iftttwall

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

The United States (and the world) has been using the worthless fiat federal reserve note that is not backed by any true tangible asset.  The only backing is not even the “full faith and credit of the United States government,” because the government is too far in debt to have any credit.  Faith disappeared a long time ago: our faith in elected officials as public servants.  Instead, they serve themselves upon the labors of the public, and the public services them, in every sense of the word.

Cryptocurrency is an illusion.  The new “shell game” is to replace one illusion…the fiat currency…with another illusion, the “bitcoin.” 

Russia announced last week several measures to “deal” with the Cryptocurrency…first, by issuing a Crypto-ruble.  If you read the fine print, the Russian government is moving in to tax and regulate it, at a rate of 13% on trades for profit, as well as “Crypto-Rubles” that suddenly appear out of nowhere.

It won’t affect the Black Market as much, because 13% is going to be paid to turn a blind eye to the billions of rubles being stolen by the Russian Mafia and oligarchy alike.  The gimmick here is for the government to take a chunk out of it: for now.  The reason “now” is being used, is that eventually they’ll shift gears, pass legislation, and eventually outlaw private trading in it that is not government-sanctioned or government-approved.

A government is only concerned with perpetuating itself and maintaining power.  The most basic way it does this is by controlling the currency of the nation, regulating it, and taxing the citizens.  In the United States, it has been reported by several sources that JP Morgan Chase is going to embrace Cryptocurrency.  Europe is well on its way to establishing a “Euro-BitCoin,” and China has recently relaxed some measures regarding it.

This is the calm before the storm: the governments are studying it, and studying the masses to find the means to take control of it.

The gullible masses are playing right into their hands.  The problem with Cryptocurrency is not just in the fact that it is backed by nothing (a fool’s errand before it has been started), but there is no privacy.  None.  If the governments control and monitor all electronic and computer media, then there is no such thing as privacy regarding electronic currency.  This will be the death of cash, and thus the death of any privacy for citizens.

There will be no hiding from the taxing authorities.  All the accounts will be monitored: taxed on any growth, and every single penny accounted for.  The government will know what work you do, for how much, and how much “Crypto-currency” you have in your accounts.  All electronic, nebulous, unbacked garbage.  How about a nice “glitch” where suddenly, your entire account falls to a zero balance?  That “glitch” can happen anytime.

No, the politicians and the oligarchs will have gold, silver, real estate, mining rights and contracts, and ownership of every utility and municipal function upon which the public is dependent.  Eventually the Crypto-Dollars will be handed out sparingly to “exchange for food, clothing, and to pay their bills,” and the whole thing is designed for one thing:

To keep the population at a starveling, subsistence level while those in power own everything, and them as well: Ruled by the politicians and oligarchs, fooled by the press and the religious pulpits, and killed by the enforcement arms of police and military.

In 1910, the meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia took place leading up to 1913.  It was then that the framework for the transfer of the power of the U.S. government over the nation’s currency to the federal reserve was established.

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s letter to Colonel Edward Mandell House,

Fmr. Advisor to President Woodrow Wilson    November 21, 1933

The aim is global governance.  The Cryptocurrencies arose out of a desire to use something other than the dollar and other failing fiat notes not backed by anything.  The irony is that the Cryptocurrencies are the vehicle for the globalists.

Once each nation has its Cryptocurrencies in place, they can “align” them, and virtually abolish all economic buffers and barriers…which will come crashing down just as the illegal aliens in Europe and the United States are destroying the borders, language, culture, and societies.  The whole thing is trumpeted as a recourse, but it is nothing more than an extension of an Alinsky principle “organizing the organized.”  At the right moment, the governments will swoop in, regulate, and tax these Cryptocurrencies.

Once cash is eliminated, hard assets such as gold, silver, and other resources will be simple to control.  Where did you obtain that gold?  How did you obtain it, and is it in our records?

The power lies in the receipt, the payment receipt showing where you obtained that product and how you obtained it…all based on POS (point of sale), the electronic monitoring of every expenditure at the register.  The “successful” employment of Cryptocurrency will mean that the people have been completely duped and have handed all privacy into the control of the government.  Once they control everyone economically, they will use that control to seize other aspects of daily life that are not regulated.  They’ll know how much you make, where you work, and how much you have available.

