A Ukrainian drone swarm sent against Russia is being widely seen as one of the largest single drone attacks from Ukraine of the war, if not the biggest. Early on Tuesday drones slammed into regions across Russia, including reaching the capital of Moscow.

One Russian woman was killed when a drone directly hit her apartment complex just outside Moscow. The drone smashed into a 17-floor high rise where her residence was, and significant damage was later seen to the 10th through 12th floors where the woman’s residence was. Several others were injured in the early dark hours drone assault.

At least 144 drones were reported intercepted over Russian territory during the attack wave, which disrupted traffic at multiple airports, causing stops and delays. This means the total drones sent was likely in the hundreds.

Such an attack method to sow general terror and panic in the Russian population is likely preferred at this point by Ukrainian commanders as it risks no valuable manpower and costs little.

According to a summary of the impact on airports:

In a major disruption of air traffic, four airports servicing Moscow — including key hubs Domodedovo and Sheremetyevo — canceled or delayed flights on Tuesday morning as a result of the attack, according to state media. The airport in the Tatarstan capital of Kazan, over 700 kilometers (435 miles) east of Moscow, also temporarily suspended service early Tuesday.

There are claims that some of the drones scored direct hits on Domodedovo International Airport…

BREAKING:

For the first time, Ukrainian drones are striking Domodedovo International Airport in Moscow.

It’s the second-largest airport in Moscow after Sheremetyevo Airport.pic.twitter.com/3bLayJsykz

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) September 10, 2024

The Guardian confirmed that Moscow area airports were targeted by Ukrainian drone forces:

Moscow’s mayor, Sergey Sobyanin, confirmed that a blaze had broken out on the runway at Zhukovsky airfield caused by falling debris from a drone. Videos circulating online showed a fire burning next to a plane and a passenger bus.

Three out of four Moscow airports were shut, including Domodedovo international airport, which was reportedly targeted for the first time. More than 30 domestic and international flights were suspended, Russian agencies reported.

Such a large-scale targeting of airports marks a new unprecedented escalation.

🇷🇺🇺🇦MOSCOW AIRPORT DELAYS AFTER UKRAINIAN DRONE ATTACK

Passengers face huge queues at Vnukovo International Airport following this morning’s disruption.

The airspace was closed due to a wave of Ukrainian drones targeting Moscow.

Source: RIA pic.twitter.com/XL1JLu5Qvi

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) September 10, 2024

Local eyewitnesses fear that this means the war could be coming closer to the capital, also at a moment Ukraine is urging the West to greenlight long-rage missiles strikes deep into Russian territory:

“It became hard to breathe. It was scary, of course. We opened the windows so we could at least breathe because the smoke was coming from somewhere,” said Dmitry, a 52-year-old sales manager.

Lyubov Sbrodova, a resident of a neighboring apartment block, told AFP hostilities were getting closer to the Russian capital.

Ukraine launched a cross-border attack into Russia’s Kursk region last month. “It started in Kursk and has already reached us,” the 33-year-old said. “Our authorities are not doing absolutely everything to keep our people safe,” she added.

Bryansk region Governor Alexander Bogomaz said “the enemy carried out a mass terrorist attack,” while noting “there were no casualties or damage.”

Drones impact Moscow in the early morning dark hours:

This is Moscow today.

Russian media report over 20 Ukrainian drones intercepted over the city (though this one wasn’t) and 144 drones intercepted across Russia.

Key things:

1. Russian official media are no longer downplaying these attacks—they can’t ignore them anymore 1/ pic.twitter.com/ZIcfb0lpiW

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) September 10, 2024

Another Moscow resident impacted by the drone strike on the apartment building, described, “We were asleep, of course. Suddenly my husband and I heard a rumble. We ran out onto the balcony. (We saw) smoke, and people running with their children.”

The 48-year old woman was cited in AFP further as saying, “Why are we having to live in fear now? When will it end?”

As for Kremlin leadership it doesn’t seem panicked, given Russian forces are still making sweeping gains in Eastern Ukraine, where the real battle for future settlement of boundaries is taking place.

