intel Archives - The Automatic Earth

Best-seller author and scientist Gregg Braden: "Climate change is a fact… It's also a fact that humans are not causing it."

"Is there more CO₂ in the atmosphere now than there was 10 years, 20, 50, 100 years ago? The answer is absolutely yes. Is it a bad thing?
The answer is… pic.twitter.com/nRVCcmqaRK

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) August 23, 2025

Espionage is a few grades up from classified files in a closet.

• John Bolton Under Investigation for Violations of the Espionage Act (CTH)

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton is a well-documented neocon, who operates inside the business model of selling U.S. foreign policy influence for personal gain. His activity mirrors that of former Senator John McCain in many regards. John Bolton sold his access, contacts and ability to influence policy to the highest bidder. In DC parlance they call that a “consultant.” When the consulting is contracted for a specific national interest, the title shifts to “lobbyist.” That was his job, and all of Washington DC knows it. Washington DC operates on this business model; the entire system will be soft to criticize Bolton and many will likely defend him. The FBI raid on his residence and office has led to a considerable amount of speculation.

However, as some background details start to come out, it appears CIA Director John Ratcliffe provided FBI Director Kash Patel with specifics on the international travels and efforts of Bolton. That CIA referral has led to an FBI investigation under the auspices of potential violations of the espionage act, where Bolton would have leveraged current or prior classified intelligence information as part of his influence business. Almost identically to former Senator John McCain, John Bolton was well known to intersect with the nation of Qatar as part of his operation. Qatar has deep pockets and a long-identified influence operation throughout the middle east, sometimes playing both sides. Qatar is also the playground for the CIA. While it is yet unknown which nation and which activity Bolton was likely engaged in, the highest probability centers around the deepest pockets, which would also put Bolton on the CIA radar. With President Trump in the White House, there is a big market for the services of people like John Bolton who operate a specific militaristic mindset against the Trump administration.

NEW YORK TIMES – “The information that provided the basis for the warrant to search John Bolton’s home on Friday was based on intelligence collected overseas by the C.I.A., according to people who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation. John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, provided Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, with limited access to the intelligence. It involved the mishandling of classified material by Mr. Bolton, the people said. The search of the home and office of Mr. Bolton, who was national security adviser during President Trump’s first term, was a major escalation of a long-running inquiry into whether he collected or leaked sensitive national security information, law enforcement officials said. The nature of the intelligence collected overseas is not known. The F.B.I. obtained the search warrant after presenting evidence to a federal judge. Mr. Bolton’s office declined to comment. The C.I.A. and F.B.I. regularly cooperate on counterterrorism investigations. It is unusual for the C.I.A. to so prominently provide information for a high-profile investigation of a former U.S. official.”

Also from The New York Times: “[…] The investigation into Mr. Bolton seeks to determine whether he illegally shared or possessed classified information, according to people familiar with the case who requested anonymity to describe details of a continuing investigation. The key criminal statute involved in those potential crimes is part of the Espionage Act. Another potential criminal statute in the investigation is one that bars the unauthorized removal of classified documents or material. The information that provided the basis for the warrant to search Mr. Bolton’s home was based on intelligence collected overseas by the C.I.A., according to people briefed on the matter. John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, provided limited access to the intelligence to Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director. The intelligence involved the possible mishandling of classified material by Mr. Bolton, the people said.”

• Did John Bolton have access to classified information about national security policy, yes.
• Would John Bolton leverage that knowledge for personal material gain, again yes.
• Did Bolton operate in the same industry as almost all DC influence agents, yup.
• Does this investigation of Bolton create an increased sense of anxiety amid all those who operate on the same system, oh heck yes.
• What does the investigation of Bolton mean to the larger network of corrupt influence peddling in DC, we don’t know yet.

“…a Putin-Zelensky summit may still happen. Not because it will resolve the war, but because it serves the broader game of diplomacy. The real audience is not Zelensky at all. It is Trump…”

• Why Would Putin Want To Meet With Zelensky? (Ryumshin)

There were no surprises in the latest round of Ukraine diplomacy. After his much-publicised meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, US President Donald Trump followed up with talks in Washington with Vladimir Zelensky and his European backers. The result was predictable: the peace process derailed once again. The conditions set out by Russia in Anchorage are already forgotten. Instead, the West is now obsessing over the prospect of a direct Putin-Zelensky encounter. The Americans have already mapped out not one but two meetings: a bilateral summit between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, and a trilateral session that would include Trump. According to reports, Hungary has been floated as the preferred venue. Western media even claim that Putin himself requested a meeting with Zelensky, supposedly in Moscow. The Trump administration insists that Russia has agreed to everything.

A game for Trump’s benefit
Yet the Kremlin remains silent, issuing only vague references to “raising the level of delegations.” This studied ambiguity recalls the build-up to the Putin-Trump summit and suggests that the idea cannot be dismissed outright. The truth is simple: such a meeting is not required by “objective realities” or common sense. It is dictated instead by the dynamics of a process that has turned into a performance designed to hold Trump’s attention.n Putin’s meeting with Trump on 15 August was not about reaching a breakthrough. It was a political gesture to demonstrate Russia’s openness and to shift responsibility onto Ukraine and the European Union. The West is now trying to turn the same tactic against Moscow: framing Russia as the obstacle to peace and forcing Putin into a face-to-face encounter with Zelensky.

Kiev and Western European capitals are pushing Russia to accept “security guarantees” for Ukraine, something Moscow has been proposing since 2022. But the way these guarantees are now being drafted makes them deliberately unacceptable for Russia. EU leaks suggest demands that amount to little more than NATO membership in disguise: permanent Western troops on Ukrainian soil, binding guarantees from the alliance, and no recognition of territorial realities. The Kremlin cannot simply reject such proposals outright. Doing so would allow Trump to walk away from the process and pin the blame on Moscow. For that reason, Russia may ultimately have to go through the motions of agreeing to a summit. What would such a meeting achieve? Little of substance. Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on every meaningful issue. Moscow hopes its military superiority will translate into concessions, but Kiev shows no willingness to compromise.

Ukraine refuses to recognise territorial changes, rejects the idea of troop reductions or exchanges, and continues to demand reparations. Even the tentative agreement to keep NATO membership off the table has been undermined by Zelensky’s insistence on NATO-style guarantees. The only factors that might soften Ukraine’s stance – the collapse of its front lines, a breakdown of EU support, or the United States walking away from the conflict – are nowhere in sight. As long as Zelensky stays unyielding, any summit would have the same outcome as the earlier Medinsky-Umerov talks: limited progress on humanitarian issues, no peace deal. Yet the point of such a meeting is not to make peace with Zelensky. It is to keep Trump engaged and maintain strategic uncertainty. For that reason alone, Moscow has good reason to appear open to the idea of a summit.

If the Kremlin does agree, the key will be to control the format. Ideally, the talks should be trilateral, with Trump at the table. This would prevent Kiev from spinning the outcome as a diplomatic victory and would ensure that Washington remains responsible for the process. The choice of venue is also critical. Hungary, with its friendlier stance toward Moscow, would be an acceptable host. Predictably, Ukraine and the Western Europeans will resist such a move. But Zelensky’s preferences are ultimately secondary. If Trump can be persuaded to attend, the Ukrainian president will have little choice but to follow. In this sense, the goal is not to negotiate with Zelensky but to shape the atmosphere around him. A carefully staged summit could place pressure on the Ukrainian leader, making him appear weak and pushing him toward concessions he might otherwise resist. His visit to Washington earlier this year already showed how vulnerable he is to Trump’s personal style and political leverage.

None of this should be confused with a real peace process. Russia does not expect to sign a final settlement with Zelensky, nor is Ukraine prepared to compromise. But appearances matter. By showing openness, Moscow avoids being cast as the spoiler while placing the burden of intransigence on Kiev. That is why, paradoxically, a Putin-Zelensky summit may still happen. Not because it will resolve the war, but because it serves the broader game of diplomacy. The real audience is not Zelensky at all. It is Trump.

“Moscow should be ‘coaxed’ into peace talks with Ukraine, whereas Kiev can be ‘pressured’ due to its dependence on Western aid…”

• Trump Wants To ‘Coax’ Russia But ‘Pressure’ Ukraine Into Talks – Politico (RT)

US President Donald Trump believes Moscow should be ‘coaxed’ into peace talks with Ukraine, whereas Kiev can be ‘pressured’ due to its dependence on Western aid, Politico reported on Friday, citing sources. The sources claimed that Trump sees Russia as holding “the upper hand” in the conflict. The report follows speculation over a potential summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. The idea emerged after Trump met Putin in Alaska – their first face-to-face encounter since 2019 – then held talks with Zelensky and EU leaders. Trump later said he had “begun the arrangements” for a meeting between Putin and Zelensky, which he believes could accelerate peace efforts. He described his talks with Putin as “very productive,” but said Zelensky “has to show some flexibility” ahead of any summit.

“[Trump] has long believed that Russia has the upper hand in the war itself and needs to be coaxed into peace talks,” one former US official told Politico. “Ukraine, on the other hand, relies heavily on the US for weapons and intelligence. So there are more pressure points to get them to accept a deal.” Putin has not ruled out meeting Zelensky but insists it must follow real progress in negotiations. Moscow has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, pointing to the fact that his presidential term has expired. Zelensky claimed this week he was ready to meet, but only in a “neutral” part of Europe and with the participation of his EU backers.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told NBC on Friday that Moscow had agreed to “show flexibility” on several issues that Trump raised during the Alaska summit. However, he said Zelensky “said no to everything” that Trump later proposed to him, including neutrality for Ukraine and territorial concessions. “Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky when the agenda would be ready for a summit,” Lavrov reiterated. “But as things stand, there is no meeting planned.” Sources told Politico that while some officials worry the Russia-Ukraine talks are stuck in a “grind,” the US president remains optimistic. Trump said on Friday that he will announce a “very important decision” on Ukraine within two weeks, the nature of which will depend on how the positions of Moscow and Kiev shape up.

“For the first time President Trump indicates he’s willing to take a full retreat position from the effort…”

• “Or Do We Do Nothing, and Say It’s Your Fight” (CTH)

A very interesting response from President Trump against the U.S. President stepping back and awaiting Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin to organize their teams and schedule a bilateral discussion. President Trump has said he expects the diplomatic teams of Zelenskyy and Putin to coordinate a face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy in the next two weeks. As noted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, sometimes it just takes putting the principals into the same room to break the logjam. However, both regimes have entrenched ideologues who are positioning for maximum leverage. President Trump is asked what he will do if Zelenskyy and Putin cannot or do not organize a meeting.

