iftttwall

Via The Daily Bell

 ‘Conspiracy Vs. Government’ Is Elite Propaganda Justifying Violent Repression

 

The rise of paranoid politics could make America ungovernable – and the FBI is fuelling the fire … Nothing can disprove the fears of a paranoiac. Indeed, everything confirms them …   It takes away politicians’ incentive to understand one another and get things done. It says that if you scream loud enough, established norms will buckle under the pressure. And while those norms might be annoying and flawed, we’ll all miss them if they go.  –UK Telegraph

With US belief in “conspiracy theory” over 50 percent (see our previous article here) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative.

This article again illustrates elite push back. The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the “norms” of government will collapse.

Conspiracy theory is called “paranoid politics” in this article but it amounts to the same thing.

The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning “civility” to Congress and politics generally.

This article runs along the same lines: Negative perceptions of the US government can make the process of “governing” dysfunctional.

More:

Take the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory: the idea that the white trails left behind in the sky by aeroplanes are sinister chemicals dispersed to sterilise or control voters.

 

If a government declares there is “no evidence” of such chemicals, that itself must be clear evidence that there’s something “they” don’t want us to know. But if that government were to open up an investigation, that too would be incontrovertible proof: “they” must have found something.

Let’s reverse this reasoning (leaving aside the chemtrail controversy itself). Apparently, one can’t question much that government does because skepticism puts government in a no-win situation.

Better to accept official pronouncements, then. The only trouble is that almost anything modern Western governments say is a lie

Governments aren’t even important these days. The world from what we can tell is run by a small banking elite that controls the awesome power of  central banks and the money they print.

The trillions available to this small group has allowed it to change the nature of society around the world.

The goal is global government and it seems every kind of violence and corruption is employed to achieve it.

Secrecy is still employed by those creating “one world.” Thus those involved in creating global governance never admit the scope and details of its implementation.

But in the past several decades, the Internet has credibly exposed plans for world government. As a result, people have lost faith in mainstream media, politicians and capitalism itself.

This is the reason for the rise in “conspiracy theory” and “paranoid politics.”

This is also the reason elites would like to shut down the Internet, or at least control it more thoroughly.

Part of the push for control involves making a case that the Internet needs to be better regulated and appropriately censored.

To this end, elite propaganda has been aimed at justifying various anti-‘Net actions.

One justification involves the “populism versus globalism” meme we’ve covered extensively. (Just use a search engine for the phrase and “Daily Bell.”)

Another justification – another emergent meme – is that government itself is jeopardized by pervasive distrust.

One would think the answer would be to lie less, but this is not the conclusion we’re being given.

Both Sunstein in his article, and now the argument in this article, show us clearly that the solution to pervasive electoral cyncism and worse is to better control one’s attitude.

In other words, paranoia and conspiratorial cynicism need to be damped for government to survive and perform its proper function.

Here:

Why, then, did a seasoned operator like Mr Comey, whose judiciousness was praised by the Clinton campaign through the summer, feel the need to divulge this half-baked and potentially insignificant development before assessing it? There is one answer: fear of the mob.

 

The director of the FBI – those tough guys who smash in doors and shoot people – was scared that if he didn’t talk now and the news leaked out, it would confirm every conspiracy theory going about how the agency was in the Clintons’ pocket. In other words, we’ve reached a point in the politics of the world’s most powerful democracy where the appearance of probity matters more than the reality.

This is a key point in the article. It is one that fully reveals the cognitive dissonance at the heart of this particular argument. The idea is that government is too delicate to sustain itself in the face of the “mob.” The mob must therefore be silenced or “probity will matter more than reality.”

But who is to determine what constitutes a “mob”? And who is determine that the mob’s “reality” is false?

Both the Sunstein article and now this one are erecting very specific kinds of arguments. Yet the Internet and its recovered history shows us clearly that Western governments mostly provide concealment for the world’s real powers that prefer to operate behind the scenes.

This is the reason for so much cynicism. Many have realized that the society constructed around them is lie. They have reacted by distrusting almost anything associated with modern society.

