MIND BLOWING | WEATHER INTERNAL

Child miners living a hell on Earth so YOU can drive an electric car

Dorsen, just eight, is one of 40,000 children working daily in the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The terrible price they will…

Merkel: Hungary, Poland, Etc Must Surrender Control Over Borders to EU

Hungary is warning that the EU and Angela Merkel want to take control of national burders and turn Europe into “a continent of immigrants”. Source:…

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, team detained in Venezuela, network says

Univision anchor Jorge Ramos and five members of his team were detained and later released in Caracas, Venezuela by President Nicolas Maduro on Monday during an…

BREAKING: Osundairo Brothers Now Say Jussie Smollett Faked the Letter, Too

Source: BREAKING: Osundairo Brothers Now Say Jussie Smollett Faked the Letter, Too

Police Believe Jussie Smollett Attack Was Staged (Report)

Chicago police have concluded that the alleged attack on “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett was staged, according to local reports Source: Police Believe Jussie Smollett Attack…

Amazon Hikes Prices At Whole Foods As Consumers Brace For Inflationary Tidal Wave

Even Jeff Bezos’ tolerance for loss-making businesses apparently has its limits. Source: Amazon Hikes Prices At Whole Foods As Consumers Brace For Inflationary Tidal Wave

Afghan Pedophiles Get Free Pass From U.S. Military, Report Says

A special inspector says the American military uses loopholes to exempt Afghan security forces from punishment for enslaving and raping children, and other gross human…

‘Tsunami’ of meth worth £1bn seized in record-breaking operation

The haul follows a joint operation between the US and Australia, and the “ice” had an estimated street value of £995m. Source: ‘Tsunami’ of meth…

Pope publicly acknowledges clergy sexual abuse of nuns

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) — Pope Francis on Tuesday publicly acknowledged the scandal of priests and bishops sexually abusing nuns and vowed to do…

33 Men Arrested over Historic Child Sex Abuse Allegations in England

Thirty-three men have been arrested in relation to allegations of sexual abuse against a child in Halifax between 2002 and 2005. Source: 33 Men Arrested…

DEMONS really are possessing people, warns psychiatrist, as pure evil sweeps over humanity

An Ivy League-educated psychiatrist is convinced that there’s a growing epidemic of demonic possession in the world today, and that most everyday people now recognize…

FDA document admits vaccines are linked to autism

FDA document admits vaccines are linked to autism Source: FDA document admits vaccines are linked to autism

Mummy of 16th century monk could be missing link to global spread of arthritis

SCIENTISTS are studying a mummified body dating back to the 16th century – and believe it could help cure arthritis. The mummy has been well-preserved…

Oops! Thanks to David Hogg’s Die-In Stunt – Publix Cancels Donations to Planned Parenthood

When David Hogg organized a die-in at a Publix supermarket over their donations to an NRA-supported candidate, he caused them to cancel all political donations…

Inside The “New” Starbucks: Blood-Spattered Walls, Workers Pricked By Needles And More

Welcome to the world’s largest homeless shelter. Source: Inside The “New” Starbucks: Blood-Spattered Walls, Workers Pricked By Needles And More Starbucks is having a terrible…

FBI Releases Bureau’s Jeffrey Epstein Files Online: Detail Sexual Battery & Child Prostitution Probes & More – True Pundit

The FBI tweeted out a link to its files on Jeffrey Epstein on Thursday. Epstein is a controversial figure and friend of the Clinton family,…

Boy Scouts Make Another Change: Condoms at Scout Jamboree

“I knew this was coming next.” WeatherInternal Source: Boy Scouts Make Another Change: Condoms at Scout Jamboree In recent weeks, the Boy Scouts of America announced the…

‘Whistleblower’ taped to chair and gagged

Source: ‘Whistleblower’ taped to chair and gagged A woman who complained of a racist and misogynistic culture in a Scottish government agency claims she was…

WATCH: Woman Claims Cop Raped Her. Then Body Cam Footage Is Released. | Daily Wire

A woman who claimed that a Texas Highway Patrol Trooper raped her after she was placed under arrest for driving while intoxicated might want to…