For the first time President Trump indicates he’s willing to take a full retreat position from the effort, “or do we do nothing, and say it’s your fight.” Doing nothing seems to indicate the U.S. withdraws all support and lets them fight to the point of defeat or surrender. Doing nothing is actually doing something quite remarkable. In the background of all of this, DNI Tulsi Gabbard has issued a directive telling all of the intelligence agencies all information regarding the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations is not to be shared with U.S.-allied intelligence partners. […] “The memo, dated July 20 and signed by Gabbard, directed agencies to not share information with the so-called Five Eyes, the post-World War II intelligence alliance comprising the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, multiple U.S. intelligence officials told CBS News.”

Still…reports of many drone attacks inside Russia this morning.

• Pentagon Has Restricted Ukraine From Striking Russian Territory – WSJ (RT)

The Pentagon has blocked Ukraine from striking deep inside Russia with American-supplied missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday, citing US officials. According to the paper, the Department of Defense has been preventing Kiev from firing long-range ATACMS missiles since late spring. On at least one occasion, Washington reportedly turned down a Ukrainian request to hit a target on Russia’s internationally recognized territory. The WSJ linked the policy shift to President Donald Trump’s effort to “entice” Moscow during peace talks. Last week, Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time since 2019 in Alaska, and several days later held talks with the leaders of Ukraine, NATO, the EU, and several European states in Washington.

Although Trump urged Moscow and Kiev to reach a peace deal as soon as possible, he said on Thursday that Ukraine has “no chance of winning” without striking Russia. Trump has also criticized the previous administration for providing unconditional military aid to Ukraine and in February accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of “gambling with World War III.” Russia has warned that by supplying Ukraine with weapons, Western countries are de facto directly participating in the conflict. Moscow has listed an end to foreign military aid as one of its conditions for a lasting ceasefire.

“The agreement commits both countries to defend each other’s sovereignty with all available means.”

• Ukraine Issues Military Warning To Belarus (RT)

Ukraine has told Minsk to stay away from its borders during upcoming joint military exercises with Russia to be held in Belarus. The warning came ahead of the ‘Zapad-2025’ military drill, scheduled for September 12–16. Belarus allowed Russian forces to use its territory when the conflict with Ukraine escalated in February 2022. Since then, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has repeatedly said that Minsk has no intention of attacking Kiev and will only resort to military action if his country is attacked In a statement on Friday, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry accused Belarus of aiding Moscow and issued a caution.

“We warn Minsk against reckless provocations and urge it to remain prudent, refrain from approaching the borders, and avoid provoking Ukraine’s Defense Forces,” Kiev’s Foreign Ministry has said. This year’s military exercises, which include counter-sabotage operations, drone warfare, electronic interference scenarios, and assaults, will also feature the Russian Oreshnik intermediate-range hypersonic missile, according to Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin. First battle-tested in November 2024 in a strike on Ukraine’s Yuzhmash facility in Dnepr, Russian officials have compared its conventional destructive power to that of a low-yield nuclear strike.

“This is an important element for our strategic deterrence – as the head of state demands, we must be prepared for anything,” Khrenin told the state news agency Belta. He warned that NATO is using Zapad-2025 as a pretext for its own drills, citing Poland’s deployment of 30,000 troops near Belarus as the main concern. Belarus, a close ally of Russia, signed a bilateral security treaty with Moscow in December 2024. The agreement commits both countries to defend each other’s sovereignty with all available means. In 2023, Russia deployed tactical nuclear weapons and short-range ballistic missiles on Belarusian territory, citing tensions with the West. Lukashenko has also called for the accelerated delivery of Oreshnik systems, which could be stationed in Belarus before the end of 2025.

“..the future borders between a re-weaponized Europe and a Russia that will inevitably inflict on it a massive strategic defeat.”

• : Even After Trump Humiliation, Europe Insists That Peace Is War (Escobar)

It took just one pic to imprint on posterity the utter humiliation of the EUrotrash political elites in Year 2025: the Coalition of the Twats, in the Oval Office, lining up like a bunch of frightened schoolkids, severely reprimanded by His Master’s Voice – the Headmaster cum Circus Ringmaster. That was also neatly described as Trump breaks Europe over his knee. Of course, President Putin had already predicted it, over six months before the fact: “I assure you, Trump, with his character and persistence, will restore order quite quickly. And all of them, you’ll see, soon all of them will stand at the master’s feet and gently wag their tails.” The White House humiliation sealed the deal, and reconfirmed an obsession: for the EUrotrash “leadership”, at all levels when it comes to relations with Russia, Peace is War.

Brandishing their warped logic, they cannot possibly understand that if Ukraine is instrumentalized – actually since before Maidan in 2014 – to harass and destabilize Russia in its western borders, Russia will forcefully counter-attack. That’s at the heart of the Russian concept of “underlying causes” of the Ukraine tragedy, which must be thoroughly addressed if there is any real shot at Trumpian or not Trumpian “peace”. In the Big Picture, that translates as the Empire of Chaos and Russia sitting down to set up a new “indivisibility of security” arrangement – just like Moscow proposed in December 2021: then, it was met by a non-response response. EUrotrash Inc.’s new delirium is to attribute to itself the design of the future borders between a re-weaponized Europe and a Russia that will inevitably inflict on it a massive strategic defeat.

It’s a very long shot to imagine that Trump is capable, by himself, of imposing a new strategic reality on the warmongering yet penniless Coalition of the Twats. Whatever happens to rump Ukraine, Trump, based on his own twist and turn vociferations, actually wants Europe to “contain” Russia from now on, using an arsenal of ridiculous expensive American weapons. So what changes is the character of this particular chapter of the Forever Wars: it will be fought by the Coalition of the Twats, and not by Americans. In the short term, that also unveils the only strategy available for the EUrotrash/Kiev combo: outlast Trump until the 2026 mid-terms, destroy the remainder of his presidency, and be secure with the return of the mega-Russophobe gang in 2028.

Which Dead Hand will prevail?
An old school Deep State hand, who had privileged access to all Cold War era honchos, sums up the pitfalls ahead for Russia: “Russia is taking too long to neutralize Ukraine, allowing time for NATO to reignite diversions. While the snail offensive in Ukraine does save lives, NATO seeks to weaken Russia’s strategic position in the Balkans and elsewhere that can cost far more lives in the future. If the Slavs in the Balkans are crushed that can strategically weaken Russia’s overall position, and that is far more costly than a major lightning offensive a la Stalin in Russian Ukraine. Russia must finish this war now and turn to its southern problems in the Balkans and the intrigues in Baku.”

Trump of course is oblivious to these Big Picture niceties. At best he admits, to Fox News, that “Ukraine will not regain Crimea” and “Ukraine will not join NATO.” But he does not seem to mind that “France, Germany and the UK want to deploy troops in Ukraine” as part of the new kabuki: “security guarantees”. That is an inter-galactic red line for Moscow. In parallel, it’s wishful thinking to believe that Putin is now finally ready to negotiate “peace”. This is not about peace; it’s always about coming up with incontrovertible facts on the battle field, because Moscow knows this war will only be won in the battle field.

Russian forces have reached the final Ukraine defensive line in Donbass: Slavyansk-Kramatorsk. And is fast encircling key strongholds near Pokrovsk and Konstantinovka. Talk about a strategic/psychological turning point. From there, the – steppe – sky is the limit. Compound it with the combined hacking of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – which revealed that Kiev’s losses, in terms of dead and missing, amount to a staggering 1.7 million. All of the above means that we are fast approaching the fateful moment when the victor dictates the full terms of the enemy’s capitulation. No need to march to Bankova in Kiev and plant the Russian flag.

“..the changes in tariffs will reduce total deficits by $4.0 trillion altogether.”

• The CBO Just Dropped a $4 Trillion Truth Bomb (Margolis)

Ever since Trump’s first term, the political and media establishment told us that his trade policies were reckless, destructive, and doomed to wreck the U.S. economy. Every so-called expert on cable TV preached that they would crush American consumers, tank the stock market, and send our economy into a spiral. We’re still waiting for that to happen. Here we are in Aug. 2025, and the Congressional Budget Office just dropped a bombshell that completely shatters the left’s narrative against Trump’s tariff strategy.

“As of August 19, we estimate that the effective tariff rate for goods imported into the United States has increased by about 18 percentage points when measured against 2024 trade flows. We project that increases in tariffs implemented during the period from January 6, 2025, to August 19 will decrease primary deficits (which exclude net outlays for interest) by $3.3 trillion if the higher tariffs persist for the 2025-2035 period. By reducing the need for federal borrowing, those tariff collections will also reduce federal outlays for interest by an additional $0.7 trillion. As a result, the changes in tariffs will reduce total deficits by $4.0 trillion altogether.” That’s no rounding error. The numbers are simply eye-popping, and they tell the story that the media doesn’t want you to know.

Let’s put that in perspective. Back in June, the CBO had already stunned critics by predicting Trump’s tariffs would shrink the deficit by $3 trillion. That was based only on trade actions taken through May 13. Trump, naturally, celebrated the news on Truth Social. “I am pleased to announce that the Radical Left Representatives working at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have now admitted how incredible my Tariff strategy has been, saying that, ‘Trump’s Tariffs reduce the deficit by $4 Trillion Dollars,’” he wrote. “When I began my Tariff policy suggestions, they refused to acknowledge the potential SUCCESS that would be derived. Deficits are DOWN, Taxes are DOWN, Energy is DOWN, Prices generally are DOWN, the only things that are UP are, Take Home Pay, the Stock Market, and our Country, which is the ‘HOTTEST’ anywhere in the World. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Of course, the CBO is cautious to note its projections assume these trade policies remain in place indefinitely. It also didn’t factor in several adjustments announced just this past week: new EU tariff arrangements on August 21, a 25% tariff hike on imports from India starting Aug. 27, and the suspension of duty-free shipments under $800 coming Aug. 29. In other words, the real revenue picture could easily turn out even stronger than the current forecast. Here’s the bigger point no one in the mainstream press will admit: tariffs, when wielded strategically, can be a double win. They level the playing field for American producers, whom foreign governments have undercut for decades by gaming the system, and they generate revenue that actually reduces the insane borrowing spree Washington politicians tried to normalize.

“If that recap sounds bad for Canada, trust me – it’s way worse. Really bad, horrible – terrible even. So far beyond bad, the light from where horrible starts could not reach the Canadian terrible place for a year. Not good.”

