Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Illustrating exactly who they are.
It was obviously not a mistake. Cracks me up that she gets away with something again. These people just deflect everything and the media lets them.
Clinton Unloads on Georgia Voters
Political Editors · Oct. 19, 2016
Campaign log: 20 days until Election Day. A Clinton campaign bus was caught disposing of human waste down a storm drain in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Evidently, Team Clinton finds it difficult to discern the difference between a storm drain on a Georgia roadway and a waste station. Witnessing the bus’s unauthorized movement, a local businessman snapped pictures of the incident. He said, “I don’t care who you are. That’s just wrong.” The Georgia state EPA sent investigators to determine the extent of the environmental impact the bus’s dump had on local bodies of water, and a HAZMAT team was dispatched to clean up the mess as a “foul smell” emanated from the drain next to the roadway littered with toilet paper.
To bring back one of Hillary’s most infamous lines about her private server, it was evident someone, er, wiped with a cloth or something. Is it any wonder she looked flushed at her campaign appearance? The embarrassed DNC issued an apology using one of Clinton’s favorite explanations — it was an “honest mistake.” In a normal election, this might be the bottom story of the day, but in this rank affair it’s just the latest Clinton news dump.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/45443
Clinton Unloads on Georgia Voters
Political Editors · Oct. 19, 2016
Campaign log: 20 days until Election Day. A Clinton campaign bus was caught disposing of human waste down a storm drain in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Evidently, Team Clinton finds it difficult to discern the difference between a storm drain on a Georgia roadway and a waste station. Witnessing the bus’s unauthorized movement, a local businessman snapped pictures of the incident. He said, “I don’t care who you are. That’s just wrong.” The Georgia state EPA sent investigators to determine the extent of the environmental impact the bus’s dump had on local bodies of water, and a HAZMAT team was dispatched to clean up the mess as a “foul smell” emanated from the drain next to the roadway littered with toilet paper.
To bring back one of Hillary’s most infamous lines about her private server, it was evident someone, er, wiped with a cloth or something. Is it any wonder she looked flushed at her campaign appearance? The embarrassed DNC issued an apology using one of Clinton’s favorite explanations — it was an “honest mistake.” In a normal election, this might be the bottom story of the day, but in this rank affair it’s just the latest Clinton news dump.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/45443
20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency
There is a link on the page to get to even more detail.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/20642-new-regulations-added-in-the-obama-presidency/
20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency
There is a link on the page to get to even more detail.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/23/20642-new-regulations-added-in-the-obama-presidency/
Breaking Economic Stagnation
Sep 19, 2016
Morgan Stanley article. Easier to read online, put the link here so one can see the charts that go along with it.
(If we had anyone smart enough in office to know how to stimulate the economy, this stagnation would be long gone and we would be much more economically secure than we are today. I blame, 'America is too rich' attitude of BO and the entire DemonRat Party)
http://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/secular-stagnation
Eight years after the global financial crisis, four factors that hampered growth are reaching inflection points. Could a change in policy priorities finally ignite an era of growth?
In 2013, Harvard University economist Larry Summers warned that the global economy was in danger of entering a period of “secular stagnation”—a concept created in the 1930s to describe a period of low or nonexistent growth due to a glut of savings and diminished investing.
In the past few years, investors have taken this theory to heart, believing that perpetually slow economic growth, low interest rates and subpar investment returns are inevitable. This skepticism about the future—even with asset prices rising—has created a negative feedback loop, driving investors to safe harbors such as cash, bonds, gold and yield-generating securities thereby reducing demand, inflation and growth in an ongoing vicious cycle.
However, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management has a considerably different outlook, one in which the U.S. economy is neither trapped by secular forces nor mired in stagnation. On the contrary, “the U.S. economy has shown remarkable resilience considering it has endured the perfect storm of economic headwinds which were amplified by anti-growth policy priorities," says Lisa Shalett, Head of Investment & Portfolio Strategies.
In a new report, “Beyond Secular Stagnation," Morgan Stanley’s Global Investment Committee deconstructs the consensus view by examining some of the most frequently-cited drivers of secular stagnation. The conclusion: the same headwinds that have impeded growth are now poised for an about-face. In fact, if combined with bold new policy leadership, we would be entering a new era of growth and investment opportunities.
A Supercycle Perfect Storm Amplified by Policy Headwinds
At first glance, Summers’ diagnosis may have been spot on. Average annual U.S. real GDP growth since 2009 has been just 2.2% versus 3.8% from 1940 through 2009. Negative real yields and valuations of long-term bonds imply virtually no growth and only minimal inflation for three decades.
The drivers of this low growth environment stem from four secular headwinds—aging demographics, depressed productivity, high global debt levels and incessant deflation deriving from globalization. These headwinds were then amplified by anti-growth policy choices such as excessive regulation, fiscal austerity, a lack of pro-growth private investment incentives combined with growing income inequality.
While the combination of secular headwinds and policy missteps help explain an unprecedented time of economic malaise, positioning for secular stagnation “may not be the right playbook for investors," says Asset Allocation Strategist Joe Pickhardt. “We conclude that the four major secular headwinds may actually be approaching their natural turns.”