But in these articles, we can see the forces being marshaled against this state of mind. The preferred antidote is simply to assert that people’s distrust is corrosive to government authority and democracy generally.

No logic bolsters this argument. That’s why it is an emergent elite meme.

The goal of an elite meme is to be convincing not truthful.

And if it is not convincing – and increasingly elite memes are not – then its function is, anyway, to provide a justification for what we call directed history. These are the authoritarian strategies that elites wish to inflict on the rest of us.

This latter meme is an outgrowth of “populism versus globalism.” Populists, as we’ve pointed out, are being cast as ignorant, violent and intolerant. The current meme – let’s call it “conspiracy versus government” – lumps in conspiracy with populism.

Populists, we learn, are apt to adopt an irrational distrust of government. And what is government? It must comprise all that is good and virtuous in an uncivil world.

Both populists and conspiracy theory are to be vanquished, eventually, by wise globalists who understand that the absence of government will lead to violent “anarchy.”

It’s just not true. Government is merely in this day-and-age a curtain hiding the world’s real controllers who use endless violence, monetary debasement and economic depression to get their way.

Conclusion: We are watching the emergence of a new, dangerous memes. Increasingly and forcefully, it is being argued that “government” is good and that the truths people have discovered about their lives and society are destabilizing to government, and therefore “bad.” The idea will be to use these memes to make a case for increased censorship and even, eventually, violent repression – and worse.

Via The Daily Bell

 ‘Conspiracy Vs. Government’  Is Elite Propaganda Justifying Violent Repression

For nearly a decade, The Daily Bell has tracked elite propaganda on a daily basis.  

via http://ift.tt/2eUKVfM TDB

In one of the more prominent early Podesta email revelations, we learned that Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ali Al-‘Amoudi, a Saudi Arabian and Ethiopian billionaire businessman, whose net worth was estimated at Forbes at $8.3 billion as of 2016, was one of the very generous donors to the Clinton Foundation.

As a November 2011 email from Ira Magaziner, Vice Chairman and CEO of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, sent to John Podesta and Amitabh Desai, Director of Foreign Policy at the Clinton Foundation, revealed, the “CHAI [Clinton Health Access Initiative] would like to request that President Clinton call Sheik Mohammed to thank him for offering his plane to the conference in Ethiopia and expressing regrets that President Clinton’s schedule does not permit him to attend the conference.”

To this, the response by Desai was a simple one: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.“

At this point, Doug Band, Bill Clinton’s former chief advisor and current president of the infamous Teneo Holding Doug Band, chimed in that it probably is a good idea: “If he doesn’t do it Chai will say he didn’t give the money bc of wjc” an assessment which John Podesta agreed with: “this seems rather easy and harmless and not a big time sink.”

* * *

To be sure, this exchange suggested that a substantial amount of cash had or was about to be exchanged between the Clinton Foundation and the Saudi “Sheikh Mo”, as shown in the photo below.

However, the details were missing: the originalemail from Ira Magaziner referenced a specific briefing memo which contained in it the talking points updaing on the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and The Saudi billionaire:

Ed Wood has prepared a briefing memo for President Clinton about the call which is attached

Now, courtesy of today’s latest Podesta email release we have access to the missing memo.

The leaked memo lays out the facts on the Clinton Foundation trying to collect on Sheik Mohammed’s overdue donor commitment to CHAI. Notably, the memo gives the inference of the Sheik being shaken down by the Foundation in that the Foundation was demanding an immediate $6 million payment in return for WJC attending the 2011 International Conference on AIDS and STIs (ICASA) event.  Additionally the Foundation apparently enlisted the assistance of the US Ambassador to Ethiopia to obtain payments from the Sheik.

The memo initially lays out Bill Clinton’s history with the Sheik:

In the first bullet point we find what the initial “bid” and “ask” would be between WJC/CF and the Saudi billionaire: $2 million for every year that Bill Clinton visit Ethiopia. This, however, was subsequently changed to an greement whereby the Saudi would give $2 million per year but without any reference to visiting Ethiopia:

Sheik Mohammed approached CHAI in 2006 shortly after we opened an office in Addis Ababa.  He proposed  that he would give $2 million to CHAI every year that YOU visited Ethiopia.   We eventually negotiated an Agreement with his Washington attorney, George Salem, in which he agreed to fund CHAI at a rate of $2 million per year for 10 years.   They rejected any proposals to put a payment schedule in the agreement, but dropped any reference tying the donation to YOU visiting Ethiopia. 