• Canada Announces End to All Retaliatory Tariffs – Trump Gives Nothing (CTH)

The Canadian govt led by Prime Minister Mark Carney has completely capitulated to the power and influence of President Trump. While explaining how the United States has fundamentally changed the entire landscape of global trade, the leader of the Snow Mexicans announces he is dropping all countervailing and retaliatory tariffs against the USA and getting nothing in return. Total and complete surrender by Canada; there is ZERO upside for Canada – NADA, Zippo, Zilch. Prime Minister Mark Carney made the announcement, then faced the ire of the assembled media who were furious about the details within the statement. The Canadian people had been promised an “elbows up” fight to the end. Instead, today they got down on their knees and begged Trump to retain the USMCA.

Complete and utter capitulation by Canada. No digital services taxes. No countervailing duty tariffs. No reciprocity tariffs on Steel and Aluminum. No retaliatory tariffs (reciprocal/baseline). Meanwhile, the USA keeps 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum against Canada, and Canada only gets 25% tariffs against U.S. steel/aluminum. In addition, Canada has pledged to continue gaslighting their citizens, while wasting time, effort and resources on a hope to retain the USMCA, while refusing to admit to themselves that President Trump intends to dissolve it. If that recap sounds bad for Canada, trust me – it’s way worse. Really bad, horrible – terrible even. So far beyond bad, the light from where horrible starts could not reach the Canadian terrible place for a year. Not good.

“Plainly, her ultimate goal was not ‘market hygiene’ . . . but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career and the destruction of his real estate business.”

• The One That Got Away: Letitia James and the Perils of Trophy Fishing (Turley)

New York Attorney General Letitia James is going to need a bigger fish or a smaller trophy wall. For months, James has paraded her victory over President Donald Trump in her civil judgment of half a trillion dollars. It did not matter that many of us denounced the judgment as grotesque and raw lawfare. Now, however, the appellate court has replaced that mounted Marlin with a mere minnow. It threw out the financial penalty as unconstitutional and unwarranted. Even that downsized catch may have to be pulled down, since Trump can appeal the decision to leave the injunctive relief — including limits on doing business in New York — in place. The problem is that this over-stuffed guppy has cost the people of New York tens of millions of dollars in staff, security and other costs.

It was all just the cost of doing business with James, who ran on the pledge to bag Trump on something — anything! — if elected. For James, it was worth it. For her base, the case was never about the merits or the law. James offered lawfare against political opponents, and New York Democrats elected her with a gleeful malice. They were thrilled as James suggested that she was going to seize Trump buildings after the judgment and sought a massive bond. Notably, even the judges who sided with James on her ability to bring this case were critical of her ethics or judgment in running on bagging an individual on unnamed crimes or civil actions. They simply chose not to do anything about it. It was Judge David Friedman, who, on the appeal, offered an unblinking account of how James abused the legal system.

“Plainly, her ultimate goal was not ‘market hygiene’ . . . but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career and the destruction of his real estate business. The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.” The five appeals court judges fractured on the rationale for their opinions. Two of the judges — Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton — correctly found that “the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” The rest of the judges found other reasons to negate the damages while preserving the fraud judgment.

In the end, James could not get a single vote on appeal to support Judge Arthur Engoron’s ridiculous fine. Engoron, like James, will continue to enjoy the status of a folk hero in New York. But he will go down in history as a judge who yielded to the demands of the mob rather than the law. Yet nothing will change. With the exception of Judge Friedman, the mild rebukes of the appellate court of James show how Trump remains persona non grata, a disfavored figure who is entitled to no consideration, let alone sympathy, in New York. The most courage that Judge Moulton could summon was to say, “One can reasonably question whether a candidate running for the top law enforcement position in statewide government should make such pointed statements.” I suppose one could also reasonably question whether a judge faced with blatant, open targeting of a political opponent should do more than a judicial shrug.

“..the president ensures laws are enforced, but he doesn’t personally enforce them..”

• The Media Flips Out Over Trump Claim—But Once Again, He Was Right (Margolis)

FBI agents raided the Maryland home of President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Friday, as part of a “high-profile national security probe” involving classified documents. Ironically, the same people who cheered Joe Biden for weaponizing the Justice Department against Trump are claiming that the raid on Bolton’s home was politically motivated. Trump, for his part, denied having advance knowledge of the raid, stressing that while he has the authority to direct such actions, he prefers to stay out of them. “I don’t want — I tell [Attorney General Pam Bondi], and I tell the group, I don’t want to know,” he said. “You have to do what you have to do. I don’t want to know about it. It’s not necessary. I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer — but I feel that it’s better this way.”

And the media, being the media, absolutely flipped out about that last statement where Trump claimed he’s the chief law enforcement officer. “President Donald Trump has bizarrely claimed he is the chief law enforcement officer of America while insisting he knew nothing about the FBI raid on John Bolton’s home,” opined The Daily Beast. “The comment was contentious not only because the Justice Department has traditionally operated at arm’s length from the White House, but because its own guidelines state that the U.S. Attorney General is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.” And, of course, CNN also jumped in. On Friday’s edition of “The Situation Room,” CNN’s Crime and Justice Correspondent Katelyn Polantz was also triggered by Trump’s claim.

“What Trump said that really jumped out at me is that he said that he hasn’t been briefed by the Justice Department yet, he expects that later in the day, but he said, ‘I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer.’ But then he said he’s telling the attorney general, Pam Bondi, ‘you have to do what you have to do.’ And right now, he doesn’t know anything. I looked, the Justice Department on its own website says the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government, not the president.” According to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”

In other words, the president ensures laws are enforced, but he doesn’t personally enforce them. That responsibility falls to subordinates like agency heads and the Department of Justice. That’s why, under the Constitution, it’s entirely fair to describe the president as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. It may not be a formal job title, but it is a functional reality. The bottom line is simple: Trump is right, and the media has once again made fools of themselves by putting attacks on Trump ahead of the facts. They twist themselves into knots over semantics just to attack Trump, even when the Constitution clearly spells out his authority.

“In other words, a full lube job.”

• Trump’s Smithsonian Review Is Long Overdue (Mike Gonzalez)

The White House last week informed Lonnie Bunch, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, that it’s putting the museums under review—in other words, adult supervision. The news came in a letter that amounted to a major front in the Trump administration’s war to retake the culture. As I wrote in an X post quoted by The New York Times, “Given the Smithsonian’s behavior in the past few years—how it cataloged everything woke, how it gave the communist leader Angela Davis plenty of space, but not Justice Clarence Thomas, how it portrayed America in a poor light—this White House review is not a minute too soon.” The letter announcing the “comprehensive review” came from three top individuals engaged in this cultural Reconquista: Lindsey Halligan, the president’s special assistant; Vince Haley, director of the Domestic Policy Council; and Russ Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Times called it a “more direct shot across the bow” than an audit announced in June, which the Smithsonian Board asked Bunch to conduct. This time, it will be the administration itself that will take action. Of course, the forces that have spent the past two or three decades capturing the cultural institutions wasted no time in screeching at the very notion that the administration would conduct a thorough review of the institution’s museums. “Only historians and trained museum professionals are qualified to conduct such a review, which is intended to ensure historical accuracy,” Sarah Weicksel, the executive director of the American Historical Association, fumed to the Times. “To suggest otherwise is an affront to the professional integrity of curators, historians, educators, and everyone involved in the creation of solid, evidence-based content.”

What a laughable assertion. There probably isn’t a single conservative among these “curators, historians, educators, and everyone involved.” Somebody should inform Weicksel that the administration is liberating the culture from the curators, directors, historians, and everyone else involved in the arts management profession at this point. In 2016, when Donald Trump first ran for office and the country was actually less polarized, Verdant Labs conducted a study based on campaign contribution data from the Federal Election Commission. It is contained in an interactive graph which breaks down the political affiliation of these professionals:

Museum Directors: 89 Democrats for every 11 Republicans
Museum Curators: 94 Democrats for every 6 Republicans
Art Conservators: 100% Democrats
Art Historians: 96 Democrats for every four Republicans
Art Administrators: 96 Democrats for every four Republicans
Art Advisors: 91 Democrats for every nine Republicans
Archaeologists: 94 Democrats for every six Republicans
Historians: 88 Democrats for every 12 Republicans

This is what complete ideological capture by the Left looks like. Harvard did not get a professoriat that is nearly 80% “liberal” or “very liberal,” and less than 3% “conservative” or “very conservative” among its Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty out of nothing. Obviously, the Left burrows in and hires only among its own kind. As Elizabeth Merritt wrote in a blog for the American Alliance of Museums days after Trump was elected in 2016, “We don’t necessarily create a very friendly work environment for people who don’t share a liberal, Democratic world view.” This is how ideological capture is achieved.

The numbers are not this lopsided because only progressives are smart or interested in the visual arts, literature, music, philosophy, theater, or any of the other components that roughly go under the heading of “culture” (though, yes, this is what the Left thinks). Hillsdale College, the nation’s top conservative institution of higher education, cares deeply about these arts. Recently, it considered whether to open a Museum Studies program, but decided against it out of concern that its students may not get positions at museums because leftist administrators would not hire conservatives. As to why ideological conformity is sought, the woke curators, directors, and conservators seek to use museums to disseminate their gender and race theories. As curator and former Director Olga Viso wrote in The New York Times in 2018, “Now is the time to be open to radical change. The next wave of decolonizing America’s art museums must succeed.”

The three Trump officials told Bunch that the administration wants to “assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals.” The review will focus on:
• Public-facing Content: A review of exhibition text, wall didactics, websites, educational materials, and digital and social media content.
• Curatorial Process: A series of interviews with curators and senior staff to better understand the selection process.
• Exhibition Planning: A review of current and future exhibitions, with particular attention to those planned for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
• Collection Use: Evaluation of how existing materials and collections are being used or could be used to highlight American achievement and progress.
• Narrative Standards: The development of consistent curatorial guidelines.

Accordingly, the administration wants the Smithsonian to cough up the following materials: exhibition plans and draft concepts on the 250th Anniversary Programming; catalog and programs on current exhibition content; full index of scheduled traveling exhibitions; curatorial materials; indexes of all permanent collections; teacher guidance for educational materials; copies of grants, and more. In other words, a full lube job. I still don’t believe that what is needed can be accomplished with Bunch at the helm—and there is the matter of the Smithsonian’s as yet unbuilt Latino Museum, which the administration wants to defund, but weak Republican appropriators in the House of Representatives just voted to continue to fund—but this review does indeed come not a minute too soon.

“While the Clinton probes were throttled, the FBI raced to open a full investigation into Trump’s campaign on the flimsiest of tips — a conversation in a London wine bar —..”