Demographics is Destiny
Economic growth depends largely on the size of the population in the labor force, making the steady wave of baby boomer retirees cause for concern. During the current decade, labor-force participation plummeted to 63%, down from 66% in the previous decade.
What many investors have failed to realize, however, is that the U.S. economy has already endured the worst of this demographic shift, and the trend is poised to decelerate. Millennials not only outnumber boomers by as much as 6 million, they have just started entering peak working age. “Although the consensus acknowledges the arrival of the millennial generation (those born 1981-2000) into the workforce, few appreciate the sheer size of this wave, which is estimated at 83 million and doesn't really tail off even as we enter 'Generation Z,'" says Shalett. Consequently, working age population growth has begun to stabilize and is likely to see resurgence in 2025.
Millennials and Generation Z Will Soon Be a Tailwind for Growth
195020002.02.53.03.54.04.5
Pre-Baby BoomersBaby BoomersGen XMillennialsGen Z
Source: Haver, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC as of 2015
Productivity: Is the Worst Behind Us?
Productivity growth is another major contributor to economic expansion, and the last five years have come up short: productivity grew just 0.5% a year on average over the last five years versus 2.2% average gains for the past 70 years.
There are many theories behind the vexing slump in productivity. The cause isn't a lack of innovation, Morgan Stanley concludes, but a lack of broad-based adoption of productivity-enhancing technologies, namely to service industries and small businesses. As more businesses find ways to adopt new technology—from cloud computing to machine learning and 3D printing—productivity gains should recover.
Meanwhile, spending on research and development in the private sector has been increasing at a clip of 4.9% a year since 2007, up from 4.1% the decade prior, while public and private R&D as a share of GDP recently hit an all-time high. “The last time R&D's share of GDP was in this range was during the mid-1960s, when the country was in a 'Space Race' to beat Russia to the moon," says Laetsch. This should bode well for future innovation and productivity growth.
R&D Has Fared Better, A Positive Harbinger
195319591965197119771983198919952001200720130.8%1.0%1.2%1.4%1.6%1.8%2.0%2.2%2.4%2.6%2.8%3.0%3.2%3.4%Research and Development Spending as a Percent of GDP
Source: Haver Analytics, BEA, National Science Foundation, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management
Note: 2014 and 2015 are estimates
Debt to GDP Ratios Have Increased…But Borrowing Has Slowed
Another drag on growth is public and privately held debt. Privately held debt of the U.S. government as a share of GDP increased this cycle to 74% from 39% in 2008, prompting concern that the U.S. is doomed to a debt trap in which high debt and low yields result in more debt. Even so, the rate of debt accumulation—for government, corporations and households—has materially slowed, suggesting that the worst of deleveraging headwinds are behind us.
Meanwhile, debt relative to total assets—which is what matters most—is back to near pre-crisis levels. Interest rate payments on U.S. government debt are only 1.2% of GDP, near a 40-year low. U.S. households have also delevered debt, with the ratio of current obligations to income at 15.3%, the lowest since the early 1980s. And although corporations are increasing gross leverage, their cash-to-debt ratios (recently 13.7%) are still well above the 10% average from 1985 to 2007.
A Needed Shift in Man-Made Policy Decisions
At the same time, demographic shifts, debt accumulation and productivity plateaus have contributed to slow growth, policy-driven variables that have exacerbated the headwinds. Morgan Stanley estimates that more than two-thirds to three quarters of the $2.5 trillion output gap endured this decade can be traced to man-made policy missteps: fiscal austerity, growing income inequality, regulation and investment policy.
There is no easy fix for the man-made problems that have stymied growth, but again investors shouldn't assume that the status quo will continue. “We believe the political pendulums are swinging—whether from the left or the right, as candidates embrace more populist positions and associate a move away from austerity with other anti-establishment and anti-incumbent rhetoric," says Shalett. What's needed: fiscal spending on infrastructure; comprehensive corporate and personal tax reform, less bureaucratic red tape, and entitlement reform and a roll back on excessive regulation.
There is no single solution to sidestep stagnation, but focused policy actions could have a significant multiplier effect. “When investors appreciate the extent to which the current recovery has endured the perfect 1,000-year storm, further aggravated by bad policy choices," says Pickhardt, “opportunities will appear."
This article was adapted from the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management report “Beyond Secular Stagnation.” You can also watch a video presentation of the report’s analysis.
http://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/secular-stagnation
Breaking Economic Stagnation
Sep 19, 2016
Morgan Stanley article. Easier to read online, put the link here so one can see the charts that go along with it.
(If we had anyone smart enough in office to know how to stimulate the economy, this stagnation would be long gone and we would be much more economically secure than we are today. I blame, 'America is too rich' attitude of BO and the entire DemonRat Party)
http://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/secular-stagnation
Eight years after the global financial crisis, four factors that hampered growth are reaching inflection points. Could a change in policy priorities finally ignite an era of growth?