Or what you think you have available, because in the blink of an eye, they’ll make your Crypto dollars disappear, and you’ll have no recourse, just as they have no accountability.  If politicians steal money now, while cash still exists, think of how much they’ll be able to steal when everything is done electronically…when all the bankers and oligarchs are under their control/in a symbiotic-parasitic relationship and they can pass any law they wish.  Cryptocurrency is a scam that will eventually lead to the final enslavement of the U.S.

via http://ift.tt/2zrb5QT Tyler Durden

Democratic megadonor and ‘enlightened plutocrat’ Tom Steyer can no longer sit idly by and watch as President Donald Trump sullies the dignity of the Oval Office by lashing at anybody who criticizes him and issuing Twitter rants directed at enemies both real and perceived.

So he's decided to do something about it by releasing a laughably sanctimonious new video framed as a call to arms for Republican members of Congress to “do what’s right” and “demand that members of Congress take a stand on impeachment" of President Trump.

In the hilarious video, Steyer accuses Trump of being “mentally unstable” while simultaneously alleging that he’s brought the US to the brink of nuclear war to indulge his own ego. Steyer’s litany of distorted accusations – from accepting bribes from foreign governments to deliberately obstructing justice – combined with saccharinely somber background music makes for an obliviously un-self aware attempt at emphasizing the 'gravity' of the situation.

“A Republican Congress once impeached a president for far less, yet today people in this Congress know that the president is a clear and present danger armed with nuclear weapons…and they do nothing."

And in what’s perhaps the coup de grace, Steyer bills himself as an “American Citizen” (of course, we can think of a few more precise labels that might be more appropriate).

Steyer is the founder of investment firm Farallon Capital and the NextGen America environmental political action committee, which opposes the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

While Steyer’s push will likely fall on deaf ears given the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, impeachment is hardly the biggest threat to Trump’s presidency. As Steve Bannon once reportedly informed a surprised Trump, a clause of the twenty fifth amendment that allows the president’s cabinet to vote to strip the president of his office is much more concerning – particularly given the Republican establishment’s embrace of vice president Mike Pence.

Predictit shows the odds of a Trump impeachment have been relatively stable in recent months at around 30% – though low trading volume raises questions about the validity of this number.

In either case, Steyer has joined a handful of wealthy Americans who are actively campaigning against president Trump. As Russia Today points out, ‘porn king’ Larry Flynt earlier this month offered $10 million for any information that would help to remove Trump, whom he referred to as “a moron” from the White House.

Steyer and Flynt’s denunciations of the Trump administration are indicative of a glaring inconsistency in the so-called resistance’s criticisms of Trump: The president is both a calculating and dangerous leader, and a doddering incompetent moron.

So which is it?

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

Last weekend, as Deutsche Bank’s derivatives strategist Aleksandar Kocic was looking at the spread between the short and long end of the curve, and while contemplating the lack of market volatility, he concluded that “given where long rates are, Fed appears as overly hawkish – it has only two more hikes to go and, for volatility and risk premia to reprice higher, the gap has to widen. As is appears unlikely that the Fed will be cutting rates any time soon, the gap could widen only if the Long rates sell off.” In practical terms – if only for bond traders – this meant that “for anything to happen, 5Y5Y sector has to move higher”, however the $6.4 trillion question is whether this sell off in long rates will be violent or controlled. As Kocic concluded, “This is the catalyst for everything.”

In other words, those lamenting the pervasive complacency and the ubiquitous lack of volatility in the market, may not have much more to wait: after just two more rate hikes, absent a parallel move wider across the rest of the curve, the Fed’s “breathing space” will collapse, and Yellen, or rather her successor, will lost control of both vol markets and long-dated yields, as the Fed effectively hikes into a self-made recession, where it itself inverts the yield curve. That would be a problem.

Incidentally, among Wall Street’s rates and derivatives strateigsts, the mixed – and polar opposite – signals being sent by the rates market has been all the rage in recent weeks, and everyone is eager to explain what happens next. For those who are unfamiliar, the conflicting dynamic sent by the bond curve is that “while the short end is optimistic, the long end has never been more pessimistic”, in the words of BofA’s rates strategist Shyam Rajan. And yet, in a paradoxical feedback loop, rarely has the near term meant more to the long term than today.

Here is how Rajan summarizes the “two-faced rates market”, in which the 2s10s is so flat it is a clear warning that all else equal, a recession is approaching:

The rates market is sending diametrically opposite messages over the last few weeks. The front of the curve is increasingly confident about a Fed that will hike not only in December but at-least two more times next year. But, the flattening in the intermediate to long end of the curve is sending a clear end of business cycle message.