• Multi-Front Effort to Protect Clintons While Framing Trump (Bruner)

Newly unearthed documents show deep state government actors once again circling the wagons to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton — and suppressing evidence that implicated them. Last week, it was the FBI; this week, it is the IRS. In 2019, the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal investigations division quietly launched a probe into the Clinton Foundation’s tax practices, working closely with whistleblowers John Moynihan and Larry Doyle, financial experts who had compiled thousands of pages of evidence. According to internal agency memos reported by Just the News, IRS agents reviewed the evidence and at least one agent concluded it meant that the “entire [Clinton Foundation] enterprise is a fraud.” Agents then moved to treat the whistleblowers as cooperating witnesses and even set up secure computer servers to hold the material they had collected.

Then, without warning, the lights went out. “Can’t talk about the CF,” agents told the whistleblowers. By the summer of 2019, their inquiry was dead. Moynihan and Doyle are now battling the agency in Tax Court over the apparent shutdown of the investigation. The IRS’s abrupt reversal follows an earlier, more infamous pattern. In 2016, FBI field offices in New York, Washington, and Little Rock all opened probes into the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, partly on the strength of Peter Schweizer’s 2015 bestselling book, Clinton Cash, which exposed numerous examples of the Clintons using the foundation while she was Secretary of State under President Barack Obama as a pay-to-play scheme for business and foreign government interests seeking political influence.

The book told the story of Uranium One, a US mining company that was sold to Russia’s state-owned nuclear agency after investors pledged more than $100 million to the Clinton foundation. That story was confirmed in a front-page story by the New York Times when the book was published and based on its material. The FBI field office investigations were proceeding until they were ordered by higher-ups to stop. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates ordered prosecutors to “shut it down.” Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe required his personal approval for every investigative step — effectively choking the cases.

The fallout from Clinton Cash was real. Clinton’s campaign staffers scrounged for advance copies of the book, while Hillary’s own pollsters flagged the Uranium One deal as her campaign’s biggest vulnerability in the early primary states. By January 2016, the FBI was looking into the book’s allegations — until the brakes were pulled. Appearing on an OANN program this week, Schweizer told host Matt Gaetz that the government’s double standard is unmistakable. “At the same time that they were killing an organic investigation into Clinton corruption… they were also creating a completely fictional investigation tying [Donald] Trump to Russia,” he said. Five FBI field offices had been involved before being shut down, including a satellite office in Africa. Schweizer called the saga proof of a new kind of corruption — “offshored, globalized corruption,” complete with political dynasties selling access and foreign oligarchs buying influence.

The contrast between the scuttled investigation of the Clinton foundation and the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the Trump campaign’s purported ties to Russia is glaring. While the Clinton probes were throttled, the FBI raced to open a full investigation into Trump’s campaign on the flimsiest of tips — a conversation in a London wine bar — green-lighting that investigation within three days. Clinton’s Russia vulnerabilities were turned into Trump’s burden, projected onto his campaign in a haze of innuendo. Put together, the picture is damning: the IRS dropped the ball in 2019, and the FBI and DOJ throttled their own field offices in 2016. The whistleblowers are still pressing their case, six years later. But the old memos are now re-surfacing, and the “deep state” will perhaps face a reckoning from what might be the largest political scandal of modern times.

”These are dangerous people because they believe their views and opinions supersede the US constitution that they all swear an oath to uphold..”

• Deep State Entrenched In US Intel Community – Gabbard (RT)

The US intelligence community has been infiltrated by deep state actors, busy with “inserting their own partisan political opinions and views” into intel products and effectively working against the American people, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has said. The DNI chief, who has repeatedly pledged to root out rogue actors from the US intel community, made the remarks on Thursday while speaking to FOX Business, stating that the deep state has created entire “pockets” within America’s intelligence agencies.“There were a lot of pockets where the Deep State actors were very entrenched and were politicizing their centers or their positions, either against the American people… [or] creating intelligence products and inserting their own partisan political opinions and views,” she told the network.

”These are dangerous people because they believe their views and opinions supersede the US constitution that they all swear an oath to uphold, to support and defend, and… those who are elected by the American people, specifically the president of the United States,” Gabbard added. The intelligence community has grown extremely politicized over the years and steered away from its intended goals and original mandate, Gabbard added. “It’s very simple. The mandate the intelligence community has is to find the truth and to tell the truth,” she stressed, adding that only sufficient transparency could ensure “actual accountability” for the intel community and produce a “real change.”

Earlier this week, Gabbard stripped security clearances from 37 current and former intelligence officials, accusing them of manipulating and politicizing intelligence. The move has become “the first step to aggressively get after our core national security mission, root out those deep state actors,” according to Gabbard. The list includes multiple prominent intel figures, including former NSA deputy director Richard Ledgett, former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research Brett Holmgren, and former principal deputy director of DNI Stephanie O’Sullivan.

“Please come here first, because you know what, we’re going to help you..”

• Trump Says ‘Dangerous’ Chicago Next After Addressing Crime In DC (JTN)

President Donald Trump says Chicago is next on his list of cities to focus on cleaning up crime. In December, after Trump was elected to a second non-consecutive term, Danielle Carter-Walters used public comments at a Chicago City Council meeting to call for the Trump administration to come to Chicago and make an example out of city officials. “Please come here first, because you know what, we’re going to help you,” Carter-Watlers said. On Friday, Trump said he’s cleaning up Washington D.C. and plans to address crime in Chicago next. “Chicago’s a mess,” Trump said from the Oval Office.

“You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent. And we’ll straighten that one out. Probably next. That will be our next one after this. And it won’t even be tough. And the people in Chicago, Mr. Vice President, are screaming for us to come now wearing red hats.” The president said he hasn’t talked with city officials like Mayor Brandon Johnson. “I haven’t spoken, he’s grossly incompetent. I haven’t spoken to them,” Trump said. “You know, when we’re ready, we’ll go in and we’ll straighten out Chicago just like we did D.C.. Chicago’s very dangerous. Great place I built. Great stuff there. I have a, I have the most beautiful building in Chicago, I think. But I hate to see what’s happened to Chicago.”

Johnson’s administration didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Asked about other possible federal enforcement earlier in the day Friday, Gov. J.B. Pritzker said the Trump administration is plotting against political opponents. “I’m not daring them to do anything, I’m just saying they don’t have a right,” Pritzker said Friday at an unrelated event. “Federal law and state law, separate endeavors and they don’t have a right to do the things that they are threatening to do.” While city wide murder is down 50% over the past four years, burglary, felony theft, misdemeanor theft and motor vehicle theft are all up a total of 40%.

Uganda next?

• Judge Releases Alleged Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia From Jail (Margolis)

It’s hard to imagine that we live in a country where an illegal immigrant, accused of human trafficking, linked by law enforcement to MS-13, and once deported to El Salvador’s infamous maximum-security gang prison, could get to be free on U.S. soil, thanks to the kindness of a federal judge. Sadly, that’s apparently where we are. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant who should never have been here in the first place, is now heading back to Maryland to be with his wife and children as he awaits trial for human trafficking. “Today, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is free,” Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Sean Hecker, said in a statement. “He is presently en route to his family in Maryland, after being unlawfully arrested and deported, and then imprisoned, all because of the government’s vindictive attack on a man who had the courage to fight back against the administration’s continuing assault on the rule of law. He is grateful that his access to American courts has provided meaningful due process.”

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee, granted him release last month, though that release was delayed 30 days. According to Crenshaw, federal prosecutors and ICE had not sufficiently proven that he’s dangerous enough to be detained. If that doesn’t make your head spin, nothing will. Abrego’s immigration history is as messy as it gets. He entered illegally, won withholding of removal under an asylum loophole, and remained in Maryland with his wife and kids while ICE allowed him to do yearly check-ins.

In 2019, police in Maryland identified him in official documents as affiliated with MS-13, one of the most violent street gangs in the world. Judges later said that the evidence wasn’t conclusive, which is how the Left likes it; it demands airtight proof of gang membership before acting, as though credible law enforcement identification somehow means nothing. The Trump administration, recognizing the danger, labeled him an MS-13 member. Democrats and sympathetic judges later treated that “label” as though it were the real crime.

In 2022, during a Tennessee traffic stop, police caught Abrego Garcia driving a vehicle with nine passengers. At the time, he escaped charges. But earlier this year, federal prosecutors indicted him on smuggling-related counts. He pleaded not guilty and now calls it “vindictive.” Of course he does. In today’s climate, criminals are the victims and Americans are the afterthought. When the U.S. deported him, El Salvador sent Abrego to CECOT, a prison for cartel operatives and terrorists, where inmates rarely last long. He complained his life was at risk because rival gang members were intentionally mixed in. What’s ignored is that Abrego never should have been here in the first place. Yet the narrative paints him as a blameless victim of “lawless” Trump-era deportation policy.

If a suspected MS-13 member accused of trafficking who has already been deported once isn’t dangerous, then who is? DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin nailed it when she blasted the system last month: “The facts remain, this MS-13 gang member, human trafficker and illegal alien will never walk America’s streets again.” The catch, of course, is that ICE could still swoop in and detain him. Options are under discussion: whether to deport him back to El Salvador, Mexico, or even South Sudan. But the fact remains: right this very moment, Abrego Garcia is out.

Intel does poorly. Trump doesn’t want to lose any more chips. Makes sense. Not “socialism”.

• President Trump Announces US Govt Takes 10% Stake in INTEL (CTH)

After concerns were raised by congress that Intel’s current CEO Lip-Bu Tan was a venture capitalist investing in Chinese companies, a concern shared by President Trump, apparently things have changed considerably. Mr. Lip-Bu Tan came to the White House to address concerns about protecting U.S. national security interests. President Trump announces the U.S. government now has a 10% stake in the tech firm.

President Trump (Truth Social) – “It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Intel has been struggling for the past several years, and President Trump has been focused on getting Semiconductor and Chip manufacturing established in the USA, a big national security issue. The Trump administration has been negotiating a 10% stake in Intel by converting grants the company was awarded under former President Joe Biden. Obviously, I’m not a big fan of government collaboration with private corporations, but this approach aligns with a very specific national security issue. This sounds like something Commerce Secretary Lutnick and President Trump would structure as a win/win. Intel Public Statement Here: “The government’s investment in Intel will be a passive ownership, with no Board representation or other governance or information rights. The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.”