In 2013, Harvard University economist Larry Summers warned that the global economy was in danger of entering a period of “secular stagnation”—a concept created in the 1930s to describe a period of low or nonexistent growth due to a glut of savings and diminished investing.
In the past few years, investors have taken this theory to heart, believing that perpetually slow economic growth, low interest rates and subpar investment returns are inevitable. This skepticism about the future—even with asset prices rising—has created a negative feedback loop, driving investors to safe harbors such as cash, bonds, gold and yield-generating securities thereby reducing demand, inflation and growth in an ongoing vicious cycle.
However, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management has a considerably different outlook, one in which the U.S. economy is neither trapped by secular forces nor mired in stagnation. On the contrary, “the U.S. economy has shown remarkable resilience considering it has endured the perfect storm of economic headwinds which were amplified by anti-growth policy priorities," says Lisa Shalett, Head of Investment & Portfolio Strategies.
In a new report, “Beyond Secular Stagnation," Morgan Stanley’s Global Investment Committee deconstructs the consensus view by examining some of the most frequently-cited drivers of secular stagnation. The conclusion: the same headwinds that have impeded growth are now poised for an about-face. In fact, if combined with bold new policy leadership, we would be entering a new era of growth and investment opportunities.
A Supercycle Perfect Storm Amplified by Policy Headwinds
At first glance, Summers’ diagnosis may have been spot on. Average annual U.S. real GDP growth since 2009 has been just 2.2% versus 3.8% from 1940 through 2009. Negative real yields and valuations of long-term bonds imply virtually no growth and only minimal inflation for three decades.
The drivers of this low growth environment stem from four secular headwinds—aging demographics, depressed productivity, high global debt levels and incessant deflation deriving from globalization. These headwinds were then amplified by anti-growth policy choices such as excessive regulation, fiscal austerity, a lack of pro-growth private investment incentives combined with growing income inequality.
While the combination of secular headwinds and policy missteps help explain an unprecedented time of economic malaise, positioning for secular stagnation “may not be the right playbook for investors," says Asset Allocation Strategist Joe Pickhardt. “We conclude that the four major secular headwinds may actually be approaching their natural turns.”
Demographics is Destiny
Economic growth depends largely on the size of the population in the labor force, making the steady wave of baby boomer retirees cause for concern. During the current decade, labor-force participation plummeted to 63%, down from 66% in the previous decade.
What many investors have failed to realize, however, is that the U.S. economy has already endured the worst of this demographic shift, and the trend is poised to decelerate. Millennials not only outnumber boomers by as much as 6 million, they have just started entering peak working age. “Although the consensus acknowledges the arrival of the millennial generation (those born 1981-2000) into the workforce, few appreciate the sheer size of this wave, which is estimated at 83 million and doesn't really tail off even as we enter 'Generation Z,'" says Shalett. Consequently, working age population growth has begun to stabilize and is likely to see resurgence in 2025.
Millennials and Generation Z Will Soon Be a Tailwind for Growth
195020002.02.53.03.54.04.5
Pre-Baby BoomersBaby BoomersGen XMillennialsGen Z
Source: Haver, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC as of 2015
Productivity: Is the Worst Behind Us?
Productivity growth is another major contributor to economic expansion, and the last five years have come up short: productivity grew just 0.5% a year on average over the last five years versus 2.2% average gains for the past 70 years.
There are many theories behind the vexing slump in productivity. The cause isn't a lack of innovation, Morgan Stanley concludes, but a lack of broad-based adoption of productivity-enhancing technologies, namely to service industries and small businesses. As more businesses find ways to adopt new technology—from cloud computing to machine learning and 3D printing—productivity gains should recover.
Meanwhile, spending on research and development in the private sector has been increasing at a clip of 4.9% a year since 2007, up from 4.1% the decade prior, while public and private R&D as a share of GDP recently hit an all-time high. “The last time R&D's share of GDP was in this range was during the mid-1960s, when the country was in a 'Space Race' to beat Russia to the moon," says Laetsch. This should bode well for future innovation and productivity growth.
R&D Has Fared Better, A Positive Harbinger
195319591965197119771983198919952001200720130.8%1.0%1.2%1.4%1.6%1.8%2.0%2.2%2.4%2.6%2.8%3.0%3.2%3.4%Research and Development Spending as a Percent of GDP
Source: Haver Analytics, BEA, National Science Foundation, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management
Note: 2014 and 2015 are estimates
Debt to GDP Ratios Have Increased…But Borrowing Has Slowed
Another drag on growth is public and privately held debt. Privately held debt of the U.S. government as a share of GDP increased this cycle to 74% from 39% in 2008, prompting concern that the U.S. is doomed to a debt trap in which high debt and low yields result in more debt. Even so, the rate of debt accumulation—for government, corporations and households—has materially slowed, suggesting that the worst of deleveraging headwinds are behind us.
Meanwhile, debt relative to total assets—which is what matters most—is back to near pre-crisis levels. Interest rate payments on U.S. government debt are only 1.2% of GDP, near a 40-year low. U.S. households have also delevered debt, with the ratio of current obligations to income at 15.3%, the lowest since the early 1980s. And although corporations are increasing gross leverage, their cash-to-debt ratios (recently 13.7%) are still well above the 10% average from 1985 to 2007.