The next bullet lays out the initial fund transfer of $2 million in London, as well as the broad terms of the agreement whose “requirement is that the money be spent within Ethiopia.” Amusingly, the memo then notes that during negotiations the Saudi delegation “rejected our proposal that some of the money could be used for global overhead.”

The Agreement was officially signed at a meeting in London in May 2007 by the Sheik and Bruce, after which the Sheik presented you with a a check for $2 million for the 2007 payment.    The Agreement is very general and does not require any specific proposals from CHAI for how the money will be spent or any reporting.  The only requirement is that the money be spent within Ethiopia.  During negotiations they rejected our proposal that some of the money could be used for global overhead.

We then learn that more cash transfers took place in the coming years, despite the Sheik having “cash flow problems” which resulted in a bulk payment of $4 million in 2010 for missed payments in 2008 and 2009.

Through 2008 and early 2009, we were told the Sheik was having some cash flow problems and that he was delaying payments for many commercial and philanthropic commitments he had in Ethiopia.  In January 2010 at a Foundation donors meeting in Harlem, Ambassador Irvin Hicks, one of the Sheik’s representatives in the U.S. and a former Ethiopian ambassador appointed by YOU  presented to YOU a check for $4 million representing payment for 2008 and 2009.

The memo then tells WJC just why the relationship was created in the first place: “The Sheik’s contribution supports most of CHAI’s activities in Ethiopia, one of its most important and successful country programs.”

A section then follow which reminds Bill Clinton just who Sheikh Mohammed is, and that the two had spent time together in his “private suite at a nightclub attached to the Sheraton” in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:

YOU first met the Sheik in July 2006 during a visit to Addis.   He visited your suite in the Sheraton Hotel, which he owns, for coffee and then after dinner YOU dropped into his private suite at a nightclub attached to the Sheraton.  He had invited YOU there especially because he thought you would enjoy the saxophone player.   You chatted with the Sheik and played the saxophone with the band.   Shortly after this visit negotiations began in earnest regarding the $20 million commitment the Sheik has made to CHAI.

 

YOU met the Sheik in London in May, 2007, at which time the Agreement was signed and the first $2 million check was received. 

 

YOU stayed at the Sheraton in July 2008 during your last Ethiopia visit, but the Sheik was not in Ethiopia at the time.  The Sheik donated the rooms and meals for the large party during an extended four-day visit, two days longer than originally planned because of aircraft problems.

Where things get interesting is in the memo’s discussion of the current (as of November 2011) situation, in which we learn that once again the Saudi billionaire was behind on his payments due to the current economic downturn:

Once again, we are told that the current economic down turn has caused the Sheik to delay payments for several commitments.  CHAI has not received the 2010 or 2011 payments.  We have contacted both George Salem, the lawyer, and Ambassador Hicks regarding payment.  Both say that the Sheik will make the payment but they have not been able to pinpoint an exact date.  

Recent complications did not make matters any easier, although the Sheikh had enough cash to provide Bill with a plane to attend the upcoming African AIDS conference:

In the past two months the effort to collect the payments for 2010-2011 has become complicated by factors surrounding ICASA, the biennial large African AIDS conference that will be held in Ethiopia the first week of December.   The previous two ICASA conference in Nigeria and Senegal were beset by logistical and financial problems and Prime  Minister Meles and Minister of Health Tedros have worked hard to make the Ethiopia ICASA the most successful ever.  They have enlisted Sheik Mohammed to help and he has donated the venue and paid for an additional $8-10 million of expenses.

 

Minister Tedros invited YOU to participate in ICASA, and apparently he or someone else connected with ICASA asked the Sheik if he would provide a plane to bring YOU to Ethiopia for the event.  The Sheik agreed to provide a plane, and instructed Ambassador Hicks to tell CHAI one would be available.

