James Ensor The oyster eater 1882
Nobody wants to talk to these people anymore. Because it’s become a circus act.
With most Congressional Democrats still stunned from the anticlimatic publication of Mueller’s “Russiagate” report, which found that Trump did not collude with Russia, many have been desperate to hear Mueller’s side of the story perhaps in hopes that he will unveil some smoking gun in public (something he failed to do in his report) while the others have quietly turned on Mueller, asking why after a two year probe, he failed to put Trump behind bars. And now, after the latest development in the never-ending Russia “witch hunt” to paraphrase the president, it won’t be long before virtually all Democrats are convinced that Mueller himself must also a Putin plant.
According to Bloomberg, which cites three people familiar with the special counsel’s position, Robert Mueller has balked at testifying publicly before Congress, pushing instead for a closed-door appearance in negotiations with House Democrats. Why? Because Mueller, who was the center of a media and political circus for no less than two years has told the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee that – get this – he doesn’t want to be dragged into a political fight and that he’s hesitant to publicly discuss his final report. Among the options Mueller has raised is making a public statement before the committee questions him in private, the people said. But why if he has nothing to hide, and if all the results of his multi-million probe were disclosed in his report?
As a reminder, the NYT and WaPo recently sparked more Russiagate drama, when they reported that Mueller had written AG William Barr to complain that he’s given summaries of the report’s findings that “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his team’s work. A more detailed read of the report also revealed that Mueller did not actually have complaints about Barr’s representation of his lengthy report but was instead bashing the media – such as the NYT and WaPo. As the WaPo reported earlier, Mueller III and House Democrats “have been unable to reach an agreement on how much of the special counsel’s expected congressional testimony would be public, and how much would take place in private, according to people familiar with the matter.”
Impeachment as a simple political tool: not so much because they want to impeach the president, but because it would give them added powers. Shaky.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will convene a meeting Wednesday morning to hear from Democrats on whether to move forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump. Pelosi, a public skeptic of impeachment, is confronting a rising tide of support for it among rank-and-file House Democrats and members of her own leadership team. Democrats are outraged by the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to stymie congressional oversight into the president, his administration, and the findings in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. “She’s hearing the views of the caucus, and listening to different perspectives and we’re having that debate,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who is running for president.
Moulton supports opening an impeachment inquiry based on the argument being made by a number of Democrats that it gives the House a stronger legal hand in securing documents, testimony and cooperation from the Trump administration. “I don’t think there’s any question but there’s a growing realization in the caucus that impeachment is inevitable. It’s not a question of if but when,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., a member of the leadership’s whip team. Yarmuth said the administration’s “blanket resistance” to their oversight efforts is changing the calculation. “I think the speaker is right that these investigations need to go on. I don’t think they should go on interminably,” he said, adding that he expected a decision on impeachment to be made by the end of the summer.
Yarmuth and other top leaders have characterized those pushing for impeachment as a small but growing minority dissatisfied with Pelosi’s focus on traditional committee investigations. The group largely confined their frustrations to closed-door sessions until recently. “I think what is happening is that the initial aim was to investigate and then see what we had. The problem is we can’t get any information. The president is blocking us,” House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said. “I think we’re in a position where we’re moving more and more towards [impeachment] because he’s not leaving us with any choices. You don’t have any choices.” Cummings maintained that moving ahead with impeachment could assist their efforts. “Once you file for impeachment you’re under a whole new different set of rules. And you have a much broader opportunity to get things.”
This should test Pelosi a lot more than the impeachment stuff.
Last week, the Daily Beast ran this headline: “Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists” That was followed by the sub headline: “The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood.” The Gabbard campaign has received 75,000 individual donations. This crazy Beast article is based on (maybe) three of them. The three names are professor Stephen Cohen, activist Sharon Tennison and someone using the name “Goofy Grapes,” who may or may not have once worked for comedian Lee Camp, currently employed by Russia Today. This vicious little article might have died a quiet death, except ABC’s George Stephanopoulos regurgitated it in an interview with Gabbard days later.