Sun
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1959080653200163020
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1959087009412391292

Neuroscientist Andrew Huberman tells Bill Maher a simple method to fall back asleep after waking up at night: "I can't promise, but I'm willing to wager… that within five minutes or so, you'll be back to sleep."pic.twitter.com/gF7p6qzaoE

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) August 23, 2025

Sea dog
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1959251780774342700

Waterdog

Beloved Friends

1. A toddler reassures his friend that there's no need to fear the sprinkler..

'It's safe, buddy… let me show you… see.'pic.twitter.com/4cqW5qbrau

— Wolf of X (@tradingMaxiSL) August 22, 2025

IVM

After a year of intensive research, Dr. William Makis presents the most critical graph of his career: the ivermectin dosing schedule for cancer.

According to Dr. Makis, for most cancers – including breast, colon, lung, pancreatic, renal, gastric, and leukemias – a starting dose… pic.twitter.com/X4FiacpGB6

— Camus (@newstart_2024) August 22, 2025

3 little birds
https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1959035597525262347

Chickadee

This only happens to you once pic.twitter.com/6vUSUe7ZSV

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 23, 2025

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle January 4 2018

Jan 042018

January 4, 2018 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:56 am Finance Tagged with: bitcoin, Brexit, car sales, China, Fat Cat Thursday, intel, melt down, melt up, semi conductor, Tesla, Wells Fargo 8 Responses »

Jean-Michel Basquiat Irony of the Negro Policeman 1981

UPDATE: There is a problem with our Paypal widget/account that makes donating hard for some people. What happens is that for some a message pops up that says “This recipient does not accept payments denominated in USD”. This is nonsense, we do.

We have no idea how many people have simply given up on donating, but we can suggest a workaround (works like a charm):

Through Paypal.com, you can simply donate to an email address. In our case that is recedinghorizons *at* gmail *com*. Use that, and your donations will arrive where they belong. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The Automatic Earth and its readers have been supporting refugees and homeless in Greece since June 2015. It has been an at times difficult and at all times expensive endeavor. Not at least because the problems do not just not get solved, they actually get worse. Because the people of Greece and the refugees that land on their shores increasingly find themselves pawns in political games.

Therefore, even if the generosity of our readership has been nothing short of miraculous, we must continue to humbly ask you for more support. Because our work is not done. Our latest essay on this is here: The Automatic Earth for Athens Fund – Christmas and 2018 . It contains links to all 14 previous articles on the situation.

Here’s how you can help:

For donations to Konstantinos and O Allos Anthropos, the Automatic Earth has a Paypal widget on our front page, top left hand corner. On our Sales and Donations page, there is an address to send money orders and checks if you don’t like Paypal. Our Bitcoin address is 1HYLLUR2JFs24X1zTS4XbNJidGo2XNHiTT. For other forms of payment, drop us a line at Contact • at • TheAutomaticEarth • com.

To tell donations for Kostantinos apart from those for the Automatic Earth (which badly needs them too!), any amounts that come in ending in either $0.99 or $0.37, will go to O Allos Anthropos.

• Investors Should ‘Brace For Near-Term Melt-Up – Grantham (MW)

• Top Bosses Earn More In 3 Days Than Average Worker In Entire Year (G.)

• Security Flaws Put Virtually All Phones, Computers At Risk (R.)

• The Microprocessor Security Flaw Explained (BBG)

• The CEO of Wells Fargo Might Be in Big, Big Trouble (Dayen)

• NYC Apartment Sales Collapse 25% In Q4 As Trump Tax Plan Takes Its Toll (ZH)

• Tesla Falls Far Short On Model 3 Deliveries (CNBC)

• US Auto Sales Fall for 2nd Year (WS)

• UK Thinks EU is Bluffing on No Brexit Deal for Banks (BBG)

• UK Opposition Party Grassroots Support Second Brexit Vote (R.)

• China Communist Party Paper Bashes Bitcoin (SCMP)

• China to Curb Power Supply for Some Bitcoin Miners (BBG)

Over 50% chance of melt up, with over 90% chance of subsequent melt down of 50% (or more).

• Investors Should ‘Brace For Near-Term Melt-Up – Grantham (MW)

Jeremy Grantham, who is credited with calling the 2000 and 2008 downturns, warned investors Wednesday to be prepared for the possibility of a near-term “melt-up” that would likely set the stage for a burst bubble and a stock-market meltdown. In a 13-page note that he emphasized reflected “a very personal view,” the value investor and co-founder and chief investment strategist of Boston-based asset manager GMO compared the present market setup with the run-up to past bubbles, including the 2000 tech boom and the precursor to the 1929 crash. “I recognize on one hand that this is one of the highest-priced markets in U.S. history. On the other hand, as a historian of the great equity bubbles, I also recognize that we are currently showing signs of entering the blow-off or melt-up phase of this very long bull market,” Grantham said.

He terms the current market run-up the “possible/probable bubble of 2018-19.” In the note, Grantham emphasizes that bubble calls shouldn’t necessarily rely on price alone. Instead, he puts emphasis on price acceleration, which captures “the importance of a true psychological event of momentum increasing to a frenzy.” Read the note here. Grantham favorably cited an academic paper published last year that concluded that the strongest indicator of a bubble in U.S. and almost all global markets was price acceleration. As for the S&P 500 SPX, +0.64% Grantham says that “just recently, say the last six months, we have been showing a modest acceleration, the base camp, perhaps, for a final possible assault on the peak.

“Exhibit 4 (shown below) represents our quick effort at showing what level of acceleration it might take to make 2018 (and possibly 2019) look like a classic bubble,” he wrote. “A range of nine to 18 months from today and a price rise to around 3,400 to 3,700 on the S&P 500 would show the same 60% gain over 21 months as the least of the other classic bubble events.” [..] • “A melt-up or end-phase of a bubble within the next six months to two years is likely, i.e., over 50%.” • ”If there is a melt-up, then the odds of a subsequent bubble break or meltdown are very, very high, i.e., over 90%. • “If there is a market decline following a melt-up, it is quite likely to be a decline of some 50%.”

‘Fat Cat Thursday’. Bad idea if you want a functioning economy.

• Top Bosses Earn More In 3 Days Than Average Worker In Entire Year (G.)

Bosses of top British companies will have made more money by lunchtime on Thursday than the average UK worker will earn in the entire year, according to an independent analysis of the vast gap in pay between chief executives and everyone else. The chief executives of FTSE 100 companies are paid a median average of £3.45m a year, which works out at 120 times the £28,758 collected by full-time UK workers on average. On an hourly basis the bosses will have earned more in less than three working days than the average employee will pick up this year, leading campaigners to dub the day “Fat Cat Thursday”. Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, said it was outrageous that bosses were picking up “salaries that look like telephone numbers” while workers were “suffering the longest pay squeeze since Napoleonic times”.

The analysis by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the High Pay Centre shows chief executives of FTSE 100 companies are paid an average of £898 per hour – 256 times what apprentices earn on the minimum wage. Tim Roache, the general secretary of the GMB union, said the pay gap between bosses and workers was “simply obscene”. “Does anyone really think these fat cats deserve 100 times more than the hard-working people who prop up their business empires?” he said. “Workers who have to scrimp and save to feed their families and put a roof over their head – and like most of Britain’s working population will now be feeling the pinch after the festive period?”

And it’s not just phones and computers either.

• Security Flaws Put Virtually All Phones, Computers At Risk (R.)

One of the bugs is specific to Intel but another affects laptops, desktop computers, smartphones, tablets and internet servers alike. Intel and ARM insisted that the issue was not a design flaw, but it will require users to download a patch and update their operating system to fix. “Phones, PCs, everything are going to have some impact, but it’ll vary from product to product,” Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said in an interview with CNBC Wednesday afternoon. Researchers with Alphabet Inc’s Google Project Zero, in conjunction with academic and industry researchers from several countries, discovered two flaws. The first, called Meltdown, affects Intel chips and lets hackers bypass the hardware barrier between applications run by users and the computer’s memory, potentially letting hackers read a computer’s memory and steal passwords.

The second, called Spectre, affects chips from Intel, AMD and ARM and lets hackers potentially trick otherwise error-free applications into giving up secret information. The researchers said Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp had patches ready for users for desktop computers affected by Meltdown. Microsoft declined to comment and Apple did not immediately return requests for comment. Daniel Gruss, one of the researchers at Graz University of Technology who discovered Meltdown, called it “probably one of the worst CPU bugs ever found” in an interview with Reuters. Gruss said Meltdown was the more serious problem in the short term but could be decisively stopped with software patches. Spectre, the broader bug that applies to nearly all computing devices, is harder for hackers to take advantage of but less easily patched and will be a bigger problem in the long term, he said.

Speaking on CNBC, Intel’s Krzanich said Google researchers told Intel of the flaws “a while ago” and that Intel had been testing fixes that device makers who use its chips will push out next week. Before the problems became public, Google on its blog said Intel and others planned to disclose the issues on Jan. 9. Google said it informed the affected companies about the “Spectre” flaw on June 1, 2017 and reported the “Meltdown” flaw after the first flaw but before July 28, 2017. The flaws were first reported by tech publication The Register. It also reported that the updates to fix the problems could causes Intel chips to operate 5% to 30% more slowly.

They all use these features. They’re not actually flaws. That makes it hard to repair.

• The Microprocessor Security Flaw Explained (BBG)

The weakness uncovered by Google [..] underscores the potential damage wreaked by vulnerabilities in hardware. Complex components, such as microprocessors, can be harder to fix and take longer to design from scratch if flawed. “It’s a big one and it’s a severe one. This gives an attacker capabilities that bypass the common operating system security controls that we’ve relied on for 20 years,” said Jeff Pollard, an analyst at Forrester Research. “There’s big impact on both the consumer and enterprise.” Intel’s stock remained under pressure even after its statement. “We struggle to believe that Intel won’t face some sort of financial liability,” analysts at Sanford C. Bernstein wrote in a note.

[..] Applying the operating system upgrades designed to remedy the flaw could hamper performance, security experts said. The Register reported that slowdowns could be as much as 30% – something Intel said would occur only in extremely unusual circumstances. Computer slowdowns will vary based on the task being performed and for the average user “should not be significant and will be mitigated over time,” Intel said, adding that it has begun providing software to help limit potential exploits. Intel’s efforts to play down the impact resulted in a war of words with AMD. Intel said it’s working with chipmakers including AMD and ARM Holdings, as well as operating system makers to develop an industrywide approach to resolving the issue. AMD was quick to retort, saying, “there is near-zero risk” to its processors because of differences in the way they are designed and built.

