, because moments ago the Treasury sold $26bn in 2 year paper to what was clearly an overabundance of demand: the high yield of 1.395% stopped through the When Issued 1.401% by 0.6 bps, and was the highest yield going back to October 2008.

The bid-to-cover rose to 3.06 from 3.03 in June, and was above the six previous auction average of 2.84. It was also the highest Bid to Cover since November 2015.

The internals were also rather impressive, with Indirects taking down 58.5%, above the 56.6% in June, and above the 6MMA of 54.1%. Directs were awarded 16.9%, down slightly from 18.4% last month and above the 6 month average of 13.7%. Combined these two meant record buyside interest, leaving Dealers with just 24.6% of the auction, down from 25.0% and below the 32.1% 6month average. This was the lowest Dealer award on record.

In other words, if anyone was worried about a surprise announcement by the Fed tomorrow, one which would send 2Y yields spiking, it wasn’t to be found among the bidders for today’s auction.

via http://ift.tt/2v5vr47 Tyler Durden

Dear Regulators: Do you Really Want to Stop Manipulation? Subpoena the Programmers

Why Do Silver and Gold Get Spoofed Lower? Because That’s Where the Stops Are.

via Soren K. Group for Marketslant.com

If you really want to root out manipulation, you must find intent. Intent is encoded in the algorithms themselves. The algos embody the conditions, tactics, and goals of the trader who designed them. They are his intent downloaded into a program. Do you really want to stop manipulation by predatory Algos? Then subpoena the programmers.

VBL EDIT- The  interview below with Daniela Cambone is merely one person’s opinion. But in a world where facts are the final arbiter of truth yet those facts are impossible to obtain, one must survive on his wits. That means using inductive means to asses a trading situation. We traders can only see the market’s behavior, not the intent behind it. Thus we trader types must decide to oppose, surf, or get out of the way of the market behavior we see. Professionals generally accept that and adapt. But the public is punished and taxed daily because of it.

When someone asks me WHY the market does what it does, that puts me in the position of guessing at intent of “Them”. Markets are manipulated constantly. That does not mean that the Bullion dealers were “repressing Gold” or on a bearish mission. It just means that they, and the algorithms that succeeded them were finding the lower lying fruit in stops below the market, as opposed to above. Manipulation is agnostic directionally. And in a market like Silver where the shorts are better capitalized than the longs, then the stops closest are on the downside. The problem is as it always has been, poor market structure is exploited by those with the means to do so.

If you really want to root out manipulation, you must find intent. In the past INTENT was almost impossible to prove as it resided in the head of the trader spoofing the market. But now intent is very easy to prove.

Intent is encoded in the algorithms themselves. The algos embody the conditions, tactics, and goals of the trader who designed them. They are his intent downloaded into a program. Do you really want to stop manipulation by predatory Algos? Then subpoena the programmers. That is how they got Mike Coscia. Why would they not go after the bigger violators using this clear approach? You know why..

Subpoena the programmers and you lawyer types will get the 3rd leg of that “legal stool” you need to convict. But you have to want to first. Do you want to? I do not think so. And so the pricing mechanisms of our markets will shrink in importance. But that is just my opinion.

My first post on manipulation covering Warren Buffet’s 1997 Silver Squeeze was anonymous posted on zerohedge for fear of retribution by “them”.  How messed  up is that? Maybe justice will be done someday

Here are some choice quotes from the interview:

  • the silver and gold market have the majority of their stops lower, not higher – and that’s why the market goes lower.
  •  it’s an algorithm, it’s not bullish or bearish  it’s just looking for the stops
  • I’m going to come down firmly on the side that it is manipulation and it is unethical and it should stop   
  • here’s the problem… the algorithms are now faster than the exchange’s ability to freshen up where its bids are
  • it aint just Gold and Silver. The thinner the market, the bigger the spoof


When markets quickly move lower or experience a flash crash, the media is quick to point to a ‘fat finger.’ But, to veteran trader Vince Lanci, the problem is rooted in the technology running markets. ‘Manipulation does happen but what’s happening now is not a fat finger; that’s just a good headline,’ he told Kitco News. ‘It’s a combination of algorithm trading, institutional money and stop losses.’ To Lanci, algorithms are the real issue. ‘It’s an algorithm. It’s not bullish or bearish, it’s just looking for the stops,’ he said. ‘The silver and gold markets have the majority of their stops lower, not higher – and that’s why the market goes lower.’ Lanci, who tracks big market moves often as a contributor on Marketslant.com, said this type of price action can happen in any market. ‘I’m going to come down firmly on the side that it is manipulation, it is unethical and it should stop,’ he said. ‘But here’s the problem — the algorithms are now faster than an exchange’s ability to freshen up where its bids are.’