Where things get hot, and where the Clinton Foundation is accused of “coercion” by the Sheik’s Washington attorney George Salem, is in the negotiation over whether Clinton should come to Ethiopia without having been wired the funds up front, or if he should assume that the billionaire is “good for the money” and just fly out there on good will.

When George Salem spoke with the Sheik about the payment, he was told by the Sheik to make sure YOU knew that the Sheik would very much like for you to attend ICASA and that he would provide transportation.  In response, Bruce told George that if the Sheik would wire $6 million to the Foundation for 2010-2012 that he would make sure YOU attended ICASA.  After Bruce’s stroke, George told Ed Wood of CHAI that the Sheik said he did not like “coercion” and that we should know that he was “good for the money.”  George reiterated that the money would be paid, but could not give a date. 

 

The Sheik seems to feel that we asked him for transportation and then decided not to use it.   George and Ambassador Hicks have been told that the request for transportation did not originate with us, but we are not sure that the message reached the Sheik.

Ultimately the negotiations for Clinton flying to Ethiopia stalled, and appear to have fallen apart, leading to the original quote from the Clinton Foundation’s Amitabh Desai in which he said, as we noted earlier this month, that “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.” As a result, the memo gives WJC the following action point:

George Salem, Ambassador Hicks, and CHAI feel that it would be helpful if you would call the Sheik and thank him for offering the plane and saying you are sorry you can’t attend ICASA.   We don’t think it is necessary for YOU to bring up the payment issue directly. 

The memo concludes with the following talking points:

• YOU should thank the Sheik for his support of all our efforts in Ethiopia, and especially for offering to provide a plane to bring you to the ICASA meeting.
• YOU should express your regrets that you were not able to arrange your schedule to attend the ICASA meeting since you know how important it is to Ethiopia and to the Sheik.  You should express your appreciation that he has helped make this event possible during a difficult time for the international AIDS effort.
• YOU should say you hope to be able to visit with the Sheik again soon either in Ethiopia or elsewhere.

* * *

This memo provide deep insight into how the “charitable” Clinton Foundation operated: absent being made whole on millions of dollars in payments – by a donor who had already provided it with $6 million in the past –  the “so very concerned” about AIDS and African welfare Foundation would not even bother to fly Bill Clinton for a 1-2 day trip to something as simple, and noble, as a healthcare conference: ultimately precisely what the Foundation is supposed to represent and support.

It also shows that when the Foundation found itself in arrears to a prominent donor, it first and only concern was how to get paid; all else – up to and including doing the absolute minimum such as appearing for a good cause, was secondary and – as the memo documents – ultimately irrelevant unless Clinton and the CF were both generously compensated for their efforts.

And that, in a nutshell is what the “generous and charitable” Clinton foundation was all about: make sure to get the money, the rest simply did not matter.

The full hacked memo is below and the source email can be found here.

via http://ift.tt/2f1RhNm Tyler Durden

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid alleges that FBI Director Comey has violated the law by announcing the re-opened investigation into Clinton emails so close to the presidential election.

Is he right?

One of the top constitutional law experts in the United States (and a liberal), Professor Jonathan Turley, says no:

[Reid’s] allegation is in my view wildly misplaced. Reid is arguing that the actions of FBI Director James B. Comey violates the Hatch Act. I cannot see a plausible, let alone compelling, basis for such a charge against Comey.

 

In his letter to Comey, Reid raised the the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan politicking by government employees.

5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1) prohibits a government employee from “us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”

 

Reid argued:

“Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another. I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”

The reference to “months” is curious. Comey has kept Congress informed in compliance with oversight functions of the congressional committees but has been circumspect in the extent of such disclosures. It is troubling to see Democrats (who historically favor both transparency and checks on executive powers) argue against such disclosure and cooperation with oversight committees. More importantly, the Hatch Act is simply a dog that will not hunt.

 

Richard W. Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House from 2005 to 2007, has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Comey with the federal Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. He argues that “We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway.”