A Needed Shift in Man-Made Policy Decisions
At the same time, demographic shifts, debt accumulation and productivity plateaus have contributed to slow growth, policy-driven variables that have exacerbated the headwinds. Morgan Stanley estimates that more than two-thirds to three quarters of the $2.5 trillion output gap endured this decade can be traced to man-made policy missteps: fiscal austerity, growing income inequality, regulation and investment policy.
There is no easy fix for the man-made problems that have stymied growth, but again investors shouldn't assume that the status quo will continue. “We believe the political pendulums are swinging—whether from the left or the right, as candidates embrace more populist positions and associate a move away from austerity with other anti-establishment and anti-incumbent rhetoric," says Shalett. What's needed: fiscal spending on infrastructure; comprehensive corporate and personal tax reform, less bureaucratic red tape, and entitlement reform and a roll back on excessive regulation.
There is no single solution to sidestep stagnation, but focused policy actions could have a significant multiplier effect. “When investors appreciate the extent to which the current recovery has endured the perfect 1,000-year storm, further aggravated by bad policy choices," says Pickhardt, “opportunities will appear."
This article was adapted from the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management report “Beyond Secular Stagnation.” You can also watch a video presentation of the report’s analysis.
http://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/secular-stagnation
Thanks.
From my perspective, it's good to start doing whatever it is one wants to do is to do it asap. Like you said, one never knows. And when one does get 'older', you've already done a bunch of things you love and continue to do and have discarded things one might have thought great buy turned out boring or led one to the step beyond. Whether it's pleasure or the pursuit of information.
Will be at the Hoover Institute annual retreat beginning this afternoon through Tuesday. Conservative, like minded thinking people. Donors only, invite only. Don't list it on their on their list of events on their website. Don't want any lib invasion. Condi tonight.
Here's a book they were introducing in their Hoover DC event:
https://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Book-Secrets-Intelligence-Briefings/dp/1610395956#reader_1610395956
Niners getting stomped again.
If the Clintons weren't above the law......
Now think frightening.
The whole immediate area was all built on fill. One of the dumbest things of all time. And people with way too much money had influence on the city planners and politicians and got permission to buy out and tear down old, smaller buildings and construct massive towers. SalesForce.com has a huge building there as do other tech companies moving into SF, out of Silicon Valley. The techies want to work, live and party and SF is their town. Palo Alto was too boring for their 24/7 work hard and party hard lifestyle. But don't feel sorry for Silicon Valley, new companies come in to take the place of the ones that are now worth mega billions, hoping they too will one day be bought out or become the next 'big one.' A VC paradise.
California Today: A Leaning Tower in San Francisco
Mike McPhate
CALIFORNIA TODAY SEPT. 14, 2016
Good morning.
Welcome to California Today, a morning update on the stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state).
Tell us about the issues that matter to you — and what you’d like to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com.
Want to receive California Today by email? Sign up.
Thomas Fuller, the San Francisco bureau chief for The New York Times, provides today’s introduction with news in the case of the sinking Millennium Tower.
For years, San Francisco was a famously low-rise city. Then came the tech boom and the race was on to build the glass and steel edifices that populate the world’s great cities. But in earthquake-prone San Francisco there’s a catch: many of the city’s new skyscrapers are concentrated in a neighborhood of squishy land reclaimed from the bay.
One of the new buildings, the 58-story Millennium Tower, has now sunk by 16 inches. Worse, the condominium building is sinking unevenly.
The scandal of San Francisco’s Millennium Tower turned decidedly more political on Tuesday when Aaron Peskin, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, told reporters that he had unearthed official documents showing the city’s building inspection department had raised concerns about sinking seven years ago, just before the building was supposed to open its doors.
A letter sent by the city to the engineering firm spoke of “larger than usual” settlement of the structure and asked whether the consequences had been studied.
Yet six months later, in August 2009, the city declared the building safe for occupancy.
On Tuesday, Mr. Peskin questioned why the city allowed people to move in.
“I believe, and I know this is a very serious allegation,” Mr. Peskin said, “that there was some level of political interference.”
The response to the city’s query by the engineering firm, DeSimone Consulting Engineers, is missing from the official record, Mr. Peskin said. He has called hearings scheduled for Sept. 22, and city officials will be subpoenaed.
The hearings are likely to capture the attention of the California political class because the mayor at the time the building was approved, Gavin Newsom, is now lieutenant governor and has aspirations to become governor.
P.J. Johnston, a spokesman for Millennium Partners, told The San Francisco Chronicle that suggesting the firm received special treatment from the city was “simply outrageous.”
Some of the owners of the building, which includes the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Joe Montana, are trying to band together to recoup losses in property values.
In August, a small army of lawyers filed a class-action lawsuit against the building’s developers as well as the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a government entity building a transportation hub next door to the Millennium Tower. Whether or not the construction of the Transbay transport terminal contributed to the sinking has yet to be determined.
