Experts Quietly Admit to Senate Torture Report’s Accuracy, But Does Anybody Care Anymore?

Or will it "make America great again"? Hmm?We all still remember that Senate torture report, right? Before consigning it to the dustbins of history do recall that Donald Trump just promised he would bring back waterboarding and do even “worse” to suspected terrorists if he were elected president.

At the time the report was released, after years of fighting between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA and President Barack Obama’s administration, the official pushback from the CIA was an admission that torture (“enhanced interrogation”) did happen inappropriately and the oversight wasn’t always the best, and they detained people that shouldn’t have been detained at all, but they did get “actionable intelligence” from the process and prevented terrorist attacks. That was the story, and they were sticking with it—yes, it was terrible, but it worked.

But then, it turns out, the CIA has quietly updated its official response in such a way that validates some of the Senate torture report’s claims. Much like a newspaper hiding a correction at the bottom of an inside page among the advertisements, the CIA posted a “note to readers” without telling anybody. According to Ali Watkins at BuzzFeed, it sat online for a year before outsiders noticed its existence.

One of the big debates of the use of torture involved the interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM). Mohamed confessed to all sorts of things while he was being tortured, but according to the Senate’s analysis, much of it was either fake or information the CIA had already gotten from other sources. The CIA resisted this interpretation, but now it has quietly admitted that the Senate’s analysis is at least partly true. And the note also acknowledges some other mistakes:

Among the CIA’s quiet corrections are that it did in fact misrepresent the importance of information obtained from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, known informally as “KSM,” and in some cases, already had certain information that it had previously said was “unavailable” prior to KSM providing it.

It also admits in its “Note” that it misrepresented the number of detainees in CIA custody to its own leadership, and that it did not notify the Secretary of State or Deputy Secretary of State of every black site detention facility.

In one instance, the CIA says, it misrepresented a timeline of information obtained from KSM in capturing an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist known as Hambali. The issue, it writes in the “Note,” was a “sequencing error.”

By “sequencing error,” they mean that the information they say they extracted from Mohamed via torture they had already gotten from other sources prior. Read more from BuzzFeed here.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s analysis of the CIA’s torture methods has also been bolstered by the chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay. Adam Goldman of The Washington Post has gotten his hands on an unreleased prosecutor’s statement by Brig. Gen. Mark Martins that says the facts listed in the report about how KSM was treated are all accurate and actually occurred:

Three CIA prisoners, including Mohammed, were waterboarded in what agency medical personnel described as “a series of near drownings,” according to the Senate report. Detainees were also beaten, forced into confinement boxes, deprived of sleep for long stretches and subjected to rectal rehydration. Unapproved techniques included mock executions, and one detainee died after being left in the freezing cold at a facility in Afghanistan. …

Defense lawyers want access to all documents about the treatment of their clients and ultimately plan to use the issue of torture as a mitigating factor to argue against the death penalty if the defendants are found guilty.

This agreement doesn’t necessarily put Martins “at odds” with CIA Director John Brennan the way Goldman contends. Remember that the dispute between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA is not over the facts of what was done to these prisoners, but rather who knew what was going on, who was overseeing the program, and whether it actually worked. It was never about which terrible things were done to KSM or other terrorists (or innocent people confused with terrorists).

When I wrote about the Senate report back when it was released, the big takeaway was not the horrible descriptions of what the CIA did to people, though that certainly got the most press. Rather, it was the depressing, bureaucracy-driven nature of the conflict trying to establish timelines of who authorized what, who knew what, where information actually came from, and trying to penetrate layer upon layer of ass-covering concealing what actually happened.

And does it even matter anymore? In the wake of new terrorist attacks on American soil we have Trump promising to do whatever the hell gets cheers from the crowd. His unpredictability, deliberate vagueness, and willingness to outsource the actual solutions to “experts,” combined with the secrecy of the CIA, should be of great concern. Getting kicked out of America under President Trump might be the least of a Muslim citizen’s worries.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Q9FsM5
via IFTTT

Everyone Jumping On The Bandwagon: BofA Says To Stay Long Gold Until $1,375, “$1,550 A Possibility”

First it was Goldman confirming that when it comes to penning “investment theses”, all Wall Street knows how to do is jump on a momentum bandwagon, when it said overnight that  there’s scope for gold prices to “extend much higher over time.” Now it’s Bank of America’s turn.