Chris Farrell: Obama administration Meddled in Elections around the World – Judicial Watch

Source: Chris Farrell: Obama administration Meddled in Elections around the World – Judicial Watch Judicial Watch Director of Investigations Chris Farrell discussed how the Obama…

Every Bubble Eventually Finds Its Pin

6 December 2019

Every Bubble Eventually Finds Its Pin

Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

The transfer of wealth from workers and savers to governments and big banks continued this week with Swiss-like precision. The process is both mechanical and subtle. Here in the USA the automated elegance of this ongoing operation receives little attention.

NFL football. EBT card acceptance at Del Taco. Adam Schiff’s impeachment extravaganza. You name it. Bread and circuses like these – and many others – offer the American populace countless opportunities for chasing the wild goose.

All the while, and with little fanfare, debts pile up like deadwood in Sequoia National Forest. These debts, both public and private, stand little chance of ever being honestly repaid. According to the IMF, global debt – both public and private – has reached an all-time high of $188 trillion. That comes to about 230 percent of world output.

Certainly, some of the private debt will be defaulted on during the next credit crisis and depression. But when it comes to the public debt, governments do everything they can to prevent an outright default. Central banks crank up the printing press and attempt to inflate it away.

After Nixon temporarily suspended the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971, the money supply could be expanded without technical limitations. This includes issuing new debt to pay for government spending above and beyond tax receipts. Hence, since 1971, government directed money supply inflation has been the standard operating procedure in the U.S. and much of the world.

Downright Disgraceful

Expanding the money supply has the effect of dissipating wealth from the currency. The process allows governments, which are first in line to spend this newly created money, a back door into your bank account. Without levying taxes, they get access to your wealth and future earnings and leave you with money of diminished value.

As the money diminishes in value the price of goods and services appear to increase. This rise in prices, however, is a function of the currency duation. This duation is primarily achieved via deficit spending.

Of course, when deficits are financed by central bank money printing something downright disgraceful is going on. Alas, in the U.S., as in much of the world, this disgraceful undertaking is a matter of policy. This is the world we live in.

If you recall, the Fed recently recommenced QE (though it’s not calling it that). Under this current iteration, the Fed’s buying Treasury bills of up to $60 billion a month through at least the second quarter 2020. At that pace, the Fed’s on track to swell its balance sheet to a new all-time high over $4.5 trillion.

By this, the Fed is buying tens of billions of dollars in government debt every month. They pay for it with newly created dollars. These dollars are deposited in the Washington’s accounts at the big commercial banks. The government then does something remarkable with this money that was created from nothing: They spend it!

What’s more, as money is debased, the process of earning, saving, and building wealth is also debased. Before long, it degenerated into gambling and speculation. Yet, at the same time, many caught up in the gambling game don’t recognize it for what it is…

Every Bubble Eventually Finds its Pin

Passive investors had plenty to be grateful for when they sat down to their Thanksgiving feast last week. S&P 500 ETFs were up 27 percent year-to-date. Plus, a Santa Claus rally’s almost guaranteed to bring good cheer through the end of the year. Another year or two like this and these shrewd indexers will be able to retire a decade early.

Burgeoning paper wealth has provided an attractive cover for increasing risk and fragility. Gambling on the market, and extrapolating current trends to determine one’s exact retirement date, is much more rewarding than sacrificing short term gains to protect against large, portfolio destroying losses. Why worry when the “Powell put” is firmly in place should the market stumble?

After a decade long bull market run, U.S. investors have grown complacent. A quick gander at a price chart of the S&P 500 over the last 40 years provides ample evidence that stocks always go up over the long term. And there’s no shortage of popular – and mindless – reasons why the good times won’t continue…

The stock market isn’t a bubble, you see, it’s merely climbing a wall of worry. Or, bull markets don’t die of old age. And, don’t forget, the bull market isn’t over until the last bear capitulates.

But what if the stock market isn’t climbing a wall of worry after all? What if it’s a massive bubble that indexers are fully invested in? What will come along and pop it?

Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter what pops it. Every bubble eventually finds its pin. When this bubble pops, like all bubbles pop, the remaining wealth of workers and savers, goaded into the market by Washington’s policies of mass dollar debasement, will die a painful death.

No doubt, traversing the final crack-up is a harrowing endeavor.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/06/2019 - 14:50 Tags Business Finance

Coin Toss: Morgan Stanley Raises Tesla Bull Case To $500, Keeps Bear Case At $10

6 December 2019

Coin Toss: Morgan Stanley Raises Tesla Bull Case To $500, Keeps Bear Case At $10

Ah, is it any wonder gullible clients pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for access to exclusive sell side research?

What would savvy Tesla investors be doing from the sidelines without access to Adam Jonas' prescience over the last few years on Tesla? His constant excuse making for the company, coupled with ever-declining EPS targets and vague predictions about where the stock is going are the perfect fodder for the critical thinkers that are long the stock.

Case in point: yesterday's note on the company, which can be summed up with this exceptionally vague chart pointing out that in the future, Morgan Stanley predicts that Tesla stock can go - well, anywhere - over the next 12 months.

Jonas cites the new Cybertruck, which may or may not ever wind up actually existing and being produced, as the key part of his reasoning for raising his bull case on the company's stock. Jonas predicts the company could be able to sell 100,000 Cybertrucks by YE2024 (yes, four years from now) at an ASP of $50,000, despite Musk pitching the truck as starting at $39,900:

We assume that, in an optimistic scenario, by YE2024 Tesla is able to sell 100,000 Cybertrucks at an average selling price of $50,000, and EBITDA margins of 20%. At 6.0x EV/EBITDA and a 12% discount rate, this implies a per share value of $20 to TSLA. According to Elon Musk's Twitter, Tesla currently has 250k pre- orders for the Cybertruck, so this math implies that roughly 40% of those 250k pre-orders translates to an actual sale by 2024; in our opinion, we believe this is a fairly optimistic assumption, given that a pre-order only requires a $100 refundable deposit.

If we use the Hummer H3 as a proxy, according to IHS sales for that vehicle peaked at about 60k units globally, albeit mostly in North America, so for now we believe 100k units is an appropriate bull case assumption. We note we do not include theCybertruck in our base case given the high degree of risk associated with the product's success, such as the truck's rather polarizing design (although the Cybertruck's design has grown on many investors we have spoken to). We are comfortable with this until we receive more clarity from the company on the roadmap for the product.

The note also tacks on another $40 to the bull case due to China - despite the fact that we pointed out yesterday that Beijing doesn't really seem interested in subsidizing electric vehicles any longer. The bump in target also comes despite Jonas' admission that the market may eventually look at Tesla as a traditional auto OEM, which is exactly what the company is:

We believe that our long-term base case China forecasts are rather conservative with Tesla sales in the region peaking at approximately 250k units by 2024/2025. For our bull case, we assume a significantly more optimistic scenario, vs our base case, of 200k units in incremental volume in 2025 (~450k total units), revenue per unit of $40,000, and EBITDA margins of 23% (based on our analysis of potential China profitability). At 7.0x EV/EBITDA (a 1.0x premium to the Cybertruck, given the likely better margin profile) and a 12% discount rate, this implies incremental per share value of $40 to Tesla. To be clear, we are not bullish on Tesla longer term, especially as, over time, we believe Tesla could be perceived by the market more and more like a traditional auto OEM; we are prepared for a potential surge in sentiment through 1H20 but question the sustainability.

And what would a Morgan Stanley note be without mention of the non-existent Tesla Mobility and the non-existent Tesla Semi:

Tesla is distinctively positioned to commercialize an app-based, on-demand mobility service but faces increasing competition from well-capitalized tech companies. Optionality to new model introductions (Model Y, pickup truck) could significantly expand volumes and profitability. Launch of local China Model 3 production creates tailwind to volume and gross margins through much of 2020. Tesla 'semi' is real but we think difficult to move the needle.