The This Week host put up the Beast headline in a question about whether or not Gabbard was “softer” on Putin than other candidates. Gabbard responded: “It’s unfortunate that you’re citing that article, George, because it’s a whole lot of fake news.” This in turn spurred another round of denunciations, this time in the form of articles finding fault not with the McCarthyite questioning, but with Gabbard’s answer. As Politico wrote: “’Fake news’ is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump…” Soon CNN was writing a similar piece, saying Gabbard was using a term Trump used to “attack the credibility of negative coverage.” CNN even said Gabbard “did not specify what in the article was ‘fake,’” as if the deceptive and insidious nature of this kind of guilt-by-association report needs explaining.
“Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I’m not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet,” Gabbard told Rolling Stone. “It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering.”
With the leaked file from an OPCW expert discrediting the Douma report, it’s time to double down: a new false flag casts doubt on last year’s file as well. 2 for the price of 1.
Or you could say: it’s another Syria chemical attack accusation! It must be spring then!
The US State Department has accused the Syrian government of a recent chemical attack and threatened it with a ‘quick and appropriate’ response – while admitting it has little information to substantiate the allegations.
In a statement on Tuesday, Washington alleged that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad is likely to be found responsible for allegedly using chlorine to attack civilians in militant-controlled areas of Idlib province. “We continue to see signs that the Assad regime may be renewing its use of chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack in northwest Syria on the morning of May 19, 2019,” the statement says. Despite the evident uncertainty, the State Department adopted the habitually threatening stance against Damascus.
“We are still gathering information on this incident, but we repeat our warning that if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons, the United States and our allies will respond quickly and appropriately.” The State Department also lashed out at Moscow for its efforts to expose the White Helmets, the self-proclaimed civil defense group that operates exclusively in militant-controlled areas and has been accused of associating with extremists and staging chemical attacks. Having invested heavily in the White Helmets along with other Western nations, Washington accused Moscow and Damascus of trying to “create the false narrative that others are to blame for chemical weapons attacks that the Assad regime itself is conducting.”
Meanwhile, according to the State Department, “the Assad regime’s culpability in horrific chemical weapons attacks is undeniable.” It just so happens that these latest claims come after a newly-surfaced report by an engineer from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that calls into question the March OPCW report accusing Damascus of being behind the Douma chemical incident last April. The new report, which suggested that gas canisters were placed at the scene of the attack by hand, potentially by ‘rebel’ militants active in the area, went virtually unnoticed in the West. Several celebrity activists have called out the mainstream media over their lack of coverage.
Delivering the country to Farage. May will be gone by June.
Theresa May’s “bold offer” to MPs ahead of a final vote on the Brexit deal consisted of a series of platitudes and the restatement of negotiating objectives that have already been rejected, EU officials said in response to the prime minister’s appeal to the Commons. As Conservative MPs who have previously voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement turned on May over the speech, the response in Brussels was one of despair at what was viewed as the emptiness of the prime minister’s proposals. Most significantly, the suggestion that the political declaration could be rewritten to emphasise the ability of the government to achieve something amounting to “frictionless trade” caused concern.
May appeared to suggest that the government’s policy was to seek a customs arrangement that delivers the same benefits as today along with the renewed ability to make independent trade deals. The alternative, May said, was a compromise position with Labour in which the government negotiated a temporary customs union on goods only which would include a UK say in relevant EU trade policy and an ability to change the arrangement following a general election.
‘The UK’s social safety net has been “deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos..”
A leading United Nations poverty expert has compared Conservative welfare policies to the creation of 19th-century workhouses and warned that unless austerity is ended, the UK’s poorest people face lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. In his final report on the impact of austerity on human rights in the UK, Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, accused ministers of being in a state of denial about the impact of policies, including the rollout of universal credit, since 2010. He accused them of the “systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population” and warned that worse could be yet to come for the most vulnerable, who face “a major adverse impact” if Brexit proceeds.