Here is the latest chart magic from BofA’s technical strategist Paul Ciana:

Staying long gold

 

Gold prices are breaking above triple resistance forming a technical bottom and channel breakout. This projects gold higher to 1,315 and 1,375. The gap in the distribution on the left shows 1,550 is a possibility, though we are not making that our target at this point.

 

We remain long gold on a technical basis.

 

 

Normally, these recommendations would be enough to send gold plunging; however with gold soaring over $50 on the day, its biggest move since September 2013…

… despite bullish calls by not only Goldman and BofA but even Dennis Gartman, perhaps this time it’s different?


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PoDGcP Tyler Durden

Gold Surges 3.2% To $1,241/oz As Deutsche Bank And Other Stocks Fall Sharply

Gold Surges 3.2% To $1,241/oz As Deutsche Bank And Other Stocks Fall Sharply

Gold has surged over 3% today on increased safe haven demand as stocks and in particular bank stocks see sharp falls. German shares have nose dived again and German colossus Deutsche Bank has fallen over 8%.

gold_surges
Futures – 1 Day Relative Performance – Finviz.com

A host of negative factors sent investors fleeing riskier assets. Oil prices slid on inventory data and on concerns about slowing global growth as Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen warned of several risks facing the U.S. and Chinese economies, and the global economy.

 

Gold and Silver News and Commentary

Central banks and Chinese buyers helping to spur gold demand – Reuters

Flight to safety sends gold surging above $1,200 to 8-1/2 month highs after Yellen – Reuters

Indian gold demand to climb in 2016 as buyers seek safe haven – Reuters

Gold demand jumps as fear grips markets – Telegraph

Banks drag European shares down as investors seek safety in gold – Independent

VIDEO: JP MORGAN – Gold Rally Breaks the Bullion Downtrend – Bloomberg

VIDEO: I’ve never liked gold-but I do now: Trader – CNBC

Why Gold Has Been on a Tear in 2016 – Fortune

“It’s Probably Something” – Gold Surges Above $1200; USDJPY, Oil, Stocks Plunge – Zero Hedge

China is on a massive gold buying spree – CNN Money

Click here

 

LBMA Gold Prices

11 Feb: USD 1,223.25, EUR 1,080.80 and GBP 847.33 per ounce
10 Feb: USD 1,183.40, EUR 1,052.29 and GBP 816.56 per ounce
9 Feb: USD 1,188.90, EUR 1,061.90 and GBP 822.31 per ounce
8 Feb: USD 1,173.40, EUR 1,050.16 and GBP 810.44 per ounce
5 Feb: USD 1,158.50, EUR 1,035.58 and GBP 797.40 per ounce

 

GoldCore Note: Banks, economists, brokers, financial advisers and other experts did not see the first crisis coming in 2008 and they are not seeing it now.

A handful of people are warning about the risks and again they are largely being ignored. Investors and savers will again bear the brunt for the inability to look at the reality of the financial and economic challenges confronting us today.

Diversification remains the key to weathering the second global financial crisis.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QaDJfK GoldCore

THE SUM OF ALL FEARS

Has The Global Recession Begun In Earnest?

Whilst riding in the car with my girlfriend and talking about how close we are to a possible financial Armageddon, she couldn’t help but notice the tone of  my last Zerohedge article, and that maybe the entire site,was decidedly negative, bordering on the side of paranoia, inciting the rabble to potential violence. Having viewed some of the comments myself,there are definitely a couple of rather unstable people out there.So I began to wonder what was the appropriate response should be. “it is not paranoia if they really are out to get you!” I retorted. But as in 2007, whilst some had seen the writing on the wall ,the ones claiming that there was something very wrong in the markets were being told that we were fear-mongers, that we used exaggeration and continual repetition to alter the perception of the public in order to achieve a desired outcome, that how could we possibly believe what we were saying to be true…) so I thought the best way was to systematically list the things I know to be…. 

 

Are You Sitting Comfortably? Then I’ll Begin:

Where to even begin…we started off with fears about oil and China, followed by an assortment of political tensions, Brazil’s faltering economy and if that wasn’t enough, attention has been drawn to Japan’s flip flop and race to the bottom in rates. With the addition of tightening in financial conditions in European Banking credit,Portugal and the Greek tragedy back on the table and now various houses concerned about recent macro-economic data which is indicating a possible slow-down in the economy, concerns abound.