Mark Garay, one of the lawyers for the apartment owners, says it is too early to pinpoint the precise causes for the building sinking, but that it had already begun significantly before work on the transport terminal started.
“What we do know is that the foundation of this building does not go into bedrock,” he said. “It’s all landfill. It used to be part of the bay.”
Perhaps what is most clear at this point is that all of this is only the beginning of the story.
(Ernie D lived there but I think he left. Montana sold his winery to live here but bet he wishes he was already gone.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/us/california-today-sinking-millennium-tower.html?_r=0
Sorry, been gone for a bit. Here's one. Numerous sources were printing the story.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN12E2IF
Trump Is Right to Point Out That Clinton Should Be Prosecuted
by Andrew C. McCarthy
His rhetoric is overblown, but he’s correct that Hillary should be held to account for criminal conduct. With due respect, the estimable Charles Krauthammer is way off base in his weekly column, addressing Donald Trump’s “threat, if elected, to put Hillary Clinton in jail.” (The headline refers to this threat as a “promise,” but I don’t take that to be quite what Charles — or, for that matter, Trump — is saying.) I wrote about this topic right after Trump raised it in the second presidential debate, in response to Trump detractors who posited the claim that Krauthammer now advances: viz., Trump is criminalizing politics with threats to persecute political opponents. I generally agree with these detractors regarding the GOP nominee’s flaws and antics; on this, however, their comparisons of Trump to brutal dictators are so beyond the pale they make Trump seem tame. Krauthammer is right that Trump has gone too far in his rhetoric. Yet, he overstates the case in suggesting that Trump is breaching important political boundaries. While he describes these as boundaries of “discourse” and “democratic decency,” Dr. K implies that they involve something even more fundamental, and thus that the breach is more perilous. Mrs. Clinton appears to have committed serious crimes that undermined both national security and recordkeeping rules designed to promote accountability in government. If you want to talk about a truly profound threat to democratic norms, that’s the place to start. Obviously, these offenses are not just relevant but essential to the political case that should be made against Clinton, and would be by any opponent, not just by the unconventional, undisciplined Trump. Also pertinent is the fact that government officials who engage in Clinton’s type of misconduct do go to jail — to refrain from stating this would be to diminish the gravity of the crimes. Moreover, even Krauthammer concedes that Clinton deserved to be prosecuted: “FBI director James Comey’s recommendation not to pursue charges was both troubling and puzzling.” Consequently, I don’t see why anyone, including Trump, should be faulted for asserting that there appears to be strong evidence that Mrs. Clinton has committed egregious offenses, which warrant prosecution and would call for imprisonment if she were convicted after a fair trial. Unless I am reading him wrong, that is Charles’s position on the matter — otherwise, why the dig at Comey? Where Trump has overstepped is in his articulation of these points, not the fact that he is making them. (function($){ var swapArticleBodyPullAd = function() { if ($('body').hasClass('node-type-articles')) { var $pullAd = $('.story-container .pullad').addClass('mobile-position'); if (window.matchMedia("(min-width: 640px)").matches) { if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('desktop-position') .insertBefore('.article-ad-desktop-position'); } } else { if ($pullAd.hasClass('mobile-position')) { $pullAd .addClass('mobile-position') .insertBefore('.article-ad-mobile-position'); } } } }; $(window).on('resize', function(){ swapArticleBodyPullAd(); }).resize(); })(jQuery); Political rhetoric inevitably involves a degree of exaggeration, and we must distinguish it from the realm of law-enforcement, in which officials are obliged to be circumspect. At the Republican convention, the most effective speech was New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s scathing indictment (in the rhetorical sense) of Mrs. Clinton’s misdeeds. It prompted the “lock her up!” chants that have punctuated Trump campaign appearances ever since. Now, when Americans say that someone ought to be “locked up” over this or that — which we say quite a lot — we are not urging an end run around the due-process protections that apply from investigation and indictment through trial and sentencing. That goes without saying. During Obama’s 2008 campaign, his surrogate (and later his attorney general) Eric Holder called for a “reckoning” against Bush officials he depicted as guilty of war crimes and all manner of Constitution-shredding. I don’t think Mr. Holder was saying “jail now, trial later” — even if many on the left would have been delighted by such an arrangement. The Republican base is ballistic over the abuses of power evident in both Clinton’s offenses and the way the investigation of them was tanked. Trump needs to keep them fired up because his best case for election is Clinton’s awfulness, not his own merit. So I don’t see that there is anything objectionable in hammering the point that Clinton’s crimes were abominable and they deserve prosecution. That is true, so why shouldn’t Trump say so? Where Trump goes over the line, though, is in doing exactly what President Obama did: making statements that predetermine the outcome. Obama essentially acquitted Clinton in public statements made while the investigation was ongoing. When such a thing is done by the head of the executive branch — the president to whom the attorney general and FBI director answer — it conveys the boss’s signal that no charges are to be brought. Similarly, when Trump, who is running to be the next chief executive, says that, were he the president, Clinton would be in jail, he is implicitly stating that this is the outcome he expects his administration to accomplish. Ditto when he reacts to the “lock her up!” chants by indicating agreement that she must be