 

However, Comey was between the horns of a dilemma. He could be accused of acts of commission in making the disclosure or omission in withholding the disclosure in an election year. Quite frankly, I found Painter’s justification for his filing remarkably speculative. He admits that he has no evidence to suggest that Comey wants to influence the election or favors either candidate. Intent is key under the Hatch investigations.  You can disagree with the timing of Comey’s disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view.

 

Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using “[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight.

 

Such violations under the Hatch Act, even if proven, are not criminal matters. The Office of Special Counsel -can investigate such matters and seek discipline — a matter than can ultimately go before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

CNN confirms:

violators aren’t going to jail: the Hatch Act is not a criminal statute. Instead, it is an administrative constraint on government employees. The law is enforced by a special independent federal agency — the Office of Special Counsel — which is charged with investigating complaint allegations and, where found to be meritorious, either pursuing a settlement with the offending employee or prosecuting their case before the federal agency that oversees internal employment disputes — the Merit Systems Protection Board. And for presidential appointees like Comey, the Office of Special Counsel submits a report of its findings along with the employee’s response to the President, who makes a decision on whether discipline is warranted.

 

***

 

The Hatch Act provision most commonly invoked in discussions of Comey’s letter is 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1), which prohibits a government employee from “us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”

The key text is the emphasized phrase — which conditions a violation of the statute on whether the employee’s purpose was to interfere with or affect the result of an election. Thus, the Hatch Act does not focus on the effect of the employee’s conduct, but the intent. To that end, if Comey did not intend to interfere with or affect the upcoming election through his letter to Congress, then he did not violate the letter of the Hatch Act.

Given that Obama doesn’t think Comey was trying to influence the election, this is a non-starter.

via http://ift.tt/2eUGcuB George Washington

An NYU professor who launched a twitter war against the growing trend of universities coddling students with “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” has been pushed out of his own classroom for his “incivility.”  According to a report from the New York Post, Liberal Studies professor Michael Rectenwald was forced to go on paid leave for the rest of the semester after his undercover twitter account, “Deplorable NYU Prof”, was linked back to him.

Liberal studies prof Michael Rectenwald, 57, said he was forced Wednesday to go on paid leave for the rest of the semester.

 

“They are actually pushing me out the door for having a different perspective,” the academic told The Post.

 

Rectenwald launched an undercover Twitter account called Deplorable NYU Prof on Sept. 12 to argue against campus trends like “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings” and other aspects of academia’s growing PC culture.

 

He chose to be anonymous, he explained in one of his first tweets, because he was afraid “the PC Gestapo would ruin me” if he put his name ­behind his conservative ideas on the famously liberal campus.

 

“I remember once on my Facebook I posted a story about a kid who changed his pronoun to ‘His Majesty’ because I thought it was funny,” he told The Post. “Then I got viciously attacked by 400 people. This whole milieu is nauseating. I grew tired of it, so I made the account.”

Below is a small sample of Rectenwald’s tweets:

The identity politics left: they need a safe space that is at once a hall of mirrors and a rubber room.

— Deplorable NYU Prof (@antipcnyuprof) October 11, 2016

What if Trump triggers a few hundred thousand liberal totalitarians to jump out of their dorm windows? one can only hope. #TriggerWarning

— Deplorable NYU Prof (@antipcnyuprof) September 27, 2016

OK, academia has officially gone completely ape shit. This is merely mental illness posing as “politics”: https://t.co/1K1l7wSvom

— Deplorable NYU Prof (@antipcnyuprof) September 27, 2016

I’m a NYU prof who’s seen academe become a sham bc of identity pol & liberal totalitarianism. I’ll tell all soon. https://t.co/7Tyulse0a7

— Deplorable NYU Prof (@antipcnyuprof) September 16, 2016

I’m a real full-time NYU prof who has inside stories that will blow yr mind. When I reach 500 followers the flood gates open. Pls help. Thx.

— Deplorable NYU Prof (@antipcnyuprof) September 15, 2016

.@kercard @TrumpetingTrump Yes, there are 1.5 administrators for every professor at NYU -gotta’ monitor everyone for possible ‘bias’ issues!