 

THE FIAT MONEY/FRACTIONAL BANKING SYSTEM/ PONZI SCHEME FOR DUMMIES

Fiat money refers to any currency lacking intrinsic value that is declared legal tender by a government.

As valid currency solely by virtue of a government declaration, fiat money is not backed by any commodity, such as gold, but only by the full faith and credit of the bearer. In this respect, unlike currencies backed by gold or silver, fiat money does not have any intrinsic value (e.g., remember when all bank notes used to carry the phrase , “I promise to pay the bearer”?)

Now that we know the money used today is nothing more than paper backed up by full faith and a government decree, the next logical questions are, 1) Where does it come from?, and 2) Who has the power to create money? In the case of the US Dollar, it is not the government. The Federal Reserve System (Fed) is one of the ways in which money is created today (the other being fractional reserve banking).

Central banks create money from thin air, which is then used to for buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic cash that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased. The idea is that banks take the new money and buy assets to replace the ones they have sold to the central bank. That raises stock prices and lowers interest rates, which in turn supposedly boosts investment by encouraging banks to make more loans, but instead the banks use the funds to buy other assets.

 

Have You Ever Played Monopoly ?  

Imagine that one player can print all the money they want.

Before long, that one player will own everything, and everyone else is broke or in debt.  

For example: if 100 credits are created and loaned into the economy at 10% per year, at the end of the year 110 credits will be needed to pay the loan and extinguish the debt. However, since the additional 10 credits does not yet exist, it too must be borrowed. This implies that debt must grow exponentially in order for the monetary system to remain solvent.

However, exponential growth can only be maintained over a finite period of time. Just in case of Ponzi schemes, during this time the scam works and investors are paid in full to attract future investors. Everyone believes therefore that the scheme works. But when the exponential growth slows down, the pyramid collapses, primarily because the initial interest rate that was set was too high. Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme has shown that choosing a lower interest rate prolongs the time the scam works. Banks indeed work with even lower interest rates, so draw your own conclusion.

 

Here is a Real World Example

Banks are required to hold a capital cushion against liabilities, but it doesn’t cover their total potential liabilities. Rather, they are only required to hold sufficient assets to cover some of their potential liabilities (a “fractional reserve”) and this can be easily masked .This is how Italian banks and the Italian government are helping each other in pretending that they are more solvent than they really are: the banks buy government properties (everything from office buildings to military barracks) from the government, and pay for them with government bonds. The government then leases the buildings back from the banks, and the banks pool the properties and then issue asset backed securities. The Italian government then slaps a “guarantee” on these securities, which makes them eligible for repo with the ECB. The banks then repo (repurchase agreement)  these ABS with the ECB and take the proceeds to buy more Italian government bonds. Rinse and repeat. 

 

The Issue Hinges on “Credibility” and “Confidence”.

The art and craft involved in managing a good Ponzi scheme is in how well the perpetrators can position themselves for the inevitable crash and bust before it actually happens. While things are going relatively well for all in the economy, the financial elite spend their time and money buying up land, industry, war materials, yachts and anything else you can imagine. When the economy finally cracks completely, they are prepared to survive, and perhaps hoping to usher in a new world. Just look at the recent history of luxury real estate purchases or gold repatriation.

 

DEBT TO GDP: The Math Simply Doesn’t Add Up

  The last US GDP report was noteworthy in three respects. First, nominal GDP growth continued to decelerate, and is now at levels that have been historically consistent with recessions. Second, health care accounted for more than one-fifth of real GDP growth, but this was largely driven by Obamacare. Third, it marked a full decade that the annual rate of real GDP growth failed to break above 3%. The textbook definition of a recession is a downturn in economic activity, characterized by at least two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s gross domestic product (GDP). So take that away.

 

 

This is not a good sign…but to simplify it even further (and I know some of you have seen this before, but to those who have not…):

Some stats about the US government:

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

 Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

National debt: $18,990,000,000,000

Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

 

Now, remove 8 zeroes and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700

Money the family spent: $38,200

New debt on the credit card: $18,990

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Total budget cuts: $385!!!!!

 

The Newest Monetary Contagion

As more central banks resort to negative interest rates, will economic conditions take a turn for the worse?  