 About Vince:

Vince Lanci has 27 years’ experience trading Commodity Derivatives. Retired from active trading in 2008, Vince now manages personal investments through his Echobay entity. He advises natural resource firms on market risk. Over the years, his expertise and testimony have been requested in energy, precious metals, and derivative fraud cases. Lanci is known for his passion in identifying unfairness in market structure and uneven playing fields. He is a frequent contributor to Zerohedge and Marketslant on such topics. Vince contributes to Bloomberg and Reuters finance articles as well. He continues to lead the Soren K. Group of writers on Marketslant.

vlanci@echobay.com

Mobile: (212) 223-1000

Read more by Soren K.Group

via http://ift.tt/2vXzLP9 Vince Lanci

Boehner Bashes GOP – Will Never Repeal & Replace Obamacare, “It’s Been Around Too Long”

Every entitlement typically creates a constituency that benefits from it and is forever dedicated to its defense… and the longer it exists, the more entrenched (and larger) those defenders become. Simply put, entitlements never get repealed.

That's the message for former House speaker John Boehner, who as The Washington Post reports, told a business gathering last week that Republicans are “not going to repeal and replace Obamacare” because “the American people have gotten accustomed to it.”

According to video footage obtained by The Washington Post

Boehner told a private crowd in Las Vegas…

“Here we are, seven months into this year, and yet they’ve not passed this bill. Now, they’re never — they’re not going to repeal and replace Obamacare,”

 

“It’s been around too long. And the American people have gotten accustomed to it. Governors have gotten accustomed to this Medicaid expansion, and so trying to pull it back is really not going to work.”

Boehner said the Republicans’ best hope in the coming months is to peel away aspects of the law, such as some tax provisions and regulations, and to end health insurance mandates.

“When it’s all said and done, you’re not going to have an employer mandate anymore, you’re not going to have the individual mandate,” Boehner said.

 

“The Medicaid expansion will be there. The governors will have more control over their Medicaid populations and how to get them care, and a lot of Obamacare taxes will probably go.”

Boehner also had some personal suggestions for the president who he descrives as "a friend of mine," saying that "I never really saw him as president. You all know what I mean," urging President Trump to "quit tweeting," adding…

“You never get into a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. He does it every day.”

 

"Never get into a p—ing match with a skunk. He does it every day.”

via http://ift.tt/2uxAPd5 Tyler Durden

Idiots At Snopes Sign Horrible Contract For Ad Revs, Now Begging For Money With Gofundme

A key member of Facebook’s ministry of truth, Snopes, has hit a major snag which has forced them to go beg for money. Apparently too cheap or stupid to run a contract for their primary source of income past an attorney, the ‘arbiters of truth’ appear to be in major financial trouble after claiming a San Diego outside vendor is holding ad revenues hostage. In response, Snopes set up a gofundme page which has raised over $500,000.

We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain services for Snopes.com. That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage.

 

Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income. –savesnopes.com

That ‘outside vendor’ is none other than San Diego based Proper Media, which bought out Snopes co-founder Barbara Mikkelson’s share in the company for $3.6 million following a nasty divorce in which her husband David Mikkelson (who operates Snopes.com) reportedly embezzled $98,000 while he flew around the world banging prostitutes behind Barbara’s ailing diabetic back.

Per the San Diego Union Tribune:

Established in 2003, Bardav, Inc. was the joint venture of Snopes creator David Mikkelson and his then-wife Barbara Mikkelson, who each owned one share and 50 percent of the company. The couple divorced in 2015. In July of 2016, Barbara sold her stake to Proper Media’s five equity holders for $3.6 million.

 

Prior to the sale, Bardav had contracted Proper Media for web development and advertising services on Snopes.com, with the companies agreeing to split revenue earned from advertisements.

 

In May, Proper Media filed suit against Bardav and Mikkelson with the San Diego Superior Court of California over ownership of the site, alleging that Mikkelson attempted to gain control over the business and block Proper Media from its share of profits. Snopes counter sued, arguing that Proper Media has not paid Snopes its share of advertising revenue since March. Motions by both the plaintiffs and defendants are scheduled to be heard on Aug. 4.

Who could have imagined that the biased ‘fact-checking’ website run by militantly liberal rabid anti-Trumpers and co-founded by a cheating, whore mongering, cat-abandoning, embezzling degenerate would sign a sloppy contract?

The arrangement with Proper Media follows divorce document revelations that David Mikkelson used a secret PayPal account to allegedly funnel advertising revenue from Snopes into his personal accounts so that he could travel around the world banging whores behind his wife’s back – according to documents obtained by Wesearcher / Gotnews.

And as iBankCoin reported in December, while engaging in debauchery behind his wife’s back using embezzled funds, Mikkelson wrote off just about everything as a business expense. The Snopes co-founder has since settled down and married a [NSFW] part time porn actress, Snopes.com administrator (spicy!), and sex worker. As in, she has a website devoted to being a whore.  Apparently she’s a pretty good one despite being “past her time as an adult model.”

No judgement.

In the same divorce papers, David Mikkelson fired back, claiming his ex-wife Barbara took millions from their joint account and bought property in Las Vegas.

No word on whatever happened to the cat…


via http://ift.tt/2eL0meZ ZeroPointNow