Drones attacked the Moscow region. One person was killed. The attack was the largest since the beginning of the war

Ukraine overnight conducted the largest (according to the Russian Defense Ministry) drone attack on the Moscow region. A 46-year-old woman was killed when one UAV… pic.twitter.com/54rebgPNqV

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) September 10, 2024

“We must continue the military operation in order to protect ourselves from such displays of this regime,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced Tuesday. In essence he’s telling the Russian population that such attacks on sovereign Russian territory means the continuation of the war is necessary and justified.

Authored by Steven Kovac via The Epoch Times,

Two Texas churches and a couple of nonprofit organizations with tax-exempt status are challenging the IRS in federal court over alleged violations of their freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and equal treatment under the law.

The group alleges that numerous churches and “left-leaning” publications that are owned by tax-exempt nonprofits routinely support Democratic political candidates in violation of the Internal Revenue Code with no repercussions, while conservative churches and nonprofits are threatened and penalized.

In the complaint, the group cites examples of nonprofit media organizations appearing to endorse President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and other political figures, as well as church leaders praising Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former President Barack Obama during services while they were candidates for president.

“Plaintiffs believe that the activity described … demonstrates ongoing, open, and obvious violations of the [law] by churches friendly to Democrat candidates,” the complaint states.

“However, plaintiffs contend that all such activity is constitutionally protected. Plaintiffs only seek the freedom to engage in similar activity.”

In 2020, a church called Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg, Virginia, was fined after its pastor told congregants to vote in line with the values set forth in the Bible and said the Republican platform was in greater alignment with the Bible than the Democratic platform, according to the legal filing.

An organization called “Christians Engaged” was also denied tax-exempt status in 2021 for Bible teachings on topics that “are typically affiliated with the [Republican] party and candidates,” according to an excerpt from the IRS letter in the complaint. The denial was later reversed.

“To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, no investigation, and particularly no adverse action, has ever been taken against any left-leaning or Democrat-affiliated nonprofit,“ the complaint states.

”The proportion of adverse actions taken against 501(c)(3) nonprofits skews disproportionately against conservative organizations.”

For an organization to be considered a not-for-profit charity, it must not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office,” according to a 1954 law known as the Johnson Amendment.

The IRS widely publicizes warnings that violators could be subject to monetary penalties and the revoking of their tax-exempt status.

The plaintiffs also point out that since the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision in 2010, all for-profit corporations and all nonprofits organized under any section other than 501(c)(3) may freely support or oppose candidates for public office in line with the First Amendment.

The result is an unfair and unequal application of the law, the plaintiffs allege.

The complaint was filed on Aug. 28 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.

The plaintiffs in the case are the National Religious Broadcasters, Sand Springs Church, the First Baptist Church Waskom, and the Intercessors for America, a national prayer group.

The IRS did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, David Kallman of the Kallman Legal Group, told The Epoch Times: “We are not asking the court to restrict the rights of … churches and other liberal organizations, even though they continuously violate the Johnson Amendment without repercussions from the IRS.

“We just want the same standard to be applied to all churches and 501(c)(3)s. If the law is not enforced in the same way against everyone, then it also violates the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law.”

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional and injunctive relief against the IRS to prohibit the continued application of the amendment to political speech.

They contend that the law substantially burdens their right to the free exercise of their religion because it thwarts their ability to inform others of how a candidate’s position squares with the teachings of the Bible.

The plaintiffs also request a declaratory judgment that the IRS is violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Michael Farris, told The Epoch Times that a lot of churches may choose to not get involved in politics.

“Yet it is untenable under the First Amendment for government to shut down some voices in this country that are seeking to speak the truth,” he said.

“We live in a time where we benefit from more speech, not less speech.”

Yesterday we said that the latest consumer credit numbers, which saw a bizarre surge in credit card debt as consumers – their savings now depleted and at record low levels – now have to charge their credit card for every day staples, were the “last hurrah” for consumption in the US.

It didn’t take long to get confirmation, when first JPMorgan shocked the market when its president Daniel Pinto warned that the bank will not hit its (or the Wall Street consensus) previous Net Interest Income target, sending the stock plunging the most since June 2020…

… which however was followed by a far more dramatic crash in the shares of Ally Financial, which plunged as much as 18%, their biggest one-day drop since March 2020, after the auto lender’s management presented at the Barclays 22nd Annual Global Financial Services Conference.

What sent the stock crashing is CFO Russ Hutchinson warning about weaker credit and net interest income trends quarter-to-date relative to expectations; specifically Hutchingson said that in July and August, they saw auto delinquencies soar a whopping 20 basis points compared to their expectation, while net charge offs (NCOs) were up ~10 bps compared to their expectations.