After Japan lowered the interest rate it pays on bank reserves to negative territory, 23% of global GDP is now overseen by central banks with negative policy rates, while 24% of the market value of the world’s largest companies ($2 billion-plus market cap) are based in economies with negative policy rates.  The wider adoption of negative rates on excess bank reserves, designed to force banks to pump more of their excess reserves into the real economy rather than keeping them on deposit at the central bank, is an acknowledgment that years of quantitative easing have done little to spur real economic activity. The BOJ’s bond purchases have expanded its balance sheet to 75% of GDP from 35% in 2013, compared to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s 25% of GDP. Yet growth in Japanese bank lending, now 2.2% per year, has barely budged. Companies are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash(Corporate cash and deposits increased 4.3 percent from a year earlier to 231 trillion yen ($1.9 trillion) at the end of December, close to last March’s all-time high of 233 trillion yen, according to Bank of Japan data.), and real wages have declined. The market’s verdict on Japan’s latest move is a resounding thumbs down. After the ECB lowered its deposit facility rate to negative territory in 2014 and despite a sharp decline in its currency, Eurozone growth this year is only expected to be an anemic 1.6%. Sweden and Denmark who also adopted these negative interest rate policies in 2014 are showing growth of 0.8% for Sweden and a contraction of 0.1% for Denmark. 

This new contagion is the latest confirmation that competing economies are in a “race to the bottom.” As global growth rates continue to shrink, each economy is forced to resort to “beggar thy neighbor” policies to steal growth from other countries. Simply put, negative policy rates are simply the latest fad designed to keep currencies depressed, in an effort to support exports and avoid deflation. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a strong currency is not necessarily in a nation’s best interests.

 

Beggar Thy Neighbor

A weak domestic currency makes a nation’s exports more competitive in global markets, and simultaneously makes imports more expensive. Higher export volumes spur economic growth, while pricey imports also have a similar effect because consumers opt for local alternatives to imported products. This improvement in the terms of trade generally translates into a lower current account deficit (or a greater current account surplus), higher employment, and faster GDP growth. The stimulative monetary policies that usually result in a weak currency also have a positive impact on the nation’s capital and housing markets, which in turn boosts domestic consumption through the wealth effect.

Since it is not too difficult to pursue growth through currency depreciation – whether overt or covert – it should come as no surprise that if Nation A devalues its currency, Nation B will soon follow suit, followed by Nation C, and so on. This is the essence of competitive devaluation.

This phenomenon is also known as “beggar thy neighbor,” which, far from being the Shakespearean drama that it sounds like, actually refers to the fact that a nation which follows a policy of competitive devaluation is vigorously pursuing its own self-interests to the exclusion of everything else.

However, some of the worst fears about negative interest rates are that the banks would pass them on to consumers, causing them to withdraw their deposits and stash the money under their mattresses—as of yet it has not yet come to pass. However, to the extent the banks absorb the cost of the negative interest rate on their own, profit margins will come under even further pressure than they have already, adding to the stress on the credit markets.

 

Now Let’s Move Briefly On To Brazil.

Brazil is not the same country it was in 1930, but it’s economy is sure looking that way. The country is facing its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in the United States. This year will be another year of contraction. Labor markets are shedding employees and inflation, once under control, is now over 10.6%. There is no end in sight to this crisis. China won’t save it. A weaker dollar won’t save it. A lot of Brazil’s problems are boring, old school budget woes…As the B in BRICS, Brazil is supposed to be in the vanguard of fast-growing emerging economies. Instead it faces political dysfunction and perhaps a return to rampant inflation. That our own debt to GDP ratio is over 102% whist Brazil’s is around 66% should tell you something.

The Drugs Don’t Work

When the drugs don’t work it is time to put the priest on notice that he may be called at any minute to perform the last rights.

Given the recent moves in the stock and credit markets it is further proof that QE and low interest rates are not working but they remain the favored and only tool available to the Bank of Japan and ECB to keep their patients alive.

As it becomes ever clearer that the drugs are losing their potency the gloom deepens on the prospects for economic growth. Banks do not make money in a negative interest rate environment nor one in which the risk of corporate and sovereign default rises.

Table of bank performance prior to todays debacle;

This Time, It’s Different?