The vulnerability doesn’t just affect PCs. All modern microprocessors, including those that run smartphones, are built to essentially guess what functions they’re likely to be asked to run next. By queuing up possible executions in advance, they’re able to crunch data and run software much faster. The problem in this case is that this predictive loading of instructions allows access to data that’s normally cordoned off securely, Intel Vice President Stephen Smith said on a conference call. That means, in theory, that malicious code could find a way to access information that would otherwise be out of reach, such as passwords. “The techniques used to accelerate processors are common to the industry,” said Ian Batten at the University of Birmingham in the U.K. who specializes in computer security. The fix being proposed will definitely result in slower operating times, but reports of slowdowns of 25% to 30% are “worst-case” scenarios, he said.

Foot meet mouth.

• The CEO of Wells Fargo Might Be in Big, Big Trouble (Dayen)

Late last year, Congress scrapped Obama-era rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would have banned forced-arbitration clauses in financial contracts. This bill, which President Trump quickly signed, was self-evidently bad for consumers at the time—and if anyone needs further proof of how ridiculous and harmful these clauses are, just look at what Wells Fargo has been up to over the past several months. The mega-bank famously issued at least 3.5 million fake accounts without consumer consent, triggering a $185 million fine to state and federal regulators. The bank aimed to demonstrate sales growth to investors and boost the stock price with bogus numbers, but millions of customers got caught up in the exchange, paying unnecessary fees and taking hits to their credit scores. Scores of defrauded customers sued Wells Fargo in a series of class-action lawsuits.

Wells Fargo then tried to defy metaphysical reality: It moved to block one class-action case in Utah by claiming that the arbitration clause in customer contracts on the real accounts they held at the bank also applied to the fake accounts. By this theory, Wells Fargo customers signed away their legal rights when it came to accounts they didn’t even sign. The Utah plaintiffs fought Wells’s motion to compel arbitration, and rejected a $142 million settlement offer from the bank. While the two sides tangled in court, Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on October 3. And when Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) asked Sloan point-blank if Wells Fargo was using arbitration clauses from real accounts and applying them to fake accounts, Sloan said, “There were instances [of that] historically. We’re not doing that today.”

He also committed to not forcing arbitration in fake-accounts cases moving forward. When Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) brought up the Utah case, where Wells Fargo had made motions to compel arbitration just two weeks earlier, Sloan said he wasn’t familiar with it. But lawyers in Utah get C-SPAN. The plaintiffs in the case immediately appealed to the judge and argued that, with his remarks before Congress, Sloan had effectively waived Wells Fargo’s right to compel arbitration. Judge Clark Waddoups promptly scheduled a two-day trial for January 22 on the question. He also allowed the plaintiffs to depose Sloan in conjunction with the trial; that deposition is scheduled for Friday.

This put Sloan in a tight spot. Steven Christensen, attorney for the plaintiffs, told me he had only one question for Sloan: Did he state to Congress that Wells Fargo would waive arbitration claims on fake accounts? If Sloan said yes, the Utah case would go forward; if he said no, Christensen would appeal to Congress to hold him in contempt for lying to the Senate Banking Committee.

End of an era?!

• NYC Apartment Sales Collapse 25% In Q4 As Trump Tax Plan Takes Its Toll (ZH)

Apparently the combination of a massive flood of excess supply in the form of new luxury developments and a Trump tax plan that penalizes people living in expensive cities by capping SALT, mortgage interest and property tax deductions was simply too much for the Manhattan real estate market to ignore in 4Q 2017. As Douglas Elliman points out in their new Q4 2017 Manhattan Market Report, both prices (-9.4%) and volumes (-25.4%) of New York City apartments collapsed sequentially in Q4 as potential buyers took a pause amid the growing uncertainty.

“Sales activity for the Manhattan housing market was at the lowest fourth quarter total in six years. The pace of the fall market noticeably cooled as market participants awaited the housing-related terms of the new federal tax bill. This translated into a decline in year over year closings for the final quarter of the year, although contract volume showed an uptick. There were 2,514 sales to close in the final quarter of the year, down 12.3% from the prior-year quarter. The decline in sales allowed listing inventory to rise after declining year over year for the past few quarters. There were 5,451 listings at the end of the quarter, up 1.1% from the same period a year ago. As a result, the absorption rate, the number of months to sell all inventory at the current rate of sales slowed, rising to 6.5 months from 5.6 months in the year-ago quarter.

Listing discount, the%age difference between the list price at the date of sale and the sales price, was 5.4% up nominally from 5.3% in the prior year quarter as sellers continued to travel farther to meet the buyer on price. Buyers continued to hold firm, forcing sellers to meet them on price. Days on market, the average number of days to sell all apartments that closed during the quarter rose 3.2% to 97 days from 94 days in than the same period last year. New development active listings and resale listings were up 0.7% and 1.2% respectively over the same period. With the nominal rise in supply, there was also a nominal decline in bidding wars, still accounting for 11.7% of all sales in the quarter, down 0.9% from the same period last year.”

Musk keeps hoping people will forget the last batch of bad data when the newest comes in.

• Tesla Falls Far Short On Model 3 Deliveries (CNBC)

Tesla is apparently still deep in the circles of production hell. On Wednesday, the electric car maker released delivery numbers for the fourth quarter of 2017 that fell short of many expectations on Wall Street, and once again pushed back production targets on its highly anticipated Model 3 sedan. Tesla shares fell roughly 2% in after-hours trading. “As we continue to focus on quality and efficiency rather than simply pushing for the highest possible volume in the shortest period of time, we expect to have a slightly more gradual ramp through Q1, likely ending the quarter at a weekly rate of about 2,500 Model 3 vehicles,” Tesla said in a release. “We intend to achieve the 5,000 per week milestone by the end of Q2.” In 2017, the company had said it planned to reach a production rate of 5,000 cars per week for the Model 3, but later revised back that target to the end of the first quarter.

Now, Tesla expects to reach the target by the end of the second quarter. Tesla said it made “major progress” toward addressing the “production bottlenecks” the company has blamed for falling so far short of its Model 3 targets. The company said that in the last few days of the quarter it reached a production rate that “extrapolates to over 1,000 Model 3’s per week.” CEO Elon Musk had previously said he expected weekly Model 3 production to be “in the thousands” by the end of 2017. Tesla said it delivered 29,870 vehicles in the fourth quarter of 2017, including 1,550 of its anticipated Model 3 sedan. The electric-car maker also delivered 15,200 Model S sedans, and 13,120 Model X SUVs. That represents a 27% increase over the same quarter in 2016 for both models combined, and a 9% increase over Q3 2017, Tesla’s previous best quarter, the company said.

The US has enough cars anyway.

• US Auto Sales Fall for 2nd Year (WS)

Total new-vehicle sales in the US fell 5.2% year-over-year in December to 1.6 million units. For all of 2017, sales declined by 320,000 vehicles, or 1.8%, to 17.23 million units. It was the first overall decline since the Financial Crisis. Compared to 2015, sales fell by 249,033 vehicles, or 1.4%. These sales are vehicles delivered by dealers to their customers, or delivered by automakers directly to large fleet customers, as reported by Autodata.

For the big three US automakers and some import brands it was the second year in a row of sales declines (two-year percent change from 2015):
GM -2.7%
Ford -1.1%
Fiat Chrysler (FCA) -8.6%
Toyota -2.6%
Hyundai -10.0%
Kia -5.8%
Daimler -1.4%
BMW -12.6%
Mazda -9.3%

The table below shows new-vehicle sales by automaker, sorted by total sales in 2017 (gray column). Automakers with declining sales in 2017 are marked in red. The green column shows the two-year %age change from 2015. Turns out that replacement demand for new vehicles after Hurricane Harvey was strong, but not nearly strong enough to pull out the year for total US auto sales, and what demand there has been will peter out going forward. Car sales plunged 17% year-over-year in December, 10.9% in all of 2017, and 18.1% from 2015. They’ve been left behind by consumers who’re switching to crossovers and SUVs which the industry considers trucks. So truck sales – pickups, SUVs, crossovers, and vans – rose 1.7% in December, 4.3% for the year, and 11.8% compared to 2015.

They’re not.

• UK Thinks EU is Bluffing on No Brexit Deal for Banks (BBG)

Prime Minister Theresa May believes Michel Barnier is bluffing when he says there will be no special deal for financial services, officials said, as the U.K. prepares to negotiate its post-Brexit ties with the European Union. Two senior officials familiar with the matter privately think the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator is faking a hard-line stance in ruling out a deal that would allow banks to continue operating freely across the bloc. Talks have yet to start on Britain’s future trade agreement with the EU but Barnier said last month there was no chance of a deal that replicated the easy access that U.K.-based financial services currently enjoy to the single market. The U.K. officials said the French former commissioner was simply setting out an opening position that did not have backing from the 27 other EU member countries.

They said banks based in London will be fine because businesses operating in the EU will need to maintain access to finance after Brexit. The fate of London’s financial district is urgent for May, who last month agreed to pay a £39 billion ($53 billion) bill to start talks on the nuts and bolts of a transition. With Britain’s departure from the bloc just 14 months away, businesses are counting on a two-year adjustment period. [..] Last month, May said U.K. financial services should be optimistic about Britain’s trade talks, which are due to start in March. She cited Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni as evidence that other EU leaders are open to Britain carving out a custom-made trading relationship with the bloc that covers services. Yet Barnier insists the U.K. will not be offered anything more than a Canada-style deal, which keeps tariffs to a minimum on goods but does not include trade in services.

Big 2018 story. But it can’t be spoken out loud.

• UK Opposition Party Grassroots Support Second Brexit Vote (R.)

Eight out of 10 grassroots members of Britain’s opposition Labour Party want a referendum on the terms of the country’s exit from the European Union, according to a survey published on Thursday. That is at odds with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s official policy which calls for parliament, not the public, to have the final say on the terms of the deal. It indicates a strong desire among the party’s rank and file members for a chance to demand a rethink on Brexit, or even overturn the outcome of the June 2016 vote to leave the EU. Eighteen months after voting 52 to 48% to withdraw from the EU, Britons remain deeply divided over leaving a bloc which has defined much of the country’s laws, trade policy and international outlook over more than four decades of membership. Theresa May’s Conservative minority government has dismissed the idea of a second referendum.

But ministers have already been forced to give parliament a greater say in the Brexit process than they initially wanted to after members of May’s own party rebelled on the issue in December. Thursday’s survey of attitudes within Britain’s main political parties showed 49% of Labour members definitely wanted a second referendum on the exit deal and a further 29% said they were more in favor of the idea than against it. The poll of more than 4,000 members of political parties was conducted shortly after last June’s national election as part of a three-year academic project by the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary University of London to discover more about people who belong to political parties. It showed even higher demand for a second vote on Brexit among members of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. By contrast, only 14% of Conservative Party members wanted a referendum on the exit deal.