Confirming that the pain is mostly linked to the firm’s retail auto loan book, Hutchinson said that borrowers have shown signs of vulnerability throughout the year and August US jobs data underscored those stresses.

“Over the course of the quarter, our credit challenges have intensified,” Hutchinson said on Tuesday. “Our borrower is struggling with high inflation and cost of living and now, more recently, a weakening employment picture.”

He also said that the firm may experience some underperformance, he said, adding that Ally will evaluate reserves to cover bad loans and increase them if needed. Needless to say, the sudden confirmation that the bottom is falling out of auto loans is something the market was apparently unaware of, and confirms that US consumer are once again picking and choosing on which accounts to default first.

Hutchinson said the firm will focus more on capital and expenses moving forward, though is not updating its guidance at this time.

Commenting on the announcement, KBW analyst Sanjay Sakhrani said that management pointed to weaker credit trends quarter-to-date compared to expectations

“Clearly the guide was disappointing and begs the question if this is ALLY-specific or a canary in the coal mine,” he writes.  “We still think the stock remains a compelling longer-term opportunity with rates on the decline, but concede this revision is not a good look,” he noted, sidestepping commentary on how those who bought the stock per his reco ahead of today’s 18% plunge must feel.

RBC analyst Jon Arfstrom, who also has an “outperform” rating on the crashing company, wrote that “while these are manageable increases relative to the prior guidance, we believe the relatively quick increase in the NCO and delinquency direction is something that investors will question”

Ally’s announcement sparked a stock liquidation frenzy among all consumer-facing card issuers, including Bread Financial -9.7%, Synchrony Financial -8.6%, Capital One Financial -6.9% and Discover Financial Services -6.9%.

BMW AG shares tumbled in Germany on Tuesday after the company slashed its annual outlook due to a faulty braking system from supplier Continental AG, impacting as many as 1.5 million vehicles, which will only drive costs higher for the carmaker. 

“The delivery stops for vehicles that are not already in customers hands will have a negative worldwide sales effect in the second half of the year. The Integrated Braking System-related technical actions impact over 1.5 million vehicles and result in additional warranty costs in a high three-digit million amount in the third quarter,” BMW wrote in a press release. 

As a result, BMW adjusted the guidance for the 2024 financial year:

• A slight decrease in deliveries versus previous year (previously: slight increase).
• An EBIT margin for 2024 in a corridor from 6% to 7% (previously: 8% to 10%).
• Return on Capital Employed (RoCE) between 11% and 13% (previously: 15% to 20%).

In markets, investors dumped BMW shares in Germany, down 9% to around the mid-point of the 70 euro handle. 

BMW also pointed out headwinds have been gathering across the global automotive segment. It said, “Parallel to this effect, the ongoing muted demand in China is affecting sales volumes. Despite government stimulus measures, consumer sentiment remains weak.” 

More on the situation from Bloomberg Intelligence: 

“BMW’s 2024 auto Ebit margin guidance cut to 6-7% from 8-10% means at least a 20% reduction to consensus auto Ebit. Only half of that is attributable to higher warranty costs from a faulty Continental braking system, and the balance relating to negative pricing, especially in China amid waning demand impacting automakers and suppliers alike. BMW’s rising inventory follows VW’s overcapacity woes and sets a negative 2H tone with EU sales 15% below a 2019 peak and sluggish EV demand.” 

And Goldman’s take…

FY24 auto margin now seen at 6-7% – Today (September 10th) BMW took down its FY24 outlook and now expects an automotive EBIT margin of 6-7% vs. 8-10% previously (Visible Alpha Consensus Data 8.3%, GSe 8.7%). The cut to guidance is attributed to an issue with a braking system that has led BMW to stop sale of certain models globally and incremental warranty provisions, in the high 3 digit million amount during 3Q. In addition, BMW notes ongoing muted demand in China negatively impacting volumes.

Potential cut of €2.76bn to cons FY group EBIT – Taking the information at hand, we believe that cons group EBIT for BMW may be subject to negative revisions in the magnitude of 13% to 23%. At the mid-point, we see a potential negative revision of €2.74bn in the automotive segment and c.€30mn in motorcycles. We are surprised by the magnitude of BMW’s warning having noted management’s confidence at 2Q results on 1st August. We remain Neutral rated.