Many economists have already compared the years 1929–1932 to those of 2007–2009, and the current period of recovery to the time period 1933–1939. It was only a matter of time before they began to look for a comparison between the recession of 1937 and a potential “double dip” today.

The 2007-2009 recession was mostly blamed on a housing bubble. After a run-up in housing prices in the early part of the decade, home prices plummeted, then thousands of borrowers couldn’t afford to pay their loans. Meanwhile, Wall Street sold financial instruments tied to the loans that were eventually discovered to be of little value (after seeing The Big Short, I may be being a little kind in that assessment)

Looking at other recessions, we can see their shocks. Albeit in hindsight, the recession of 2001 was caused by the ‘Internet Bubble,’ in which internet stocks and businesses eventually fell to much lower price.

The recession of 1973-1975 in the U.S. came about from rocketing gas prices, because OPEC raised oil prices and embargoed oil exports to the U.S. Other major factors included heavy government spending on the Vietnam War, and a Wall Street stock crash in 1973-74.

“This time its different”?, These words are often uttered near the peak of bull markets, as dewy-eyed investors attempt to justify unsustainable market trends by arguing that the past is no longer a relevant guide to the future.

They are , without a doubt , the four most dangerous words in investing. 

The deep recession  in 1937 and 1938 had several causes. When the U.S. was trying to get out of the Great Depression, it spent a lot of money. That was the New Deal — President Franklin Roosevelt’s plan to get the economy moving — which started in 1933,not to dissimilar to our current QE program initiated by various central banks.

But as the economy appeared to be recovering in 1937 and because Congress wanted to balance the budget, the government pulled back on spending and then raised taxes. That was enough of a ‘shock’ to put the economy into recession. Unemployment rose again and business profits declined, as did business investing.

As a result, the Great Depression continued, economists say, until the U.S. entered World War II in 1941.

We are told that there will not be a repeat of 2008 but the doubts are growing, cracks are appearing.

 

LIQUIDITY TRAP

Liquidity has a reputation for being very much in evidence when not required, and then disappearing without trace the moment you need it.There is a broad-based problem insofar as the investor base across markets has developed a greater tendency to crowd into the same trades, to be the same way round at the same time. This “herding” effect leads to markets which trend strongly, often with low day-to-day volatility, but are prone to abrupt corrections.In principle, markets could gap to a point where they went from being absurdly expensive to being absurdly cheap, without very much trading. But the existence of the feedback loop to the real economy means that the fundamentals tend also to be affected by extreme market moves: “cheap” may be a moving target. This in turn could force central banks to step back in again.In principle, markets could gap to a point where they went from being absurdly expensive to being absurdly cheap, without very much trading. But the existence of the feedback loop to the real economy means that the fundamentals tend also to be affected by extreme market moves: “cheap” may be a moving target. This in turn could force central banks to step back in again.But then we are left with a paradox,The more liquidity the central banks add, the more they disrupt the natural order of the market. On the way in, it has mostly proved possible to accommodate this; however the way out is proving not to be so easy….

 

 I will leave you with a quote from a book/movie set during the US civil war. 

“This isn’t the first time the world’s been upside down and it won’t be the last. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again. And when it does happen, everyone loses everything and everyone is equal. And then they all start again at taw, with nothing at all.That is, nothing except the cunning of their brains and strength of their hands… But there are always a hardy few who come through and given time, they are right back where they were before the world turned over.”

Margaret Mitchell, Gone With The Wind

In regards to more detailed options and futures advice volatility analysis etc ,please contact Darren Krett,Bryan Fitzgerald or John Hayden through www.leviathanfm.com or email at dkrett@maunaki.com

 

 

Futures and options trading involves substantial risk and is not for everyone. Such
investments may not be appropriate for the recipient. The valuation of futures
and options may fluctuate, and, as a result, clients may lose more than their
original investment. Nothing contained in this message may be construed as an
express or an implied promise, guarantee or implication by, of, or from Mauna
Kea Investments LLC or Leviathan Financial Management LLC. that you will profit or
that losses can or will be limited in any manner whatsoever. Past performance
is not necessarily indicative of future results. Although care has been taken
to assure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information
contained herein, Mauna Kea Investments LLC or Leviathan Financial management LLC makes no warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, reliability or usefulness of any information, product, service or
process disclosed.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PoDFWg dazzak

Justice Sotomayor Says ‘There Is a Place, I Think, for Jury Nullification’

This week Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had some kind words for jury nullification, which empowers jurors to judge the law as well as the facts of a case and may involve disregarding the law when the law is unjust. During a discussion about juries at NYU Law School on Monday, Sotomayor, who used to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, was asked about a 1997 decision in which that court “categorically reject[ed]” nullification. “As we govern in the system, and watching it, I’m not so sure that’s right,” she said, according to Law360. “There is a place, I think, for jury nullification—finding the balance in that and the role judges should play.”