He said leaving the EU was “a tragic distraction from the social and economic policies shaping a Britain that it’s hard to believe any political parties really want”. The New York-based lawyer’s findings, published on Wednesday, follows a two-week fact-finding mission in November after which he angered ministers by calling child poverty in Britain “not just a disgrace but a social calamity and an economic disaster”. Now he has accused them of refusing to debate the issues he raised and instead deploying “window dressing to minimise political fallout” by insisting the country is enjoying record lows in absolute poverty, children in workless households and low unemployment.
Not PCR’s finest.
No one has protested the open and highly visible effort to force Manning to commit perjury that can be used to build a case against Assange or otherwise be imprisoned for “contempt” and fined into penury. The despicable liberal-progressive-left whores that comprise the US print and TV media and NPR will not protest the injustice. They hate Manning and Assange for having more integrity than all of them together. The conservative talk radio hosts won’t protest the attempt to coerce Manning, because they love Trump, Washington’s wars, and hate “anti-Americans,” which is everyone who dares tell the truth about the US. On conservative talk radio on May 17, I heard one popular host say “I am happy Manning is in prison.”
No US senators or representatives and neither the Senate or House judiciary committee sees anything untoward in forcing an American citizen to produce the needed lies for framing up the world’s best journalist. Law schools and bar associations are not demanding the corrupt US attorney to be disbarred for violating every precept laid down by US Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, and Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson. Nor are they demanding the impeachment of the corrupt federal district judge, who perhaps has his eye on appointment to the appeals court for his cooperation in finishing off the First Amendment.
It’s still only that software fix. For a hardware problem. Everybody better have some tough talks with their lawyers. One more fail and you’re going to prison.
They add an alert light for when the two sensors conflict. But that requires a third sensor.
Getting Boeing’s top-selling 737 MAX back in the skies faces a critical test this week as the company and US regulators each seek to restore their reputations after two deadly crashes. The US Federal Aviation Administration convened a summit of global aviation regulators on Thursday to walk through the steps taken to address concerns with the MAX following criticism the agency dragged its feet on the decision to ground the jets. Most agencies around the world have said little or nothing about the situation since the 737 MAX was grounded .. So the gathering in Fort Worth, Texas is expected to provide clues as to whether the aviation safety authorities will be willing to set aside any skepticism about the FAA, which has not yet given the green light for the 737 MAX to fly again.
Regulators “are going to want a lot of explanation,” said Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. “We’re going to learn a lot.” The FAA would prefer to have other agencies quickly follow its lead — which previously would have been likely — but several aviation experts think that is improbable. Europe and Canada could follow the US by weeks in allowing the MAX jets to return to the skies. China is a wildcard. It was the first country to order the planes grounded in March, and has been sparring with the US for months over trade policy. The FAA said 57 agencies from 33 countries will attend the summit, including China, France, Germany, Britain, India, Indonesia and Ethiopia, as well as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the United Nation’s International Civil Aviation Organization.
Nice one for the trade war.
China’s three biggest airlines have requested compensation from U.S. planemaker Boeing Co for losses incurred by the grounding and delayed deliveries of 737 MAX jets, as regulators gather to discuss design changes for the troubled aircraft. Chinese state television on Wednesday reported that Air China and China Southern Airlines have added their voices to a request from China Eastern Airlines Corp Ltd a day earlier. China was the first country to ground the 737 MAX globally after a crash in Ethiopia killed 157 people in March, in the second such incident for Boeing’s newest aircraft.
The compensation requests come as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration hosts global regulators in Dallas on Thursday to review 737 MAX software and training proposals from Boeing before deciding whether and when to end the two-month grounding. The International Air Transport Association has convened a meeting of airlines with grounded 737 MAX jets for the same day in Montreal. Other carriers including Turkish Airlines, United Airlines, Ryanair and Flydubai have also asked Boeing for compensation.