With a broader view here of the global automotive space, the MSCI World Automobiles Index has stalled since peaking in 2021. 

A lower interest rate environment will certainly help the industry. 

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Yesterday saw ex-“whatever-it-takes” ECB president/Italian PM Mario Draghi deliver a shocking report on the EU’s future. As Draghi told a journalist in the Q&A held in a very large room with a very small audience unbefitting the topic at hand, Europe must change radically to thrive, and while it’s not do or die, it’s “Do this, or it’s a slow agony.”

The only way to avoid economic and geopolitical death by a thousand cuts includes investing an extra 5% of GDP (€800bn) annually. This figure shocked many into silence given the lack of response in markets. However, it’s in line with the prediction we made in our December deep dive into the EU’s quest for strategic autonomy: we stressed vast annual spending would be needed alongside massive structural reforms. Draghi echoes these points, specifically that all EU policies (e.g., industrial, defence, trade, energy, transport, immigration, etc.) need to link up to serve an overall strategic goal – preventing the EU from shrivelling into irrelevance. Draghi went further than us too. He said EU member states’ national champions must be replaced by pan-EU champions with more global scale. He also attacked the EU for its bureaucracy, which is like Trump attacking non-sequiturs because he thinks that’s where the Mexican cartels are based. Politico’s Isabella Kaminska called it all “perestroika”, referencing President Gorbachev’s late-80’s attempted pro-market reforms of the former USSR – which led to its collapse. Yet its EU ordoliberal sacred cows which will have to be sacrificed if Draghi gets his way. Slashing bureaucracy aside, this is “inverse perestroika”: it moves the EU from ‘because markets’ to a national-security focused state-capitalism. Even so, there are many questions left unanswered.

First, who will pay for this? Draghi implied the EU private sector will have to step up, but if it wanted to invest in these kinds of projects, it already would be. The logical implication is thus that private capital will have to be forced to invest in the ‘right’ places or subsidized to do so, as with the US Inflation Reduction Act and proposed higher US tariffs. For the public sector, there is a floated new EU tax or, finally, joint Eurobonds to pay for it. Yet as we argued in December, ultimately the ECB will have to back much of this spending, i.e., supply-side QE. After all, that’s what the EU’s geopolitical rivals do, and this is an existential geopolitical project. If all policies join up to serve that goal, why isn’t monetary policy one of them? “Because markets”?

Second, what does the demand side look like? It’s one thing to arrange a vast flow of ECB-backed liquidity, e.g., to build a new EU military. It’s another thing to force EU politicians to agree on joint production of military goods and joint delivery, e.g., who gets how many tanks and planes, etc.? On a grand scale, who is guiding Europe’s Grand Strategy? Somebody is, or nobody.

Rather than deal with the above, many in Europe seem to prefer “slow agony.” Within hours, the German finance minister had already shot Draghi’s ideas down: presumably it’s OK by him if all of Europe looks like Germany, which itself looks like VW. Many in markets might agree, not just because the proposed reforms are so radical, but because slow agony might be taken to mean low growth, low inflation, and therefore, “RATE CUTS!”

However, we already modelled what Draghi’s “don’t do this” looks like: it’s an ugly, permanent Euro stagflation that will please nobody in politics, business, or markets. Draghi isn’t talking of threats idly, even if the market is idling at much of what it knows being threatened.

Meanwhile, the words “slow” and “agony” apply in other economies too.

In China, there is more concern over the risks of a downwards deflationary spiral taking hold following yesterday’s weak inflation data. A global trade war certainly is as a result of said deflation, and it’s spreading to other fronts: the US House of Representatives just passed legislation to ban Chinese biotech firms, for example. Europe will be doing the same soon if Draghi is listened to.

In the UK, ahead of a budget it seems it going to reintroduce the austerity that structurally weakened the economy last time it was tried, political commentator Robert Peston shares: “Here is what [Chancellor] Rachel Reeves has just told Labour MPs is the “prize” of sticking with her controversial decision to end universal pensioner entitlement to the winter fuel payment:  “If we show, as I believe we will, that economic stability is the hallmark of labour governments, there is no limit to what we can achieve, because with that stability comes investment. With investment comes growth. With growth comes prosperity.” As I said earlier, she is now betting the whole farm, as it were, on the symbolism of making a hugely unpopular cut to older people’s incomes.” In short, he says Labour thinks taking money away from poor pensioners as winter looms is the key to triggering new capital investment into productive areas of the economy. And you thought Draghi’s claims were radical?