imprisoned. If Krauthammer were simply saying that Trump should be much more careful in expressing the pledge to see that justice is done, I’d be right there with him. But he thinks the pledge itself flouts American principles. That is just not so. Let me focus on two critical distinctions I think Krauthammer misses. First, notwithstanding some over-the-top rhetoric, Trump has said he would have Clinton investigated by a special prosecutor. Charles pooh-poohs this, observing that Trump threatens to jail Clinton only “after appointing a special prosecutor, of course. The niceties must be observed. First, a fair trial, then a proper hanging.” Yet, a special prosecutor is not a mere nicety. It is the appointment of a lawyer and investigators who, though they still answer to the president, operate with independence from most if not all of the president’s political appointees in the Justice Department and FBI chain-of-command. If the special prosecutor has a reputation for integrity, the arrangement can give the investigation credibility. This is exactly what President Obama did not do in the Clinton e-mails investigation. He kept the case tightly controlled by the FBI director and attorney general he had appointed, which is why many Americans, apparently including Charles, are convinced the investigation was “compromised by politics.” If Trump were of a mind to railroad Clinton, as Charles suggests, he would be taking the Obama approach. He would be talking about sacking the current, Obama-appointed FBI director and then having his own appointees at the Bureau and Justice Department reopen the investigation. But that is not what he is saying. To be clear, I am not a fan of special-prosecutor arrangements because the appearance of independence can be an illusion. If the president appoints a political hack who still reports to the Justice Department and the White House, it really is a sham masquerading as objective law-enforcement. Still, the fact that Trump’s first impulse is to appoint an independent lawyer is commendable, and I would not dismiss it as window dressing. My second disagreement pertains to the nature of Mrs. Clinton’s crimes. Trump is not talking about subjecting Clinton to a trumped up prosecution for being an enemy of the regime. He is talking about a legitimate investigation of real offenses — crimes that have nothing to do with opposing Donald Trump, crimes so serious that even the Obama administration investigated them, or at least went through the motions of doing so. Dr. K’s comparison to Putin, Chavez, and other “two-bit caudillos” is a gross exaggeration. It trivializes the monstrousness of regimes that actually do persecute dissent. It is meritless to suggest that being a member of the opposition party gives an official immunity from prosecution for real crimes, lest we be seen as violating the principle that “in America, we don’t persecute political opponents.”
Along these lines, Charles engages in a bit of revisionist history regarding “why we retroactively honor Gerald Ford for his pardon of Richard Nixon.” I agree with his assessment that the pardon probably cost Ford the presidency. But Krauthammer is wrong, both factually and constitutionally, when he contends that “Ford understood that jailing a president for actions carried out in the context of his official duties would threaten the very civil nature of democratic governance.” The problem is Krauthammer’s omission of a critical detail: Nixon had been forced to resign on the verge of impeachment. That is, he had precisely been punished “for actions carried out in the context of his official duties.” Ford did not come close to suggesting that such punishment was inappropriate; he simply concluded that criminal prosecution on top of Nixon’s expulsion from office would put our then-reeling country (and Nixon himself) to unnecessary additional suffering. I concur in Krauthammer’s assessment that this was an admirable decision, but it certainly was not required by “the very civil nature of democratic governance.” The Constitution explicitly provides that impeachment may be followed by prosecution in the courts. The framers of our system of democratic governance thus anticipated that corrupt public officials would be both removed from office and indicted under the criminal law. Criminal prosecution is, of course, a matter of executive discretion, and that is highly relevant to our consideration. If President Obama had fired former Secretary Clinton (don’t snicker) or at least denied her future access to classified information by removing her security clearance (a measure many in the FBI reportedly endorsed), that would have doomed her presidential hopes. If the House had impeached her (as I’ve recommended), that might have had a similarly damaging effect, even though it would not have resulted in her being disqualified from future office (because Senate Democrats would have prevented her conviction if there had been an impeachment trial).
That is to say: If Mrs. Clinton had been appropriately held accountable and subjected to some form of punishment or censure, as Nixon was, there would not be much political force to calls for her to be prosecuted. Trump, consequently, would not be threatening to put her in jail. The issue has resonance not because Clinton is Trump’s political adversary but because she committed serious offenses and was given a pass solely because she is a political heavyweight — because we all know politically powerless people who did what Clinton did would be in jail. If we’re becoming a banana republic, the reason is that the ruling class can violate the law with impunity. And while Obama has used the Justice Department as a weapon against political dissenters, that is not what Trump is calling for. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441105/
Hillary Clinton’s new health woe: email Alzheimer’s
Call it “email Alzheimers”: Hillary Clinton’s remarkable failure to recall much of anything touching on how she managed to grossly violate security protocols in her years heading the State Department.
Clinton this week had to supply written, sworn answers to 25 questions from the good-government group Judicial Watch about her home-brewed email setup. On 21 of the 25, she came up with one version or another of, “I forget.”