Bitcoin is a bad fit in a super-centralized society

• China Communist Party Paper Bashes Bitcoin (SCMP)

China’s ruling Communist Party mouthpiece lashed out at bitcoin on Wednesday, labelling the volatile cryptocurrency a bubble and a modern-day tulip mania. A People’s Daily commentary written under the name “Wei Liang” said it was an established fact that bitcoin was a bubble. “Irrespective of whether it is assessed on price or value, bitcoin is flooded with froth,” it said. “Its so-called advantages – scarcity, authenticity, strong liquidity, transparency and decentralisation – are only covers for speculation and cannot support its volatile price.” It said bitcoin’s bubbles were created by a combination of hype, mystery, decentralisation and possible insider trading, suggesting that a small group of bitcoin owners were speculating on its price and manipulating general investors.

The commentary compared bitcoin to the seventeenth century mania in which prices for tulip bulbs skyrocketed and then collapsed. It also said there would be more “bubble breaking” in bitcoin after governments around the world tightened regulation. The central government sees bitcoin as a source of risk. It banned domestic cryptocurrency exchanges last year after failing to regulate the fast growth of initial coin offerings, the virtual currency equivalent of an initial public offering. [..] Bitcoin investors are on alert to see whether Beijing will take further action against cryptocurrencies, such as shutting down bitcoin “mines”, the energy-hungry operations that create bitcoin by solving mathematical problems using vast banks of computers.

Easy to trace.

• China to Curb Power Supply for Some Bitcoin Miners (BBG)

China plans to limit power use by some bitcoin miners, people familiar with the matter said, a potential challenge to an industry whose energy-intensive computer networks enable transactions in the cryptocurrency. The People’s Bank of China outlined the plan Wednesday at a closed-door meeting, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because it wasn’t public. They didn’t detail how authorities plan to enact the curbs. Chinese officials are concerned that bitcoin miners have taken advantage of low power prices in some areas and affected normal electricity use in some cases, the people said. Local officials have been asked to investigate the high consumption associated with the industry, they said. The curbs will also involve other regulators such as the National Development and Reform Commission, which oversees the power supply.

While the proposed restrictions are unlikely to have a noticeable effect on transaction speeds, they highlight global concerns over the growing energy consumption of bitcoin miners. The industry now uses as much electricity as 3.4 million U.S. households, according to the Digiconomist Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index. China is home to many of the world’s largest miners, some of whom have set up around hydroelectric facilities in Sichuan and Yunnan provinces. “This may have contributed to bitcoin coming off its daily highs,” said Craig Erlam, senior market analyst at online trading firm Oanda in London. “Electricity usage certainly appears to be a significant challenge for the cryptocurrency in the years ahead.” Bitcoin, which surged 15-fold last year, pared gains on Wednesday and traded around $14,900 on Thursday.

Debt Rattle January 7 2017

Jan 072017

January 7, 2017 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:28 am Finance Tagged with: bombs, Erdogan, false news, iceberg, innocence, intel, Le Pen, Obama, peace, recovery, Trump 3 Responses »

Arthur Rothstein Highway marker in Polk County, Florida 1937

• Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win (ZH)

• A Case Study in the Creation of False News (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Obama Set For Pardon Frenzy As He Leaves Office (AFP)

• Worst. Recovery. Ever. (ZH)

• How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016? (CFR)

• Le Pen Says Brexit Isn’t a Disaster and France Should Be Next (BBG)

• Economics Is Driven By Ideology, Not Science (Pettifor)

• The Labor Market: The End Of The Innocence? (DiMartino Booth)

• Canadian Woman Arrested In Turkey For Saying Erdogan Jails Journalists (CBC)

• Giant Iceberg Poised To Break Off From Larsen C Antarctic Shelf (G.)

I’m so tired of this. No, ‘trust us’ is not good enough anymore. That is why Trump won, because it’s no longer enough to say ‘because we say so’. People don’t trust CIA et al. And you can’t turn that back on its head and demand trust now. You lost! I get so frustrated they even locked up my Facebook account again. There’s always people who want to complain about those who don’t toe lines.

• Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win (ZH)

The farce is complete. One week after a joint FBI/DHS report was released, supposedly meant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia intervened in the US presidential election, and thus served as a diplomatic basis for Obama’s expulsion of 35 diplomats, yet which merely confirmed that a Ukrainian piece of malware which could be purchased by anyone, was responsible for spoofing various email accounts including that of the DNC and John Podesta, moments ago US intelligence agencies released a more “authoritative”, 25-page report, titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”, and which not surprisingly only serves to validate the media narrative, by concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘ordered’ an effort to influence U.S. presidential election.

Specifically, the report concludes the following: “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” What proof is there? Sadly, again, none. However, as the intelligence agencies state, “We have high confidence in these judgments”… just like they had high confidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And while the report is severely lacking in any evidence, it is rich in judgments, such as the following:

“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. “We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment.”

At this point a quick detour, because the intel agencies responsible for drafting the report then explain how “confident” they are: “CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.” What do these distinctions mean? High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong. Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence. In other words, while not carrying the infamous DHS disclaimer according to which last week’s entire joint FBI/DHS report is likely garbage, the US intel agencies admit they may well be “wrong.”

“Trump is supposed to side with the CIA which is trying to destroy him.”

• A Case Study in the Creation of False News (Paul Craig Roberts)

For many weeks we have witnessed the extraordinary attack by the CIA and its assets in Congress and the media on Donald Trump’s election. In an unprecedented effort to delegitimize Trump’s election as the product of Russian interference in the election, the CIA, media, senators and representatives have consistently made wild accusations for which they have no evidence. The CIA’s message to Trump is clear: Get in line with our agenda, or we are going to mess you over. It is clear that the CIA is warring against Trump. But the CIA’s media assets have turned the facts on their head and are blaming Trump for having a negative view of the CIA. Consider the January 4 Wall Street Journal article by Damian Paletta and Julian E. Barnes, which begins: “President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies . . .”

The two presstitutes set up their false news story by putting the shoe on the other foot. It is Trump who is the harsh critic rather than the victim of the CIA’s harsh accusations. Set up this way, the story continues: “White House officials have been increasingly frustrated by Mr. Trump’s confrontations with intelligence officials. ‘It’s appalling,” the official said. “No president has ever taken on the CIA and come out looking good.’” Now that the story is Trump taking on the CIA and not the CIA taking on Trump, the case can be built against Trump: Analysts accustomed to more cohesion with the White House are “jarred” by Trump’s skepticism of the CIA’s assessment that Putin got him elected. Trump is supposed to respond to the allegation by saying: I am not legitimate. Here take back the presidency.

WikiLeaks’ Assange has stated unequivocally that there was no hack. The information came to WikiLeaks as a leak, which suggests that it came from inside the Democratic National Committee. That Trump sees it this way means, according to one unidentified official that “It’s pretty horrifying to me that he’s siding with Assange over the intelligence agencies.” You see, Trump is supposed to side with the CIA which is trying to destroy him. Has the CIA shot itself in both feet? How can the agency control policy by manipulating the information fed to the President when the President does not trust the agency?

Leonard Peltier has been in jail for 40 years for a set-up. Forget about Snowden and Chelsea. Not going to happen.

• Obama Set For Pardon Frenzy As He Leaves Office (AFP)

A Rastafarian prophet, a former Taliban captive and thousands of minor drug traffickers have one thing in common: Their names have been submitted to President Barack Obama for clemency before he leaves office in two weeks. Some US presidents have used this regal power of leniency in a pointed way near the end of their term in office. On the last day of his term in 2001, Democratic president Bill Clinton granted pardon in a highly controversial move to late fugitive trader Marc Rich, whose ex-wife had been a major donor to Democrats. Sixteen years later, Obama is fielding pressure from all sides to grant unlikely pardons or commutations of sentences to people whose supporters say have been unjustly sentenced or sought out by the justice system.

Among them is Bowe Bergdahl, a US Army sergeant held captive for five years by the Taliban before his release in a prisoner swap, who is due to be court-martialed for desertion. Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist convicted for the 1975 deaths of two FBI agents in what his supporters say was a setup, is also hoping to enjoy Obama’s good graces. Then there’s Edward Snowden, who made the shattering revelation in 2013 of a global communications and internet surveillance system set up by the United States. The 33-year-old, a refugee in Russia, is backed by numerous celebrities like actress Susan Sarandon and singer Peter Gabriel, as well as Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union. If Obama fails to pardon Snowden, his supporters say he may face the death penalty under the incoming administration of Republican Donald Trump, who has called him a “terrible traitor.”

In another leak case, Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year sentence in solitary confinement for handing 700,000 sensitive military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks, some of them classified. Activists say her sentence is excessive and point to the psychological frailty of the transgender soldier who has already made two suicide attempts. Even though the White House has dismissed a possible pardon for Snowden and Manning, their supporters are still hoping for a final magnanimous gesture from a president about to leave the constraints of his high office on January 20.

We know.

• Worst. Recovery. Ever. (ZH)

As the champagne glasses clink in Washington over a record-breaking streak of job growth on record (as the percent of the population employed slumped), and the fastest wage growth since the start of the recovery (for managers), we just wanted to remind a few blinkered media types that Obama’s “recovery” has officially been the worst recovery in US history (despite adding almost $10 trillion to the national debt)… When ‘fake news’ and ‘peddling fiction’ meet fact… Not quite as rosy an economic handover to Trump as The White House would like everyone to believe.

Peace, man!

• How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016? (CFR)

As President Obama enters the final weeks of his presidency, there will be ample assessments of his foreign military approach, which has focused on reducing U.S. ground combat troops (with the notable exception of the Afghanistan surge), supporting local security partners, and authorizing the expansive use of air power. Whether this strategy “works”—i.e. reduces the threat posed by extremists operating from those countries and improves overall security and governance on the ground—is highly contested. Yet, for better or worse, these are the central tenets of the Obama doctrine.

In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,171 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single “strike,” according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,027 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015.

Most (24,287) were dropped in Iraq and Syria. This number is based on the percentage of total coalition airstrikes carried out in 2016 by the United States in Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), the counter-Islamic State campaign. The Pentagon publishes a running count of bombs dropped by the United States and its partners, and we found data for 2016 using OIR public strike releases and this handy tool.* Using this data, we found that in 2016, the United States conducted about 79% (5,904) of the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, which together total 7,473. Of the total 30,743 bombs that the coalition dropped, then, the United States dropped 24,287 (79% of 30,743).