In Australia, my “DM = EM” (Developed markets = Emerging markets) T-shirts now also come in XXX. There’s a bareknuckle fight between the RBA, which sets rates and won’t rush to cut them with inflation still high, and the government, which is subsidising utility bills to counter/hide some of that inflation while spending freely, so pushing it back up. This has seen recent headlines of Treasurer Chalmers accusing the RBA of “smashing” people, rather than being smashing people, and being dared to lift the RBA’s inflation target via legislation if he wants to force them to cut rates faster. Today, the opposition says it won’t cooperate with the Treasurer to create a new rates-setting body within the RBA, so Chalmers is talking to the Green Party to get it done: a party whose demands are that the government retains laws that allow the RBA governor to tell Aussie banks how to lend money, and leave the government a veto over rate decisions. In short, much sound and fury, and serving a ‘grand strategy’ of ever-rising house prices when they are already unaffordable. At least Draghi has a bigger vision.

In the US, the focus is going to be on the second presidential debate, the first between Vice-President Harris and former President Trump. We can hope for a rapid-fire exchange of ideas on domestic policies such as the efficacy of anti-trust actions, introducing sovereign wealth funds with no sovereign savings, ideal tax and immigration policy, or how various tariff plans will work, and externally on the best US grand strategy in a rapidly changing world. However, I suspect the debate will mostly be a slow agony.

Outgoing EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager scored a major victory on Tuesday after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled against Apple in the decade-long battle over the tech giant’s “sweetheart” tax affairs in Ireland. 

“Today is a big win for European citizens and for tax justice. The Court of Justice confirms that Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland now has to recover, and the Commission’s decision in the Google Shopping antitrust case,” Vestager said in a press conference on Tuesday. 

“Today is a big win for European citizens and for tax justice.

The Court of Justice confirms that Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland now has to recover, and the Commission’s decision in the Google Shopping antitrust case.”

— Executive Vice President @vestager pic.twitter.com/1Fko0F66S2

— European Commission (@EU_Commission) September 10, 2024

The European Commission first investigated Apple’s tax payments in Ireland in 2014. By 2016, the Commission demanded Dublin to recover 13 billion euros ($14.4 billion) in back taxes from the US-based company. In 2019, Apple appealed the Commission’s decision, and in 2020, the EU General Court ruled in Apple’s favor. The EU’s second-highest court rejected the Commission’s 2016 decision and said that the executive arm did not demonstrate that the Irish government had given Apple a tax advantage. Like a game of ping-pong, the Commission appealed the General Court’s decision, which ultimately sent the litigation to the ECJ for final ruling. 

“The Court of Justice gives final judgment in the matter and confirms the European Commission’s 2016 decision: Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland is required to recover,” the Luxembourg-based court said, adding Apple’s two Ireland-based companies enjoyed favorable tax treatment compared to resident companies taxed in Ireland. 

Apple previously stated that from 2003 to 2014, it paid $577 million in tax, 12.5% of the profit generated in the country, which is in line with tax laws. 

“The European Commission is trying to retroactively change the rules and ignore that, as required by international tax law, our income was already subject to taxes in the US. We are disappointed with today’s decision as previously the general court reviewed the facts and categorically annulled this case,” Apple wrote in a statement to The Guadrian.

Bloomberg Intelligence’s Anurag Rana and Andrew Girard weighed in on Apple’s defeat: 

“The EU top court’s reinstatement of a €13 billion tax penalty against Apple doesn’t pose significant operational threat. Apple put the sum in escrow after the 2016 ruling, and disclosed nearly $62 billion in cash and marketable securities in 3Q. Ireland has tightened the tax program that underpinned the EU’s decision, leaving little risk of further action. Pending EU inquiries into the App Store, brought under a new legal regime, pose a more tangible challenge as they are likely to force Apple to open its walled ecosystem.”

Apple shares in premarket trading in New York were down a little over 1%. 

EJC’s ruling comes one day after Apple debuted the new iPhone 16 models and other upgraded devices. Some Wall Street analysts called the launch event ‘uninspiring’ and questioned if the new iPhone will ignite a big refresh cycle. 