Then it's on to "cover your ass" mode, as Jonas calls Tesla "fundamentally overvalued, but strategically undervalued" in this flash of brilliance:

We believe 2020 offers a strong event path for the stock; there are a number of catalysts over the next year, whether it be China milestones, Model Y, or new technology announcements that would allow Tesla to potentially test the upper bound of our admittedly wide bull-bear skew. We still see Tesla as fundamentally overvalued, but strategically undervalued. We are cautious on Tesla's prospects in China, given geopolitical/CFIUS concerns, we believe that the Model Y will likely cannibalize a significant amount of demand for the Model 3, and see Berlin Giga as a first step for Tesla to ultimately be seen by investors as an auto company rather than a high growth tech firm, with valuation reflecting that at some point.

Here a summary of the broad range of outcomes for Tesla share price that Jonas predicts.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/06/2019 - 14:30 Tags Business Finance

Greta Thunberg Enraged After Climate Strikes "Achieved Nothing", Has Yet To Visit China

6 December 2019

Greta Thunberg Enraged After Climate Strikes "Achieved Nothing", Has Yet To Visit China

Swedish activist Greta Thunberg is angrier than ever. The 16-year-old climate crusader, whose childhood was stolen by everyone except China, says that the wave of climate change school strikes over the past year has "achieved nothing" since greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

Speaking from the Madrid climate conference, after arriving via train from Lisbon, Thunberg said she hoped the negotiations would result in "something concrete."

Thousands of young people were expected to gather at the UN climate conference and in the streets of the Spanish capital on Friday to protest against the lack of progress in tackling the climate emergency, as officials from more than 190 countries wrangled over the niceties of wording in documents related to the Paris accord.

In the four years since the landmark agreement was signed, greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 4% and the talks this year are not expected to produce new commitments on carbon from the world’s biggest emitters. -The Guardian

"People want everything to continue like now and they are afraid of change," she told reporters, without mentioning the world's #1 polluter by volume, China. "And change is what we young people are bringing and that is why they want to silence us and that is just a proof that we are having an impact that our voices are being heard that they try so desperately to silence us."

Thunberg's movement began in Sweden in 2017, and has morphed into an organized campaign across the world.

There is no one more privileged than the white girl refusing to go to school until literally everyone on earth changes the weather for her https://t.co/L8JnBHHUNb

— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) December 2, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"I’m just an activist and we need more activists," said Thunberg, adding "I sincerely hope COP25 will reach something concrete and increase awareness among people, and that world leaders and people in power grasp the urgency of the climate crisis, because right now it does not seem that they are."

In September, Thunberg drew criticism from French President Emmanuel Macron after she filed a legal complaint accusing five countries of inaction on global warming in violation of the 30-year-old UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey were named in the lawsuit.

In response, Macron told Eruope1 that her stance was "very radical" and likely to "antagonize societies."

In October, Thunberg received criticism from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said "Go and explain to developing countries why they should continue living in poverty and not be like Sweden."

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/06/2019 - 14:10 Tags Environment

"The Fed Hasn't Expanded Its Balance Sheet At This Speed Since The Financial Crisis"

6 December 2019

"The Fed Hasn't Expanded Its Balance Sheet At This Speed Since The Financial Crisis"

The Fed's balance sheet is expanding at a faster rate than during QE1, QE2 or QE3.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 18, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

* * *

Submitted by Howard Wang of Convoy Investments

Has QE4 begun? The $1.2 trillion per month hole in the repo market.

In the two months since the repo market blow up, the Fed has been making repo open market operation purchases at a rate of $1.2 trillion per month.

Below is the monthly rate of Fed open market purchases since 2000. In the era of QE and ample reserves, the Fed has not touched open market operations for more than 10 years before 2019. Prior to that, the highest rate of open market operations we saw in history was roughly $300 billion/month briefly after the September 11 attacks, with long‐term averages of around $50 billion/month. To say the current rate of $1.2 trillion/month is unprecedented would be an understatement

The planned QE unwinding has hit a brick wall and the Fed balance sheet is now expanding at a rate matched only briefly by QE1, and faster than QE2 or QE3.