From $205 now.
Tesla Inc. shares slid further on Tuesday after analysts at Morgan Stanley said their worst-case scenario for the stock is $10, mostly on concerns about faltering demand and worries that the Silicon Valley car maker might have grown “too big.” Analysts led by Adam Jonas kept their rating on Tesla stock their equivalent of neutral. The $10 “bear case” was revised from $97, and the analysts’ “bull case” is $391. Tesla shares ended 0.1% lower at $205.08 on Tuesday after trading as low as $196.04 during the session. The stock has been caught in a technical downdraft and a fresh volley of Wall Street criticism amid the company’s attempts to curb expenses and keep growing.
Tesla bonds went the way of the shares, and the 2025 bonds recently traded at 82.919 cents on the dollar to yield 8.932%, according to trading platform MarketAxess. On a spread basis, the notes were 676 basis points over Treasurys, 35 basis points wider on the day.
But nobody’s to blame except the Greeks.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has admitted “notable failures” in the first Greek bailout including a deeper-than-expected recession, a run on the country’s banking system and exceptionally high unemployment. The IMF’s Review of Program Design and Conditionality provides a deep look into the design of 133 IMF-supported lending programs in operation between September 2011 and December 2017. The IMF research paper said the multi-billion rescue package for Greece failed to restore market confidence, that the fiscal adjustment proramme had notable failures, wrong projections and overlook. It also admitted that delays in debt restructuring saved the foreign banks but it was of little help for Greece. The PSI of March 2012 did not help either.
The review also identified several factors that potentially inhibited programs from fully reaching their objectives. Overoptimistic economic forecasts reduced a program’s chances of success; accordingly, the review recommends using a more conservative approach to economic forecasts and providing deeper analyses of the impact that policies under the program could have on economic growth. More extensive contingency planning should also be included when designing programs. Public debt is a case in point. Debt sustainability improved in most cases where debt vulnerabilities started out high. In some programs, however, debt exceeded the Fund’s initial projection by considerable margins. Fund policies are already in place to deal with unsustainable debt in Fund-supported programs.
While any debt restructuring needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, more careful diagnosis is essential—this means sharper tools for the IMF’s debt sustainability analysis are needed to reduce any bias in judgement when assessing debt. The review finds many programs applied fiscal adjustments that were less growth-friendly than initially envisaged. Fiscal adjustment tended to be achieved by cutting public investment, possibly curtailing future growth, rather than by lowering current spending or raising revenue. To be a more useful guide for the government’s fiscal policy, an IMF program could set more granular targets, like a floor for critical public investments.
This is “get rich while you save the planet” idiocy. Don’t fall for it.
The Netherlands became on Tuesday the first AAA-rated sovereign to offer investors a green bond, saying it would give preference to funds that prove their own environmentally friendly credentials. The government said it aimed to raise up to 6 billion euros ($6.7 billion) from the issue, although bankers said order books on the 20-year euro-denominated bond had climbed past 20 billion euros. The Netherlands follows euro zone peers Poland, France, Belgium and Ireland which have all sold green bonds. The initial price guidance was put in a range of 18 to 21 basis points (bps) over a benchmark German bond. The spread was finally set at 18 bps over, banking sources told Reuters.
The bond was offered at an auction in which there was no underwriting role for primary dealers and client bids were placed directly with the Dutch debt agency. Other euro zone sovereigns have issued green bonds via syndication. Investors and bankers said it was the first time they had seen the issuer, in this case the Dutch debt agency DTSA, explicitly prioritizing investors with green credentials and offering them a more favorable allocation. “That’s an interesting step,” said Ross Hutchison, a bond fund manager, at Aberdeen Standard Investments in Edinburgh. Investors who proved their green credentials will be given an additional allocation of up to 10%, which a banker said meant that a green investor placing an order for 50 million euros could expect to be allocated up to 55 million euros.