Which, as any lawyer will tell you, is the best way to avoid both self-incrimination and perjury.
Here’s one example of what her lawyers supplied: “Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned, she does not recall that it was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that her use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department businesses conflicted with or violated federal record-keeping laws.”
We’d like to suggest this raises new health worries — but we’d have to believe these memory failures were real.
As it is, we’ll second the comment from Judicial Watch: Clinton’s “refusal to answer many of the questions in a clear and straightforward manner further reflects disdain for the rule of law.”
We agree. Then again, Hillary Clinton probably doesn’t recall what the rule of law looks like.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/hillary-clintons-new-health-woe-email-alzheimers/
Hacked emails raise possibility of Clinton Foundation ethics breach
(Ya think..... Nice puff piece. Now the media will claim they covered it.)
Hacked emails published by Wikileaks this week appear to show Qatar pledging to donate $1 million to Hillary Clinton's family's charitable foundation, despite her promise to curb new donations by foreign governments while U.S. secretary of state.
In an email from 2012, a senior official from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation informs colleagues that a planned donation by Qatar's government to mark Bill Clinton's birthday came up in a meeting he had with the Gulf state's ambassador in Washington.
The ambassador said that he asked "to see WJC 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011," Amitabh Desai, the foundation official, writes in his email, using the former U.S. president's initials.
Hillary Clinton, who is the Democratic nominee for the Nov. 8 presidential election, served as secretary of state from 2009 until 2013.
The hacked email is among thousands published over the last week by the pro-transparency group Wikileaks from the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.
Clinton's campaign has been embarrassed by this and similar recent hacking attacks on other Democratic Party officials, some of which appear to show Clinton and her aides saying things in private that contradict their public positions. Her spokesmen have not disputed the authenticity of the hacked emails.
The emails released by Wikileaks do not appear to confirm whether Qatar gave the promised $1 million, although the foundation's website lists the State of Qatar as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation. A spokesman for the foundation declined to confirm the donation.
Reuters could not rule out the possibility the $1 million was intended as a birthday present for Clinton personally, not for the foundation. His spokesman did not respond to questions.
Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office.
The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation, which is known for its work on reducing the cost of HIV medicine in sub-Saharan Africa. Clinton's Republican rival in the presidential election, Donald Trump, has seized on the foundation for political attacks, calling it a front for corruption. Clinton's campaign dismisses this as a political smear.
The State Department has said it cannot cite any instances of its ethics officials reviewing or approving new donations from foreign governments to the foundation while Clinton served as the country's top diplomat from 2009 until 2013.
"You would need to ask the Foundation whether there were additional matters that it should have submitted for State Department review," the department said in a statement.
The ethics agreement allowed foreign governments that already supported foundation projects to continue while Clinton was at the State Department. However, if one of those governments wanted to "increase materially its commitment," then the foundation was required to ask the department first.
Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman, declined to confirm if Qatar gave the $1 million described in the 2012 email. Even if it had, he said he questioned whether the money would be considered a "material increase." He said Qatar has been donating since 2002, and that some of those donations have been greater than $1 million.
Qatar's embassy in Washington did not respond to questions. A spokesman for Clinton, who was campaigning in Seattle on Friday, also did not resond to questions.
Last year, Reuters found that at least seven other foreign governments made new donations to the foundation without the State Department being informed, partly, foundation officials said, because of "oversights."
President Barack Obama is campaigning for Clinton to be elected his successor, and the White House has repeatedly declined to discuss the breaches of the agreement Clinton signed with Obama's administration.
(Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Leslie Adler)
Interesting. I hit a new signature and it didn't show up. Maybe this time.
Russia envoy: Tensions with US are probably worst since 1973
UNITED NATIONS — Russia's U.N. ambassador said that tensions with the United States are probably the worst since the 1973 Mideast war.
But Vitaly Churkin said Friday that Cold War relations between the Soviet Union and Russia more than 40 years ago were different than U.S.-Russia relations today.
"The general situation I think is pretty bad at this point, probably the worst ... since 1973," he said.
Churkin said that "even though we have serious frictions, differences like Syria, we continue to work on other issues ... and sometimes quite well."
That wasn't the case generally during the Cold War.
When Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar in 1973, the Mideast was thrown into turmoil. And according to historians, the threat of war between the Soviet Union, which backed the Arabs, and the United States, Israel's closest ally, was the highest since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
Churkin said there are "a string of things" that have brought U.S.-Russian relations to their current low point.
"It's kind of a fundamental lack of respect and lack of in-depth discussions" on political issues, he said.
Churkin pointed to the U.S. and NATO deciding to build their security "at the expense of Russia" by accepting many East European nations formerly in the Soviet bloc as NATO members, and the United States pullout from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001.
One of "the greatest provocations" during President George W. Bush's administration was the 2008 NATO summit, which decided that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members, he said.
Most important, he said, was the conflict that erupted in eastern Ukraine in April 2014, weeks after a former Moscow-friendly Ukrainian president was chased from power by massive protests. Churkin called it "a coup" supported by the United States. Soon after, Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, which has led to Western sanctions against Moscow.