Is this a temporary rescue of the repo market or the start of a sustained QE4? To answer that question, we must look at how monetary policy has evolved since the Financial Crisis.

1. Pre‐2008, scarce reserves regime:

Total reserves: small (<$50 billion) Excess reserves: none Interest on excess reserves: 0% Managing interest rates: to increase rates, Fed sells securities on the open market and reduces supply of reserves, vice versa to decrease rates. Banks: regulations are lax and risk tolerance is high Treasury department: carefully manages its cash flows to not impact the total reserve levels.

2. 2008‐2019, ample reserves regime:

Total reserves: large ($trillions) Excess reserves: large ($trillions) Interest on excess reserves: positive at around Fed funds rate Managing interest rates: Because there is more reserves than the banks could possibly need, Fed sets interest rates by paying a floor rate on reserves. Banks: regulations are strict and risk tolerance is low Treasury department: no longer actively manages its cash flows, its activities directly affect total reserve levels.

3. 2019 onwards, scarce reserves regime again?:

A combination of QE unwinding, strict banking regulations, and a concentration of reserves in a handful of banks have once again made reserves scarce, which means a rate floor is no longer effective at managing against rate rises. This was painfully obvious in December of 2018 and September of 2019. Thus far, the Fed has chosen their pre‐2008 strategy of temporary open market operations to manage rates in this new scarce reserves environment. But because the total pool of reserves is around 50 times larger now than pre‐2008, the size of the required open market operations is in the $trillions, not $billions, per month.

Going forward, the Fed must make a choice of staying in a regime of scarce reserves or going back to ample reserves. The Fed can lower interest on excess reserves and reduce bank incentives to hold excess reserves to some degree, but the new post‐2008 regulations will still necessitate a far larger base of reserves than pre‐2008. So managing a scarce reserves banking system on a large base of reserves will require continued massive open market operations. It will likely also require a change from the Treasury department’s cash flow management.

Alternatively, the Fed can recognize that they’ve found the floor for the total amount of reserves necessary in our new regulatory environment and add some reserves via another round of QE as cushion and grow the total reserves in line with our GDP. This would allow us to stay in the ample reserves regime.

The key metric I’d keep an eye on is the difference between interest on excess reserves and the effective Fed Funds rate, which I show below. We made the switch from an ample reserves regime to a scarce reserves regime in December of 2018.

If the system has more than enough reserves, the effective Fed Funds rate would be below the interest on excess reserves because not every participant is eligible for interest on excess reserves, hence they’d push the average Fed Funds rate below interest on excess reserves. In the 2019 environment of scarce reserves, market participants are starved for reserves and bid the average Fed Funds rate at or above interest on excess reserves. At the moment, the Fed has done enough open market operations to meet reserve demand and drive Fed Funds rate exactly back to interest on excess reserves.

Going forward, whether the Fed pushes effective Fed Funds rate below interest on excess reserves will signal the next era of monetary policy. If the Fed chooses the scarce reserves route, Fed funds rate will stay at or above interest on excess reserves. The Fed will continue to buy short‐term securities as necessary to meet demand for reserves and push down the short end of the curve and I’d bet on the yield curve steepening again. If they choose the ample reserves route, Fed Funds rate will fall back below interest on excess reserves, the Fed will go back to buying 10 year bonds, and I’d expect to see further flattening of the yield curve.

Unless banking regulations change dramatically, my guess is that QE4 is coming. The Fed would rather have a cushion of ample reserves against unexpected repo market blow ups than react retroactively with $trillions/month of open market operation purchases.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/06/2019 - 13:50 Tags Business Finance

What The "Expert" Panel Should Have Told You About Impeachment... But Didn't

6 December 2019

What The "Expert" Panel Should Have Told You About Impeachment... But Didn't

Authored by Rob Natelson via The Epoch Times,

This short essay does what the House Judiciary Committee’s panel of “expert witnesses” did not successfully do.

First, it explains the meaning of the Constitution’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” standard. Next, it discusses how that standard applies to President Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Finally, it details the kind of evidence the House Judiciary Committee should gather to determine whether the president committed an impeachable offense.