To determine how many U.S. bombs were dropped on each Iraq and Syria, we looked at the percentage of total U.S. OIR airstrikes conducted in each country. They were nearly evenly split, with 49.8% (or 2,941 airstrikes) carried out in Iraq, and 50.2% (or 2,963 airstrikes) in Syria. Therefore, the number of bombs dropped were also nearly the same in the two countries (12,095 in Iraq; 12,192 in Syria). Last year, the United States conducted approximately 67% of airstrikes in Iraq in 2016, and 96% of those in Syria.

Quick, Carney, cause chaos, or Le Pen will win…

• Le Pen Says Brexit Isn’t a Disaster and France Should Be Next (BBG)

French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen said the U.K. economy is weathering Brexit, giving her confidence to seek an immediate renegotiation of France’s relationship with the European Union if elected. “Brexit has not been a disaster,” Le Pen said at a meeting with English-language reporters in Paris on Friday. “The economic signals are good.” National Front leader Le Pen, who polls suggest will reach the presidential runoff in May, said she would seek talks with France’s EU partners “the day after my election” and put the result to a national referendum. She said the goal is to take back what she called “the four sovereignties”: control of borders, economic policy, money and legislation. France should dump the euro and return to a national currency, though the exchange rate could be linked to some sort of European currency mechanism, Le Pen said.

“I’ll give six months to these talks, and if at the end we have won back our sovereignty, I will tell the French to vote to stay in this Europe of nations and liberty,” she said. “If we don’t, I’ll suggest that they vote to leave.” Polls suggest Le Pen would finish second in the first round of France’s presidential elections on April 23, and lose a May 7 runoff to center-right candidate Francois Fillon. An Elabe poll released Thursday showed independent Emmanuel Macron gaining on Le Pen, taking second place in some hypothetical matchups. Le Pen, whose party received a $8.5 million loan from a Russian bank in 2014, said she doesn’t fear Russian meddling in France’s election. That follows U.S. intelligence findings that Russian officials directed hacking attacks to help elect Trump, whom she said she supports because his anti-globalist views were better for France.

“Every time big corporations, big finance don’t get what they want, they say it’s a conspiracy of the Russians,” she said. “It makes one laugh.” While the U.S. shouldn’t lecture anyone given its history of spying on allies, improved ties between Russia and the U.S. are in France’s interest, especially if they can cooperate on combating Islamic militants, Le Pen said. “I think that Mr. Trump and Putin can repair ties, and I hope so,” she said. “We don’t want to see an increase in tensions between the U.S. and Russia for a very selfish reason: we are in the middle.”

Should we let economists ‘heal’ their own field, or is it too late for that?

• Economics Is Driven By Ideology, Not Science (Pettifor)

As someone who correctly predicted the financial crisis (first in 2003 and later in a 2006 book) I support Andy Haldane’s assertion that the economics profession is “to some degree in crisis”. He is not the first to argue this. The retiring head of the UK Treasury admitted in 2016 that economists failed to spot the build-up of risk before 2007 and were guilty of what he called “a monumental collective intellectual error”. It is a collective intellectual failure that I believe has played a key role in the rise of political populism. The Bank of England’s chief economist was also right to compare the challenges facing economists to the famous “Michael Fish” moment, where everyone was assured that a hurricane wouldn’t hit before it did, bringing with it much devastation, in 1987.

Meteorologists have since transformed their field and improved forecasts. But that is not true of the economics profession. The dominant economic model of financial liberalisation, monetary policy dominance and fiscal austerity remains intact. In their defence, economists can’t be faulted for getting forecasts wrong. Political events such as Brexit are not easy to predict. But unlike economists, meteorologists have a deep understanding of the major forces shaping outcomes in their fields, even when they get precise forecasts wrong. Mainstream economists, by contrast, lack that deep understanding of the economic forces driving outcomes. The reason is not hard to understand. The field of meteorology is not underpinned by policy or by an agenda. Economics, by contrast, is dogged by ideology.

It is ideology, not science, that leads economists to wrongly assert that the market in money is like the market in widgets, and must not be regulated or tampered with by governments. That financial flows across borders must be “free”, regardless of whether they cause instability. That bankers are simply intermediaries between savers and borrowers – and do not create credit out of thin air. That monetary and fiscal policies that serve the finance sector with bailouts are tolerable, while those that serve the poor must be resisted. That the reasoning that informs the micro-economy can be extrapolated to reach conclusions about the macro-economy. In other words, the fallacy that the budgets of households (the micro-economy) can be aggregated and compared to the budgets of governments (the macro-economy).

Unsurprisingly, these flawed theories and models are a great comfort to financial elites – which is why so many economists are hired and funded by big banks, corporations and the wealthy. And it explains why their words and ideas are repeated by the media outlets that faithfully serve the status quo or “the establishment”. Very little has been done to transform the dominant economic model of financial and trade liberalisation or to limit economists’ almost religious belief in the efficiency of markets and hostility to public intervention.

“Let me take a long last look, before we say goodbye..”

• The Labor Market: The End Of The Innocence? (DiMartino Booth)

One of the first of life’s lessons we all learned is that we need not rush life; it will do that for us and in the end against our will. The inspiration for this wisdom could well have sprung from Ecclesiastes wherein we read these peaceful words: To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. Co-writers Don Henley and Bruce Hornsby embraced the spirit of this message as the 1980’s were coming to a close. You must agree 1989’s The End of the Innocence, that haunting and mournful ballad, was just the coda needed to move on to the last decade of the last century. “Let me take a long last look, before we say goodbye,” the song asks of the listener who can’t help themselves but to listen.

Many veteran investors, those who don’t need to be reminded about the Reagan era because they were there, may be feeling a bit more wistful as they peer over the horizon. They have lived through extraordinary economic times and maybe even recall the early 1970’s, the last time initial jobless claims were at their current historically low levels. They know, in other words, this can’t go on forever, that we are nearing the end of our own innocence. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has been adamant that economic cycles can’t die of old age. At the end of this month, we can proclaim to be living through the third longest expansion in postwar times. The parlor game occupying those on the Street these days entails devising scenarios that can push us into the second, or dare we dream, longest expansion of all.

The Wall Street Journal perfectly captures the infectious optimism, the yearning to keep that dream alive, by asking this in a headline: How Low Can the Unemployment Rate Go? Rather than keep you in suspense, the article’s answer is as follows: “Assuming the economy adds around 200,000 jobs a month in 2017 and the labor-force participation rate stays relatively constant, the unemployment rate would fall to 3.9% by the end of the year, according to a model maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.” If we do get there, a big if, we are sure to be staring down the barrel of appreciably higher interest rates and a flat, if not by then, inverted yield curve. The only precedent is, you guessed it, that which occurred in 2000, when the unemployment rate hit 3.6% as the longest cycle of all time was finally flaming out. Economics 101 teaches one tenet above all – that the unemployment rate is the most lagging within the data universe.

A recent visit with Dr. Gates, that steel-eyed sleuth, corroborated this maxim. “The unemployment rate is the single, most visible economic indicator for households. It’s easy to understand, black and white. Up is bad, down is good,” Gates observed. “If we keep getting downside surprises, it will feed even more consumer optimism. That happens late in the cycle.” What goes hand in hand with these late cycles guideposts? Since you asked, that optimism Gates cites tends to correlate with households overreaching their paychecks, which is exactly what we’re seeing. When adjusted for inflation, credit card borrowing is up 4.5% over last year, a full two percentage points above wage income, which is up 2.5% over the same period. That’s a new high for the current cycle. At 2.9%, inflation-adjusted spending is also running ahead of wage income.

These data are validated by separate data that shows state withholding tax collections are way off last year’s figures. “Vulnerabilities in household demand don’t happen overnight; they take time to rise to the surface,” Gates cautioned. “Households aren’t overstretched yet, but they’re getting there. Just like corporations substitute debt for profits late in the cycle, households also are starting to do just as they ride the wave of Trump optimism. Eventually this will run its course.”

So is Canada going to stand up to him?

• Canadian Woman Arrested In Turkey For Saying Erdogan Jails Journalists (CBC)

A Canadian woman has been arrested in Turkey for allegedly insulting the country’s president in comments posted on Facebook, her Turkish lawyer said Thursday. Ece Heper, 50, was arrested in the city of Kars in northeastern Turkey, and charged on Dec. 30, Sertac Celikkaleli told The Canadian Press. Heper, a dual Canadian-Turkish citizen, had been in the country since mid-November, according to her friends. “She is intense and opinionated, for sure,” Birgitta Pavic said from her Toronto home. “But everything is intense over there right now, especially criticizing the government.” At issue, her friends and lawyer said, are several recent Facebook posts about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In one posted on Dec. 28, Heper accused Erdogan of jailing journalists who suggest there is evidence Turkey is supporting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIS or ISIL. Global Affairs Canada said they are aware of a Canadian citizen detained in Turkey and are providing consular assistance, but wouldn’t divulge further information, citing privacy laws. Heper has a log home in Norwood, Ont., about 150 kilometres northeast of Toronto, Pavic said, where she lives with five dogs she rescued from Turkey “that are like her children.” Her parents are dead and she is estranged from her brother, Pavic said, so her friends are taking up the cause to help her out.

We’re just going to watch it happen, ain’t we? That’s all we’re capable of.

• Giant Iceberg Poised To Break Off From Larsen C Antarctic Shelf (G.)

A giant iceberg, with an area equivalent to Trinidad and Tobago, is poised to break off from the Antarctic shelf. A thread of just 20km of ice is now preventing the 5,000 sq km mass from floating away, following the sudden expansion last month of a rift that has been steadily growing for more than a decade. The iceberg, which is positioned on the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica, known as Larsen C, is predicted to be one of the largest 10 break-offs ever recorded. Professor Adrian Luckman, a scientist at Swansea University and leader of the UK’s Midas project, said in a statement: “After a few months of steady, incremental advance since the last event, the rift grew suddenly by a further 18km during the second half of December 2016. Only a final 20km of ice now connects an iceberg one quarter the size of Wales to its parent ice shelf.”

The separation of the iceberg “will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula” and could trigger a wider break-up of the Larsen C ice shelf, he added. “If it doesn’t go in the next few months, I’ll be amazed,” Luckman told BBC News. Ice shelves are vast expanses of ice floating on the sea, several hundred metres thick, at the edge of glaciers. Scientists fear the loss of ice shelves will destabilise the frozen continent’s inland glaciers. And while the splitting off of the iceberg would not contribute to rising sea levels, the loss of glacial ice would. Martin O’Leary, also of Swansea University, said: “It just makes the whole shelf less stable. If it were to collapse there would be nothing holding the glaciers up and they would start to flow quite quickly indeed.”