To say the least this is painfully confusing, because while the two can be squared off with a “hawkish policy mistake” message, “such an interpretation would not be consistent with the stock market reaching new highs or the dollar largely moving sideways this month” according to Rajan.

It’s not just equities whose all time highs make no sense in light of this paradox: There is another notable problem with these divergent views about the future sent by the yield curve: 

The problem with this disconnect in our view, is that rarely has the longer term outlook been more dependent on the short term – in fact, the next three months will provide us clarity on 1) The ability of Congress to muster the votes on the budget resolution and the possible tax reform bill 2) The outcome of the looming government shutdown on Dec 8 – and the possible leverage used by both the President and the Democrats over this key event risk 3) The geopolitical tension between US and North Korea aka the outcome of the key game of chicken outlined in this Cause and Effect.

The silver lining is that all of the above triggers – which are all critical regimes changers – will be unveiled soon enough:

Unlike economic data which has only a near term impact, the above three all have the potential to be regime switchers – tax reform moves us from a low r* to possibly higher r* world, geopolitics from low vol to high vol, and government shutdown from partisan politics to bipartisanship. Ultimately, we find it hard to believe that a Fed that is closer to its “perceived” neutral rate would hike several times before having some evidence that the neutral rate itself or inflation is going higher.

 

… Unless of course, the Fed is no longer concerned about the economic consequences from its actions, but merely eager to burst the stock market bubble, in which case should Yellen (or Powell, or Warsh, or Taylor) keep hiking until it inverts the curve, volatility is set to explode.

Which, incidentally, brings us to the latest note from DB’s derivatives expert, Aleks Kocic, who picks up on his note from last week, which as we pointed out last week highlighted that the Fed has 2 (at most 3) more rate hikes before it loses control. In logical continuation, Kocic asks “How much more can the curve flatten?” Here is his answer:

Although economic and political reality has not been lacking in excitement, the underlying uncertainties do not seem to convert into market volatility. Depressed long rates remain hostage to the long-term secular trends like demographics, global demand and potential growth, which is constricting the maneuvering space and gradually extinguishing risk premia across all market sectors. In rates, the playground defined by the gap between the long rate and near-term Fed expectations has shrunk to about 60bp. This means that there is room to price only two more hikes beyond what is already in the curve. The tightness of this gap is a function of the risk distribution which is forcing a gradual, but persistent, Fed.

 

In our view, the only way volatility and risk premia can return to the markets is if long rates sell off and free some room for the rest of the curve to start moving. The figure shows the history of the long rate and short term Fed expectations (Target or the Shadow rate) as extracted by our affine model. The long rate defines the upper bound for rate hikes.”

Kocic concludes that exceeding this boundary “leads to unsustainable inversions of the curve. By hiking beyond long rates, Fed would stifle growth and reduce inflation expectations which would encourage the savings rate and withdraw consumption and investment.” In short, the Fed could – and maybe would – cause a recession: 

Overly flat or inverted curve inhibits credit disintermediation and generally inspires forces that go against it. Investors are incentivized to borrow (and therefore pay) long term and deposit short term and receive higher rate,which tends to steepen the curve. In addition, in flat curve environment, lenders are reluctant to engage which would widen the spreads. In response, either the Fed cuts rates as a stimulus, or the curve itself bear steepens

Which, in turn, goes back to what we wrote over a month ago when we described what the real “$2.5 Trillion Question” is:

Is the Fed now actively seeking to launch the next recession (under president Donald Trump no less)? Perversely, it would make a lot of sense: with the business cycle now broken as a result of so much undue implicit reliance on asset prices, all of which are in a bubble – something which the Fed also understands – it would be beautifully symmetric that the same agent, the US Federal Reserve, that broke the business cycle and unleashed one of the longest, if artificial and on the back of trillions in central bank liquidity, economic expansion is now eager (and hoping) to be the catalyst for the next recession.

 

Or said simply, is the Fed now eager to accelerate the next economic recession in order to undo its own damage to a business cycle which has forgotten there should also be a contraction?

One month later, this remains the real $2.5 trillion question. No wonder everyone, not just bond traders, is so confused…

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

With Spain officially pulling the trigger on Article 155, and activating the Spanish Constitutional “nuclear option” this morning, when PM Rajoy said he would seize control of the Catalan government, fire everyone and force new elections in six months, attention has shifted to the Catalan response. And as we waited for the official statement by Catalan separatist president Carles Puigdemont, expected at 9pm local time, we found him taking to the streets, where he led hundreds of thousands of independence supporters in protest around Barcelona on Saturday, shouting “freedom” and “independence” following the stunning news from Madrid earlier on Saturday.