Many phrases in the Constitution—such as “necessary and proper,” “Privileges and Immunities,” and “Convention for proposing Amendments”—carry specialized 18th century meanings not obvious to the modern reader. Recall that most of the leading Founders were lawyers and the Constitution is a legal document. Some of these phrases derive from 18th century law.

Therefore, to understand them you have to consult 18th century legal materials in addition to better-known sources such as the 1787 convention debates or the Federalist Papers.

Unfortunately, most of the scholars called by the House Judiciary Committee to address the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” were not able to do so accurately.

According to the authoritative Westlaw database, two of the three Democratically appointed witnesses have published no scholarly work on impeachment: Their specialties are in other areas. None showed any familiarity with 18th century fiduciary standards—which (as explained below) are part of the law of impeachment. All of the witnesses voted against President Trump, and several have been involved in anti-Trump activity.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that, except for professor Jonathan Turley’s heavily footnoted 53-page written statement, the testimony was biased and superficial.

What Is the Standard?

Impeachment law is not for amateurs. It rests on English parliamentary history extending at least as far back as the 1300s. Furthermore, impeachment standards evolved over time. To understand the Constitution’s rules we must know what the standards were when the Constitution was adopted. We can do so by consulting 18th century parliamentary records and legal materials.

Here’s some of what they tell us:

The term “high Crimes” means, approximately, “felonies.”

The phrase “high … Misdemeanors” refers to what the founding generation called “breach of trust” and what modern lawyers call breach of fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duties are the legal obligations imposed upon those who manage the affairs of other people—bankers, corporate executives, accountants, guardians, and so forth. In broad outline, fiduciary law when the Constitution was adopted was similar to what it is today.

In the 14th and 15th centuries, an official could be impeached because Parliament disagreed with his policy decisions. However, as several American Founders recognized, by the 18th century this was no longer true. The official must have violated (in the words of several sources) “the known and established law.” This limited impeachment to serious crimes and fiduciary breaches.

The trial in the upper house of the legislature was a judicial proceeding, not primarily a political one. As the 1782 edition of the popular Jacob’s Law Dictionary noted, “the same evidence is required in an impeachment in Parliament, as in the ordinary courts of justice.” The hearsay and impressionist evidence gathered by the House Intelligence Committee is not admissible.

The core of the case against President Trump is that he used his political position to seek re-election assistance from a foreign government. Although there’s dark talk of crimes committed, the principal charge is fiduciary rather than criminal. In other words, a “high … Misdemeanor.”

House Democrats have struggled to define Trump’s alleged offense. Initially, they described it as “quid pro quo.” Then they employed the term “bribery.” The legally correct designation is “self-dealing.”

Self-dealing is betraying your employer’s interests to enrich yourself. It’s a violation of the fiduciary duty of loyalty.

We can assume the president might benefit from a Ukrainian investigation, but that doesn’t mean asking for an investigation was self-dealing as defined by fiduciary, and therefore by impeachment, law. There’s nothing unusual or improper about a president asking a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to address corruption. As for seeking political advantage: If we punished every politician who did that, they would all be swinging from the yardarm.

This is as true in foreign as in domestic affairs. When President Barack Obama told the Russian president he would have more flexibility after his re-election, he was saying (1) an agreement now would benefit both Russia and the United States, but (2) I’m going to sacrifice our mutual interests for the present because such an agreement might hurt my re-election campaign. Was this impeachable self-dealing? Almost certainly not.

So where is the divide between “normal” conduct and impeachable conduct? To answer this, we need to weigh at least three factors: impeachment precedent, the national interest, and the practice of other presidents.

Impeachable Conduct

For defining the Constitution’s phase “high … Misdemeanors,” the most important precedents (although not the only ones) lie in 18th century impeachment and fiduciary law.

An 18th century impeachment treatise outlines the specific facts by which several officials were impeached for what we now call self-dealing.