Ties between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated further in the past month after the collapse of a cease-fire in Syria and intensified bombing on Aleppo by Syrian and Russian aircraft, and U.S. accusations that Russia is meddling in the U.S. presidential election next month.
By contrast, Churkin pointed to agreements in the U.N. Security Council in recent years supported by Moscow and Washington, even on Syria — allowing cross-border aid deliveries without government approval and establishing a team of experts to determine responsibility for chemical weapons attacks in the country. He also cited council resolutions to combat terrorism.
The United States and Russia were also key players in last year's nuclear deal with Iran, and last week they agreed on the Security Council's nomination of former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres as the next U.N. secretary-general, which Churkin said was "maybe the best success of the Security Council in the last five years." Guterres was elected by acclamation Thursday by the General Assembly.
Chukin said Russia would like to normalize relations with the United States.
"If the change of administration is going to help, that's fine," he said. But even if President Barack Obama stayed for another term, which he is barred from doing, "we would be pushed to trying to get back to normal in our relations."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-envoy-tensions-with-us-are-probably-worst-since-1973/ar-AAiYjHY?li=BBnbfcL
Regular Guy
I used to think I was just a regular guy, but today, since I was born white, I'm now a likely racist. I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which by today’s standards, makes me a fascist. I am heterosexual, which now makes me a homophobe. I'm non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business. I'm a Christian, which now labels me an infidel. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, which now makes me a gun toting extremist. I am older than 60 and retired, which makes me expendable. I reason, therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which makes me a reactionary. I am proud of my heritage and our culture, which makes me a xenophobe. I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right-wing extremist. I believe in capitalism which makes me an anti-socialist. I acquired a fair education without student loans and no debt at graduation, which makes me a underachieving braggart. I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland which now makes me a militant. I‘m just not sure who I am anymore! I don't understand how this has happened to me so quickly!
Strange......it’s all taken place over the last 7 or 8 years!
As if all this stuff wasn’t enough to deal with…I’m now afraid to go into either restroom!
The performance of the elitists' tasks to make their lives more comfortable, safe while handing out scraps to those that perform them. Corporate philosophy. The 'machine' is more important than those who create and manufacture it's 'product.' We already see a smaller population growth among those with greater success. The more we reduce the need to reproduce to maintain and actually increase the ability/performance that controls our 'environment', the greater the divide among the classes and need to provide for them. It would be a natural evolution of depopulating the more 'advanced' societies while they maintain control over those with fewer advantages and dwindling opportunities.
And this technology will take over more and more functions humans once performed and our species will become less and less necessary. Reproduction quota?
It will be interesting to see the hacking of 'driverless cars'. Trucking with driverless trucks? Driverless mass transit. Driverless trains. Driverless planes?
Just read the idiocy of Trump's attacking of BC. What about health care, the economic policies, corruption of your opponent, the Foundation?
The Russian hacking of our election is more interesting than our election.
Evita Peron/Hillary Clinton for President? From a pit in Arkansas to President for both B and H? 49th in nearly every measured category from schools to economy to corruption and they lead our nation today. The good old days when the Colombians landed in an isolated air strip and dropped off their coke for Roger Clinton to distribute. Nice how Bill pardoned his own brother and told the police, 'hands off my brother.' From a brothel to the President?
Hacking all over the place but it doesn't effect the Democrats massive corruption efforts and reputation. Bernie was sliced and diced by the Clintons. Trump is getting pounded. And the Clintons live on. Chelsea is getting amazing training to continue their crime family legend and income stream.
And our country claims to have the best anti-hacking capability and we're suppose to believe that all of Hillary's friends were hacked and she wasn't? LOL. Good ole' technology. Making our lives more vulnerable and our children more susceptible to it's indoctrination.
That eats it's people to satisfy it's hunger.
That sucks. Throwing him under the bus for the down ticket.
Even if they did, the media would tell us.
Agree. When the left owns the forms of communication, it restricts our freedoms and especially our speech.
That includes three application of B.
Long arm of the left..... Silencing freedom of speech, destroying physical evidence when it challenges the illegal activities of the leftists.
BO might send in the cranes.......
Plus, none of it sold. It was a bluff to discourage any comeback into the close.
I agree. Same with all small caps as we also saw with C today. Those large blocks at ASK frightened people out and no one bought the blocks so they will remain. Someone wants to kick their butts.
About time for Zika.
Partnerships are a good incentive.
HIDDEN CAM: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"
(As has been their practice for decades. Florida does it as standard practice for decades. If they can make the film Key Largo and talk about it, it's been going on for a very long time.)
HIDDEN CAM: NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, "They Bus People Around to Vote"
(As has been their practice for decades. Florida does it as standard practice for decades. If they can make the film Key Largo and talk about it, it's been going on for a very long time.)
Forgot to change my siggie. Al looked like he needed to head to a BO Care center judging by his frightened look.
Al "Jazeera" Gore didn't look very comfortable at the Shrillary shriek event. Talk about bringing out the 'living in the past' message.
It's on Google too.