The protest in the center of the Catalan capital had initially been called to push for the release of the leaders of two hugely influential grassroots independence organisations, accused of sedition and jailed pending further investigation. But it took on an even angrier tone after Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced his government would move to dismiss the region’s separatist government, take control of its ministries and call fresh elections in Catalonia.

According to municipal police, over 450,000 people rallied on Barcelona’s expansive Paseo de Gracia boulevard, spilling over on to nearby streets, many holding Catalonia’s yellow, red and blue Estelada separatist flag.

Catalan regional vice-president Oriol Junqueras and Catalan regional president
Carles Puigdemont attend a demonstration on October 21, 2017 in Barcelona

Protesters greeted Puigdemont’s arrival at the rally with shouts of
“President, President.” The rest of his executive was also there.

For at least some locals, the time to split from Spain has come: “It’s time to declare independence,” said Jordi Balta, a 28-year-old stationery shop employee quoted by AFP, adding there was no longer any room for dialogue.

Others disgree: “The Catalans are completely disconnected from Spanish institutions, and particularly anything to do with the Spanish state,” said Ramon Millol, a 45-year-old mechanic.

Meritxell Agut, a 22-year-old bank worker, said she was “completely outraged and really sad.” “They can destroy the government, they can destroy everything they want but we’ll keep on fighting.”

Catalonia is roughly split down the middle on independence, but residents cherish the autonomy of the wealthy, northeastern region, which saw its powers taken away under the dictatorship of General Francisco Franco. Which is why, as many have warned, Madrid’s move could anger even those against independence.

Barcelona’s Mayor Ada Colau, who opposes the independence drive, tweeted: “Rajoy has suspended the self-government of Catalonia for which so many people fought. A serious attack on the rights and freedoms of everyone.”

Meanwhile, the anger keeps rising: as a police helicopter hovered above, protesters booed and gave it the finger. “I wish they would just go,” said Balta, looking up at the sky.

The Spanish government’s proposed measures still have to be approved by the Senate. But the upper house is majority-controlled by Rajoy’s ruling Popular Party and he has secured the support of other major parties, meaning they will almost certainly go through.

Puigdemont is expected to make a statement at 9 p.m. For Catalonia, and Spain, it will – literally – mean the difference between independence and remaining part of Spain. It could also mean the difference between peace and a violent crackdown by Madrid on what it has seen since day one as an illegal independence process. For the Catalan leader, the stakes are huge:  El Pais reported Puigdemont faces a charge of sedition, punishable by up to 30 years in prison, if he formally declares independence or tries to change the Spanish constitution.

via http://ift.tt/2gAy0Wh Tyler Durden

'Speculators' have never been so confidently complacent that 'all is well'.

Speculative positioning in VIX futures and options remains at its most short in history as traders refuse to back away from 'what works' as realized volatility collapses to its lowest in over 60 years…

And as Dana Lyons notes, assets in mutual funds designed to rise when stocks fall have dropped to an all-time low.

In the Northern hemisphere here, bears typically begin their hibernation stage in November-December. However, that process has begun early this year for some bears on Wall Street. Specifically, traders of the Guggenheim (formerly Rydex) group of inverse mutual funds are showing very little sign of life at the moment. We say that due to the fact that assets in such funds have shrunk to their lowest level in history.

We’ve covered this data on multiple occasions in the past, as we have found it to be a helpful read on investor sentiment. Unfortunately (perhaps) for bulls right now, this data, like most sentiment related indicators, has worked best in a contrarian manner. From a TLS post last March, this section is still applicable:

Inverse funds, or bear funds, are of course designed to rise when stocks fall. Rydex originally introduced these funds for active traders to utilize in playing the downside in the stock market, or hedging. Like most sentiment measures, assets in these bear funds typically hit contrary extremes at turning points in the market, i.e., assets soar near market bottoms and plunge at tops. (Note: for purposes of this study, we are using the combined assets of the most popular 1X and 2X inverse S&P 500, Nasdaq 100 and Russell 2000 funds).

Now, as anyone familiar with the topic knows, mutual fund assets, in general, have been in a structural decline for about 10 years coinciding with the proliferation of ETF’s. Even so, the level in bull and bear assets have continued to cycle within shorter time frames with the ebbs and flows of the market.