They include the following:

(1) the official enriched himself at the expense of the Crown by arranging for royal pardons,

(2) he stole funds from the Royal Navy,

(3) he confiscated ships and cargos without due process and appropriated the proceeds,

(4) he obtained “exorbitant grants of lands and money, to the great detriment of the revenue,”

(5) he seized forfeited land that should have gone to the Crown, and

(6) acting through a strawman, he took the proceeds from timber sales in the king’s forests.

All these cases boil down to stealing public property. They don’t look like the Trump–Zelensky dealings at all.

Another part of the answer lies in whether President Trump violated the national interest. As a general rule, self-dealing generally is not just enriching yourself. It’s enriching yourself at the expense of your employer. If Trump’s interests were aligned with those of the country, there was no fiduciary breach.

Despite Col. Alexander Vindman’s complaint that Trump violated “the consensus of the interagency,” the question of whether Trump acted contrary to the national interest is a difficult one to answer.

Perhaps we had a national interest in not asking President Zelensky to investigate. But we also had a national interest in asking, because it would be useful to know if Ukrainian officials were trying to meddle in our presidential elections. And it would be useful to know whether the family of a leading presidential candidate is engaged in corruption. Remember: the president asked only for an investigation, not for a pre-determined result.

Thus, you can argue the “national interest” issue both ways. It looks more a policy question than a clear case like theft of public funds.

Still another part of the answer lies in how similar officials act in similar circumstances. In absence of a crime, if you want to determine whether a banker handled funds properly, you should investigate how bankers usually handle funds. If you wish to determine whether an investment adviser gave reasonable advice, you should consult what other reputable advisers recommend in the same circumstances.

Similarly, to decide whether President Trump engaged in impermissible self-dealing, we need testimony about how other officials conduct themselves. We know, for example, that then-Vice President Biden explicitly made aid to Ukraine conditional on firing a Ukrainian prosecutor. If that conduct wasn’t impeachable (and I don’t believe it was) then Trump’s more tepid conduct certainly isn’t impeachable.

Thus, the Judiciary Committee should ask for testimony from officials of prior presidential administrations, and preferably from the former presidents themselves. Did they ever make foreign aid conditional? What were the conditions? Why? And so forth.

Another Panel

It was a good idea to empanel academic experts to provide guidance on the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be done again, and this time correctly.

The next panel should include presidential historians, parliamentary historians, and experts on fiduciary law. It should not consist primarily of law professors, who are notorious for engaging more in advocacy than in true scholarship.

Every panelist should have published research on impeachment, fiduciary law, or related areas. No panelist should be enmeshed in pro-Trump or anti-Trump political activity. They should be limited to discussing constitutional impeachment standards without expostulating on evidentiary testimony. Weighing the evidence is the job of the committee members, not of academics with little judicial or “real life” experience.

Once the scholarly panel has testified, the committee should explore whether the president’s Ukrainian actions clearly violated the national interest and it should gather testimony on the conduct of former administrations in comparable situations.

And only if all those investigations support a “self-dealing” conclusion should the committee recommend articles of impeachment.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/06/2019 - 13:30 Tags Law Crime

Pensacola gunman who killed four is Saudi aviation student

6 December 2019

A shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida early this morning left three people dead and eight others injured before the gunman, a Saudi aviation student, was killed by deputies.

Angela Merkel, 65, loses her balance and nearly falls during first ever visit to Auschwitz

6 December 2019

Footage showed her turning around after laying wreaths at a former execution wall at Auschwitz when she appeared to stumble and almost fall backwards.

Sir John Major urges people to vote AGAINST the Conservatives

6 December 2019

The Tory former prime minister said he would vote for David Gauke, Dominic Grieve and Anne Milton - who all lost the party whip earlier this year after rebelling on Brexit - if he lived in their areas.

M25 is shut in both directions after a crane crashes into the central reservation

6 December 2019

A serious collision tonight saw the crane crunch through the central barrier at Junction 27 in Essex.

Greta Thunberg joins protesters in Madrid after warning UN summit about climate change

6 December 2019

Greta Thunberg, who refuses to travel by air because of the environmental impact, joined climate change protesters in Madrid today as she called on world leaders to take action.