In United States v. Thomas, the 2nd Circuit heard a challenge to a judge’s dismissal of a juror in a federal drug case who resisted finding the five defendants, all of whom were black, guilty of selling crack. After interviewing the jurors, the judge concluded that the holdout, who was the only black member of the jury, had “immoral” motives because “he believes that these folks have a right to deal drugs, because they don’t have any money, they are in a disadvantaged situation and probably that’s the thing to do.” The judge added that “I don’t think he would convict them no matter what the evidence was.”

The 2nd Circuit rejected the juror’s dismissal, saying the judge did not give sufficient consideration to alternative explanations for his resistance. But it also said the dismissal clearly would have been justified if the juror was in fact determined to acquit the defendants regardless of the evidence. “As an obvious violation of a juror’s oath and duty,” the court said, “a refusal to apply the law as set forth by the court constitutes grounds for dismissal.” It added:

We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court’s instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict….

A jury has no more “right” to find a “guilty” defendant “not guilty” than it has to find a “not guilty” defendant guilty, and the fact that the former cannot be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the power to misapply the law. Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power.

Sotomayor, the only current member of the Supreme Court who has presided over a jury trial, said the 2nd Circuit may have been wrong to reject nullification in such sweeping terms. The context of the question was a slip-and-fall case in which Sen. Claire McCaskell (D-Mo.) served as a juror last month. NYU law professor Steve Susman, who moderated the Sotomayor event, said McCaskell, a former prosecutor who tweeted about her experience on jury duty, reported that she told her fellow jurors the plaintiff’s attorney would take a big cut of any award, which may have boosted the damages. “That’s a form of jury nullification,” Susman suggested.

“You do know that I’m going to get a cert. petition in that case arguing that the senator’s information was extrajudicial,” Sotomayor replied, adding more seriously, “I’m not so sure I like the tweeting stuff.” But the justice seemed open to the idea that jurors sometimes should consider information the judge considers irrelevant. In a drug case, that information might include the stiff mandatory minimum awaiting the defendant, the defendant’s medical or religious motivation for violating the law, or the arbitrary disparity in punishment between crack and cocaine powder offenses. 

“I am pleasantly surprised…to hear that current Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor has publicly gone on record in favor of jury nullification,” Kristen Tynan, executive director of the Fully Informed Jury Association, wrote on Facebook. “Her comments suggest that the Second Circuit is too harsh on this topic and that its decision in U.S. v. Thomas is in error.”

Reason TV on jury nullification in a New Jersey marijuana case:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1PoExdp
via IFTTT

Boeing Stock Nose-Dives On News Of SEC Probe

Just when you thought The BoJ would save the day with its miraculous intervention in carry trades, this happens:

  • *BOEING SAID TO FACE SEC PROBE OF DREAMLINER AND 747 ACCOUNTING

And just like that, Boeing’s stocks crashes 10% dragging the major US equity markets with it. So, just as a reminder, this is a firm which the US government (via Ex-Im Bank) lends billions of US taxpayer dollars… and now the SEC is accusing them of fraud.

 

As Bloomberg reports,

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether Boeing Co. properly accounted for the costs and expected sales of two of its best known jetliners, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

 

The probe centers on projections Boeing made about the long-term profitability for the 787 Dreamliner and the 747 jumbo aircraft, said one of the people, who asked not to be named because the investigation isn’t public. Both planes are among Boeing’s most iconic, renowned for the technological advancements they introduced, as well as the development headaches they brought the company.

 

Underlying the SEC review is a financial reporting method known as program accounting that allows Boeing to spread the enormous upfront costs of manufacturing planes over many years. While the SEC has broadly blessed its use in the aerospace industry, critics have said the system can give too much leeway to smooth earnings and obscure potential losses.

We’re gonna need more Ex-Im Bank bailouts to save this one!