For example, during the 2015-2016 stock market decline, bearish assets jumped from an all-time low around $126 million near the May 2015 top to nearly $500 near the February 2016 market low. Therefore, while mutual fund assets are in a structural decline, in general, their current all-time low level around $111 million should still be considered an extreme relative to the recent period.

That said, we will say the new low does not automatically suggest the top must be at hand. For one, given the fact that the market is at or near all-time highs, we shouldn’t be surprised that bear assets are at an all-time low. In fact, we should rather expect it. That is how sentiment-based flows work. Furthermore, there is no law saying bearish fund assets can’t go even lower, i.e., the extreme can get more extreme. In that last cycle, bearish assets dropped to a new low in early December 2014 but did not bottom out (along with the stock market top) for another 5 months.

Perhaps the best takeaway of this data point is as a measurement of potential risk. That is how we often like to think of sentiment indicators. In other words, if the stock market were to experience a selloff, how much potential downside might there be? Of course, there are countless factors that go into such a consideration; however, the potential risk based just on this bearish fund asset indicator is substantial. If, for example, assets were to simply mean revert close to that $500, or even $400, million mark, odds are very good that the move would be associated with a significant pullback in stocks. Considering how low assets are now, it would likely take either a serious and/or extended decline to spur the accumulation of so many bearish fund assets.

In summary, we are not calling for the end of the rally based on this indicator of bearish fund assets. Sentiment is not a timing tool and the indicator can get even more extreme in its scarcity. However, we would consider it a sign of significant potential risk should the market turn lower given the traders’ lack of hedging and ability to withstand much downside currently.

*  *  *

This is a free look at the “all-access” versions of our charts and research that we post daily (among much more) on our new site, The Lyons Share. TLS is currently running a 30th anniversary 1987 Crash Commemoration SALE, offering a discount of 22.6%, or the equivalent of the Dow’s 1-day drop 30 years ago. The SALE ends October 22 so considering the discounted cost and a potentially frothy market climate, there has never been a better time to reap the benefits of our risk-managed approach. Thanks for reading!

via http://ift.tt/2gspYe7 Tyler Durden

Freed of any need to be marginally politically-correct, former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon took his fight to the Republican establishment during a speech to a capacity crowd at an almost oxymoronic California Republican Party convention.

The ubiquitous protesters were there…

But were kept behind steel barricades on a plaza across an entrance road at the hotel and no arrests were made, as Bannon blasted former President George W. Bush for 'embarrassing himself' for his comments suggesting a Trump America led to 'nativism' and 'casual cruelty.'

Bannon said Bush has no idea whether “he is coming or going, just like it was when he was president.”

“There has not been a more destructive presidency than George Bush’s,” Bannon added, as boos could be heard in the crowd at the mention of Bush’s name.

As AP reports, the remarks came during a speech thick with attacks on the Washington status quo, echoing his call for an “open revolt” against establishment Republicans.

He called the “permanent political class” one of the great dangers faced by the country.

Bannon said that while John Mccain 'deserves our respect, as a politician, he's just another Senator from Arizona.'

Bannon also took aim at the Silicon Valley and its 'lords of technology,' predicting that tech leaders and progressives in the state would try to secede from the union in 10 to 15 years. He called the threat to break up the nation a 'living problem.'

Bannon also argued that the coalition that sent Trump to the White House, including conservatives, Libertarians, populists, economic nationalists, evangelicals, could hold power for decades if they stay unified.

“If you have the wisdom, the strength, the tenacity, to hold that coalition together, we will govern for 50 to 75 years,” he said.

He also tried to cheer long-suffering California Republicans, in a state that Trump lost by over 4 million votes and where Republicans have become largely irrelevant in state politics.

In Orange County, where the convention was held, several Republican House members are trying to hold onto their seats in districts carried by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential contest.

'You've got everything you need to win,' he told them.

He ended his speech with a standing ovation.

Bannon is promoting a field of primary challengers to take on incumbent Republicans in Congress. But in California, the GOP has been fading for years. Republicans are now a minor party in many California congressional districts, outnumbered by Democrats and independents. Statewide, Democrats count 3.7 million more voters than the GOP.

Not all Republicans were glad to see Bannon though. In a series of tweets last week, former state Assembly Republican leader Chad Mayes said he was shocked by the decision to have the conservative firebrand headline the event.