— Deplorable NYU Prof (@antipcnyuprof) September 13, 2016

 

It wasn’t long before Rectenwald’s tweet storm drew the attention of NYU’s student newspaper, the Washington Square Times, which reached out to him over twitter for an interview.  Unfortunately, that interview, which was published last week, proved to be his undoing.  Within 2 days of his identity being revealed publicly, NYU’s “Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group” had published a letter in the same newspaper finding Rectenwald “guilty of illogic and incivility.”  Later in that same day Rectenwald was forced to go on paid leave by administrators who claimed that “a couple people had expressed concern about his mental health.”

But Rectenwald says he began getting “dirty looks” in his department and on Wednesday figured out why: A 12-person committee calling itself the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group, including two deans, published a letter to the editor in the same paper.

 

“As long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas,” they wrote.

 

“We seek to create a dynamic community that values full participation. Such efforts are not the ‘destruction of academic integrity’ Professor Rectenwald suggests, but rather what make possible our program’s approach to global studies,” they argued.

 

Rectenwald likened the attack to “a Salem witch trial. They took my views personally. I never even mentioned them and I never even said NYU liberal studies program. I was talking about academia at large.”

 

The same day that letter was published, Rectenwald was summoned to a meeting with his department dean and an HR representative, he says.

 

“They claimed they were worried about me and a couple people had expressed concern about my mental health,” Rectenwald told The Post.

 

The leave has “absolutely zero to do with his Twitter account or his opinions on issues of the day,” said NYU spokesman Matt Nagel, refusing to elaborate on the reason.

 

“I’m afraid my academic career is over,” he said. “Academic freedom: It’s great, as long as you don’t use it.”

Is it any wonder that the liberal elite continues to run amok at our establishments of higher learning…anyone who dares express a non-conforming opinion is promptly found “guilty of illogic and incivility” and declared mentally incompetent. 

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

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Just when it looked like Hillary Clinton was poised to win the 2016 election, the FBI has thrown a gamechanger into the mix. On Friday, FBI Director James Comey announced that his agency has discovered new emails related to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information that they had not previously seen. According to the Associated Press, the newly discovered emails “did not come from her private server”, but instead were found when the FBI started going through electronic devices that belonged to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner.  The FBI has been looking into messages of a sexual nature that Weiner had exchanged with a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina, and that is why they originally seized those electronic devices.  According to the Washington Post, the “emails were found on a computer used jointly by both Weiner and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to a person with knowledge of the inquiry”, and according to some reports there may be “potentially thousands” of emails on the computer that the FBI did not have access to previously.  Even though there are less than two weeks to go until election day, this scandal has the potential to possibly force Clinton out of the race, and if that happens could Barack Obama delay or suspend the election until a replacement candidate can be found?

Let’s take this one step at a time.  On Friday, financial markets tanked when reports of these new Clinton emails hit the wires.  The following comes from CNN…

After recommending earlier this year that the Department of Justice not press charges against the former secretary of state, Comey said in a letter to eight congressional committee chairmen that investigators are examining newly discovered emails that “appear to be pertinent” to the email probe.

 

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation,” Comey wrote the chairmen. “I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

At this point, we do not know what is contained in these emails.  But without a doubt Huma Abedin is Hillary Clinton’s closest confidant, and I have always felt that she was Clinton’s Achilles heel.  Journalist Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) is fully convinced that the FBI would have never made this move unless something significant had already been discovered…

We don’t know what this means yet except that it’s a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that’s where we are…

 

Is it a certainty that we won’t learn before the election? I’m not sure it’s a certainty we won’t learn before the election.

 

One thing is, it’s possible that Hillary Clinton might want to on her own initiative talk to the FBI and find out what she can, and if she chooses to let the American people know what she thinks or knows is going on. People need to hear from her…

If the FBI has indeed found something explosive, would they actually charge her with a crime right before the election?

It is possible, but we also have to remember that government agencies (including the FBI) tend to move very, very slowly.  If there are thousands of emails, it is going to take quite a while to sift through them all.  And of course Barack Obama has lots of ways that he could influence, delay or even shut down the investigation.