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1o2xJZz Tyler Durden

Why Markets Are Crashing: “Faith In Central Banks Fails”

While Citigroup’s Eric Lee thinks its “ridiculous” to talk fo a US recession, it appears the macro data and markets would strongly disagree: as Bloomberg reports:

Signals by central banks from Europe to Japan that additional stimulus is at the ready are failing to ease investor concern that global growth will keep slowing.

 

 

Citigroup’s Economic Surprise Index already indicates data in Group of 10 economies are falling short of estimates by the most since April 2013, and a selloff in crude oil and weakening credit markets are exacerbating the malaise. Yellen suggested that the central bank might delay, but not abandon, planned interest-rate increases in response to recent turmoil in financial markets.

 

“Over the last few years when we got bad news, equity markets would rally because they would interpret this as potential for central banks to go more dovish,” said Mohit Kumar, head of rates strategy at Credit Agricole SA’s corporate and investment bank unit in London.

 

 

“Now that correlation is shifting to bad news is actually bad news. Investors are concerned over central banks’ policy options given the market is driven by factors over which they have little or no control over.”

And so the headline of the day from Bloomberg seems very appropriate:

Some further clarifications from Bloomberg:

Financial markets are signaling that investors have lost faith in central banks’ ability to support the global economy.

And some more:

“The markets are wondering, well, we’ve had these non-conventional monetary policy experiments for the last six or seven years and they haven’t caused a sustainable boost to global growth, so what will the latest moves do,” said Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy at Sydney-based AMP Capital Investors Ltd. “It’s a reasonable question to ask given the events of the last few weeks.”

 

The notion that central banks and regulators could not act if the financial panic were to turn into a serious threat to the real economy and hence to jobs looks wrong,” said Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank in London. “Central banks can bolster confidence if they really have to in order to support the real economy.”

 

“The period of central bank ‘shock and awe’ operations is likely to be behind us,” Stephen Jen, co-founder of SLJ Macro Partners LLP in London and a former International Monetary Fund economist, wrote in a note on Friday. “This will be the year that ‘gravity’ will overwhelm the central bank policies,” he said, recommending selling equities during rallies.

Perhaps hope, as promulgated by this recent Bloomberg addition, was not such a good strategy after all…


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1O4U1iI Tyler Durden

Lines Around the Block to Buy Gold in London…Banks Placing “Unusually Large Orders for Physical”

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 8.48.11 AM

First, let’s look at the improved fundamentals. Gold bugs will exasperatingly proclaim that fundamentals have been great for the past four years yet the price plunged anyway, so who cares about fundamentals? To this I would respond with two observations. First, large institutional investors and sovereign wealth funds have been anticipating a rate hike cycle for a very long time now. They didn’t know when, but they expected it. The fact that the gold bugs never believed this is irrelevant; what matters is that big money believed it, and it was perceived to be very gold negative. In their minds, this anticipated rate hike cycle would confirm that things were getting back to normal, and if things are normal you don’t need to own gold, right?

The problem is that this assumption is quickly being called into question. Sure the Fed hiked rates once, but it is starting to look more and more like a policy error. Meanwhile, other major central banks around the world are going in the opposite direction, toward negative rates. I am a huge believer in market psychology, and the psychology dominating the minds of most institutional investors over the past few years has been that things were slowly getting back to normal. This has weighed on institutional demand for gold in a big way, and been a meaningful factor in the bear market (manipulation aside). If this psychology shifts, the shift back into gold could be very meaningful.

While that backdrop is interesting in its own right, what may make the move into gold that much more explosive is the lack of alternative investments…

– From the February 3, 2016 post: GOLD – It’s Time to Pay Attention

What a difference a couple of weeks can make. The Telegraph reports the following:

BullionByPost, Britain’s biggest online gold dealer, said it has already taken record-day sales of £5.6m as traders pile into gold following fears the world is on the brink of another financial crisis.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1o2vIwC
via IFTTT

Saudi Arabia Makes “Final” Decision To Send Troops To Syria As US, Russia Spar Over Aleppo Strikes

As you might have heard, the opposition in Syria is in serious trouble.

Last summer, Bashar al-Assad’s army was on the ropes, as the SAA fought a multi-front war against a dizzying array of rebel forces including ISIS. Then Quds commander Qassem Soleimani went to Russia. After that, everything changed.