“It’s a huge step backward and demonstrates that the party remains tone deaf,” Mayes tweeted.

As AP concluded, California Republicans have bickered for years over what direction to turn – toward the political center or to the right.

'Steve Bannon is a natural fit for a party that is hungry for a revolution, and the party in California is definitely hungry for a revolution,' former Orange County Republican leader Scott Baugh said.

via http://ift.tt/2guE2nE Tyler Durden

Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

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

While former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli languishes inside a federal jail in Brooklyn, the trial of his former attorney – and alleged co-conspirator – Evan Greebel is just beginning, with the defense and prosecution giving opening statements Friday.

The timing is unfortunate. Shrekli’s trial – which ended in him being convicted of three out of eight counts of fraud – briefly revived the public rancor over his many misdeeds. Given Shkreli’s toxic public image, it comes as no surprise that Greebel’s lawyers are already seeking to distance their client – who was arrested on the same day as Shkreli and whose picture was splashed across cable news networks alongside Shkreli’s – from the disgraced pharma executive, who was jailed last month after a judge revoked his bail following a series of controversial and vaguely threatening Facebook posts, Bloomberg reported.

As many will remember, Shkreli’s comfortable life as a successful young pharmaceutical CEO began to unravel in September 2015 when the New York Times reported that Turing had hiked the price of a life-saving toxoplasmosis drug by 5,000%, thrusting Shkreli into an uncomfortable public spotlight and drawing a public rebuke from Hillary Clinton, then presumed to be the next president of the United States.

Following his indictment, Shkreli seemingly set out to destroy any lingering public sympathy by antagonizing the federal government and harassing female journalists – actions that ultimately led to his jailing. Prosecutors have accused Greebel of helping Shkreli steal $11 million from Retrophin, a pharmaceutical company Shkreli founded and ran before being forced out in 2014. Greebel was terminated as Retrophin’s counsel soon after.

Shkreli allegedly used the money, along with Retrophin stock, to repay investors in two failed hedge funds by signing them on to sham consulting agreements with salaries and stock grants. Greebel is also accused of helping Shkreli manipulate the price of Retrophin stock.

Fortunately for Greebel’s defense team, their client has a somewhat more resepectable public image than his associate. He has a family and was once a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Kaye Scholer LLP. They’re essentially trying to sell a narrative of him being a quiet family man who got in over his head.

In opening statements on Friday, Greebel’s lawyer told jurors that the 44-year-old father of three and Shkreli, a former biotech executive notorious for aggressive drug-pricing tactics, were as "different as two people can be." Greebel was by no means Shkreli’s "right-hand man," defense lawyer Reed Brodsky told jurors at the trial in Brooklyn, New York.

 

Greebel “lived a quiet life,” Brodsky said, while Shkreli was "cultivating this public personality and persona, blogging and tweeting.”

 

It’s no mystery why Greebel, a former corporate lawyer, would want to separate himself from Shkreli, who is in jail after his conviction for lying to hedge fund investors (although jurors weren’t told about that). Greebel wants to show that Shkreli lied to him as well, and that Greebel had no reason to believe he was being asked to do anything wrong.

 

"Mr. Shkreli is kind of a contradiction," Brodsky said, arguing that Shkreli managed to con people with his "image" of success, brilliant ideas and "photographic memory."

Meanwhile, prosecutors allege he knowingly helped Shkreli loot his company and manipulate its share price for profit.

In the government’s opening statement, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Kessler said Greebel started working for Shkreli’s companies around 2011 and used his legal talents to aid Shkreli’s fraud. Kessler said Greebel wanted to please Shkreli to make millions of dollars in fees for his firm.

 

"Agreeing to help the CEO of a company steal from the company is a crime," Kessler said. "Agreeing to help illegally control the stock market is a crime."

As Bloomberg noted, Greebel’s demeanor in court couldn’t have differed more from Shkreli’s. He sat quietly by his defense team, smiling briefly but otherwise remaining expressionless.

Meanwhile, Shkreli’s was on the receiving end of more bad news this week when a Brooklyn judge refused to return his $5 million bond, saying the money might be needed to offset any monetary penalties that may be levied against Shkreli, the New York Post reported.

Shkreli’s lawyer Ben Brafman asked her to release the money so his client — No. 14 on New York state’s list of top delinquent taxpayers — can start paying taxes.
 

via http://ift.tt/2hUG9RG Tyler Durden