So those that are counting on this to be the miracle that Donald Trump needs should not count their chickens before they hatch.

But if Hillary Clinton were to be forced out of the race by this FBI investigation, the Democrats would have to decide on a new candidate, and that would take time.  The following is from a U.S. News & World Report article that examined what would happen if one of the candidates was forced out of the race for some reason…

If Clinton were to fall off the ticket, Democratic National Committee members would gather to vote on a replacement. DNC members acted as superdelegates during this year’s primary and overwhelmingly backed Clinton over boat-rocking socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

 

DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach says there currently are 445 committee members – a number that changes over time and is guided by the group’s bylaws, which give membership to specific officeholders and party leaders and hold 200 spots for selection by states, along with an optional 75 slots DNC members can choose to fill.

 

But the party rules for replacing a presidential nominee merely specify that a majority of members must be present at a special meeting called by the committee chairman. The meeting would follow procedures set by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and proxy voting would not be allowed.

It would be extremely challenging to get a majority of the members of the Democratic National Committee together on such short notice.  If Clinton were to drop out next week, it would be almost impossible for this to happen before election day.

In such a scenario, Barack Obama may attempt to invoke his emergency powers.  Since the election would not be “fair” until the Democrats have a new candidate, he could try to delay or suspend the election.  There would be a lot of controversy as to whether this is legal or not, but Barack Obama has not let the U.S. Constitution stop him in the past.

Meanwhile, new poll numbers show that the Trump campaign was already gaining momentum even before this story about the new emails broke.  According to a brand new ABC News/Washington Post survey, Donald Trump is now only trailing Hillary Clinton by 4 points after trailing her by as much as 12 points last weekend.

And CNBC is reporting on a highly advanced artificial intelligence system that accurately predicted the outcomes of the presidential primaries and which is now indicating that Trump will be the winner in November…

An artificial intelligence system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House.

 

MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, founder of Indian start-up Genic.ai. It takes in 20 million data points from public platforms including Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the U.S. and then analyzes the information to create predictions.

The AI system was created in 2004, so it has been getting smarter all the time. It had already correctly predicted the results of the Democratic and Republican Primaries.

Without Hillary at the top of the ticket, the odds of a Trump victory would go way, way up.

So if Hillary is forced out of the race by this investigation, Barack Obama and the Democrats will want to delay or suspend the election for as long as possible if they can.

At this point there is probably not a high probability that such a scenario will play out, but in this crazy election year we have already seen that just about anything can happen.

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

Seeking to end speculation about whether or not the governor of the BOE would announces an early departure this week, moments ago the BOE issued a statement from Mark Carney, in which the head of the central bank made it clear that he would extend his term until the end of June 2019, putting any speculation about his early resignation to rest.

From the Bank of England

Governor Mark Carney makes announcement on his term
31 October 2016

 

In a letter to the Chancellor, published this evening (Monday 31 October), the Governor said he would extend his term to the end of June 2019.

 

The Governor said:

 

“I would be honoured to extend my time of service as Governor for an additional year to the end of June 2019. By taking my term in office beyond the expected period of the Article 50 process, this should help contribute to securing an orderly transition to the UK’s new relationship with Europe.

 

It is an honour and a privilege to serve in this important role. I deeply appreciate your support, that of the Prime Minister, and that of colleagues at the Bank, and I look forward to continuing to promote the good of the people of the United Kingdom during this crucial time for the country.”

 

In his reply, the Chancellor said:

 

“I am very pleased to hear that you intend to continue as Governor of the Bank of England until the end of June 2019. This will enable you to continue your highly effective leadership of the Bank through a critical period for the British economy as we negotiate our exit from the European Union.”

The BOE also provided link to Carney’s letter to the Chancellor, and the letter back from the Chancellor to the Governor. The former is below:

While cable moved modestly higher in kneejerk reaction to the news, it is now largely unchanged.

via http://ift.tt/2eUz2qi Tyler Durden

Performance Sports Group (PSG), maker of Bauer ice hockey equipment and Easton baseball and softball gear, filed for bankruptcy protection earlier today in Canada and the United States.  Among other things, the company cited “weakening consumer demand,” the liquidation of Sports Authority back in March 2016 as well as the subsequent bankruptcy of an “internet baseball retailer” as key drivers of their financial downturn.  According to the company’s most recent annual filing, 51% of Easton sales were to “big box” retailers.