As of September 30 the Russian air force began flying combat missions from Latakia, rolling back rebel gains and paving the way for a Hezbollah ground offensive. Once Moscow had stopped the bleeding for the SAA (both figuratively and literally), Iran called up Shiite militias from Iraq who, alongside Hassan Nasrallah’s forces, pushed north towards Aleppo.

Now, the city is surrounded and the rebels are cut off from their supply line to Turkey. In short: it’s just a matter of time before the opposition is routed.

So much for President Obama’s “Russia will get itself into a quagmire” line.

The only thing that can save the rebels at this juncture is a direct intervention by the groups’ Sunni benefactors including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey.

That, or an intervention by the US.

Both the Saudis and the Turkey have hinted at ground invasions over the past two weeks and just this morning, a sokesman said Riyadh’s decision to send in troops was “final.”

But direct interventions are tricky. Russia has never denied it intends to bolster Syrian government forces against the rebels, all of whom Moscow deems “terrorists.” On the other hand, Washington, Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara cling to the notion that while they don’t support Assad, they’re primary goal is to fight ISIS. Well ISIS is in Raqqa, which is nowhere near Aleppo, meaning there’s no way to help the rebels out in their fight against the Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah under the guise of battling Islamic State.

Against that backdrop we found it interesting that Moscow and Washington are now delivering conflicting accounts of airstrikes in Aleppo on Wednesday. The Pentagon, without specifying what time the strikes allegedly took place, says Russia destroyed the city’s two main hospitals.

Defence Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov notes that Warren didn’t provide either hospitals’ coordinates, or the time of the airstrikes, or sources of information. “Absolutely nothing,” he said, describing Warren’s report.

The Kremlin, on the other hand, says US warplanes conducted strikes at 1355 Moscow time. “Two U.S. Air Force A-10 attack aircraft entered Syrian airspace from Turkish territory,” Konashenkov said in a statement. “Reaching Aleppo by the most direct path, they made strikes against objects in the city.”

“Only aviation of the anti-ISIS coalition flew over the city yesterday,” he added.

“When asked on Wednesday whether the U.S.-led coalition could do more to help rebels in Aleppo or improve access for humanitarian aid to the city, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said that the coalition’s focus remained on fighting Islamic State,” Reuters wrote on Thursday. The group is “virtually non-existent in that part of Syria,” Warren said.

Right. Which makes you wonder what two US Air Force A-10 attack planes were doing bombing in and around Aleppo. Is the US set to conduct airstrikes in support of the rebels, thus marking a fresh and exceptionally dangerous escalation of hostilities in the country?

As for what exactly it was that the US warplanes struck, Konashenkov will have to get back to us. He’s too busy winning a war to care right now:

“I’m going to be honest with you: we did not have enough time to clarify what exactly those nine objects bombed out by US planes in Aleppo yesterday were. We will look more carefully.”

*  *  *

Below, find excerpts from “Will Russian Victories In Syria Spark A Regional War?” by Yaroslav Trofimov as originally published in WSJ

Defying U.S. predictions of a quagmire in Syria, Russia is achieving strategic victories there with this month’s Aleppo offensive. The question now is whether this is a turning point that hastens the five-year war’s end or the trigger for a counter-escalation that will drag other regional countries into the conflict.

Few expect that Moscow’s main target—the moderate rebels backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.—would now be forced settle the conflict on the Kremlin’s, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s, terms.

“Their victory in Aleppo is not the end of the war. It’s the beginning of a new war,” said Moncef Marzouki, who served in 2011-14 as the president of Tunisia, the nation that kicked off the Arab Spring, and who recently visited the Turkish-Syrian border. “Now, everybody would intervene.”

To be sure, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have few easy options to counter Russian military might in Syria. But because of national pride—and internal politics—neither can really afford to have the rebel cause in which they have invested so much wiped out by Moscow and its Iranian allies.

While the Obama administration has long been determined to minimize U.S. involvement there, for Turkey and Saudi Arabia the prospect of Syria falling under the sway of Russia and Iran would be a national-security catastrophe.

“The whole situation, not just for Turkey but for the entire Middle East, would be reshaped. The Western influence will fade away. The question is: Can we accept Russia, and the Iranians, calling the tune in the region?” said Umit Pamir, a former Turkish ambassador to NATO and the United Nations.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1o6JeA4 Tyler Durden