The performance of the Company’s business in fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2017 to date has been significantly impacted by adverse market and   economic conditions and related customer credit issues. The baseball/softball market experienced a significant downturn in retail sales across all product categories, but particularly in the Company’s important bat category. This weakening of consumer demand, coupled with the Chapter 11 filing by one of the largest U.S. national sporting goods retailers and the bankruptcy of an internet baseball retailer, has reduced the Company’s sales with respect to baseball and softball products.

 

The consolidation of hockey retailers in the U.S., and the bankruptcy of a key U.S. hockey customer, has reduced customer  demand for products as the Company’s customers have continued to reduce their inventory  levels. The Company’s results throughout fiscal 2016 and  fiscal  2017  to  date have  also continued to be impacted negatively by foreign currency exchange rates, specifically, the depreciation of the Canadian dollar and other world currencies relative to the U.S. dollar.

Not surprisingly, PSG’s EBITDA collapsed for the LTM period ended in February 2016 which coincided with the Sports Authority bankruptcy filing in March.

 

As part of the bankruptcy process, PSG has secured a stalking horse bid from Sagard Capital and Fairfax Financial for $575mm which will serve as a baseline bid for a competitive auction process.

In  connection  with  the  Restructuring  Process,  the  Company has entered  into  an  asset  purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with  an acquisition  vehicle  to  be  co-owned  by  an  affiliate  of Sagard  Capital  Partners,  L.P. and Fairfax  Financial  Holdings  Limited (collectively,  the “Purchaser”), pursuant  to  which  the  Purchaser  has  agreed  to  acquire  substantially  all  of  the  assets of  the  Company and  its  North  American subsidiaries for  U.S. $575 million in  aggregate,  assume  related  operating liabilities and serve as a “stalking horse” bidder through the Restructuring Process. The Purchase Agreement sets  the  floor,  or  minimum  acceptable bid,  for  an  auction  under  the  supervision  of  the Courts,  which  is designed  to  achieve  the  highest available or  otherwise  best  offer.  The  proceeds  to  be received on the closing of the acquisition should be in excess of the Company’s outstanding secured indebtedness and are expected to provide meaningful recoveries to the Company’s other stakeholders. A final sale approval hearing is expected to take place  shortly after completion of the auction with the anticipated  closing of  the  successful  bid to  occur in  the  first quarter  of calendar  year 2017,  subject  to receipt  of  applicable  regulatory  approvals  and  the  satisfaction  or  waiver  of  other  customary  closing conditions.

Just another sign of the “strong” consumer benefiting from the Obama “recovery.”

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

With both Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton voicing extreme accusations of violating federal law against FBI Director Comey's decision to be transparent about his investigation into Clinton's emails, it appears President Obama is having none of it. As White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated: "President Obama doesn't think Comey is trying to influence the election."

Senate minority leader Harry Reid claiming Comey may have violated federal law…

“I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act,” Reid wrote in a letter to Comey, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Hatch act prohibits government officials from using their positions to influence an election.

“Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”

 

“When Republicans filibustered your nomination and delayed your confirmation longer than any previous nominee to your position, I led the fight to get you confirmed because I believed you to be a principled public servant,” Reid wrote.

 

“With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong."

But, President Obama has now crushed that narrative:

John Earnest explains:

"President Obama doesn't think Comey tried to influence the election."

 

"Obama still believes Comey has "good character""

 

"Obama has a lot of confidence in AG Loretta Lynch"

Which, roughly translated into images is this…

 

Furthermore, as we noted last night, Harry Reid had suggested that " talked w/ top NatSec officials who say that Comey “possesses explosive information” about Trump’s ties to Russia."

That has also been completely rebuffed as The White House says it "has not been briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation on activities, habts of Donald Trump."

So more lies?!

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