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com,

China’s oil demand growth has been slowing down due to weaker economic performance and a shift to electric vehicles and LNG-fueled trucks, oil industry executives said at the APPEC conference in Singapore on Monday.

Right now, Chinese oil demand growth has slowed to about 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) each year, compared to 500,000 bpd-600,000 bpd annual growth in the five years before Covid, Goldman Sachs’s head of oil research, Daan Struyven, said, as carried by Reuters.

The slower growth is the result of higher EV penetration and rising LNG use in trucks, which has hit diesel demand.

Diesel demand has also suffered recently from the ongoing property crisis and lackluster economic growth.

But the gradual shift in transportation toward EVs and LNG trucks could be removing some road fuel demand permanently, according to analysts.

Still, China shouldn’t be dismissed as a key factor in global energy and oil consumption as an economic rebound could spur oil demand anew, according to other industry analysts.

China’s shift toward EVs will bring about domestic gasoline demand peaking either this year or next, according to Vitol Group’s CEO Russell Hardy.

“Gasoline is likely to peak this year or next year in China — not because nobody’s moving, but simply because the fleet is slowly changing towards electric vehicles,” the top executive of the world’s largest independent oil trader told Bloomberg in an interview published on Monday.  

Earlier this year, Vitol pushed back its expected timeline for global peak oil demand beyond 2030. Hardy said in February that a slower pace of the energy transition would push peak oil demand beyond 2030.

Nevertheless, Vitol sees weakening Chinese gasoline demand growth and diesel demand due to the electrification of transport and greater use of LNG for fueling trucks.

Demand for petroleum products in China could peak before next year, the research unit of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) forecast earlier in 2024. The projection is based on expectations that the energy transition will continue gathering speed, eliminating oil product demand growth.

The Washington Post confirms “incidents of looting and vandalism” in Georgetown, City Center, and other parts of Washington, DC, in the overnight hours. 

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) released a statement that said, “Overnight, groups of individuals decided to destroy property and burglarize businesses throughout our city, specifically in the City Center and Georgetown areas, along with a store in the H Street Corridor, a store in Logan Circle, and a store north of Columbia Heights.”

“We immediately increased our police resources in the impacted areas. Preliminary, MPD is investigating six burglaries and six destruction of property offenses in those area,” police said. 

🚨#BREAKING: Protest and Small Riots are forming as numerous people Break into high end Store, Set Fires, and Commit Multiple Assaults

📌#Washington | #DC

Currently, numerous Metro law enforcement officers are responding to protest and a small riot forming at City Center in… pic.twitter.com/oMpH8euEtd

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) September 10, 2024

Footage of the looting was uploaded to X. Citizen journalists reported that rioters stormed a Gucci store and other brick-and-mortar shops.

Incoming video from City Center on 1000 Bl. of I St. N.W. https://t.co/5tigXRBQhx

— DC REALTIME NEWS (@RealTimeNews10) September 10, 2024

🚨🇺🇸CHAOS IN DOWNTOWN DC AS MOB VANDALIZES STORES

A mob attacked a Gucci store in City Center, while police in riot gear struggled to control the scene.

Protesters chanted “Don’t Shoot, I’m Sleep” as officers attempted to disperse the crowd.

Source: @_anthonypeltier… https://t.co/3P9s38xGeG pic.twitter.com/BopYIRC6RA

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) September 10, 2024

Mob of burglars targeted several high-end stores throughout DC overnight. MPD has made 5 arrests, but we are hearing as many as 60 people might’ve been involved. At the Gucci store at City Center, doors have been damaged and merchandise was ripped off security devices. @7NewsDC pic.twitter.com/xdA75g6UOx

— John Gonzalez (@John7News) September 10, 2024

#Gucci in #DC robbed by a mob of about 60. Helicopter and drone deployed. The mob escaped with an unknown amount of merchandise. pic.twitter.com/5X4el2uHGp

— @BeeNewsDailyB (@BeenewsdailyB) September 10, 2024

WaPo explained, “The police statement did not specify a reason for the disorderly incidents. However, they came hours after police released body-camera video of the incident this month in which officers fatally shot a violence interrupter.” 

Right, because the first response is to loot a Gucci store.

Here’s what X users are saying about the incident:

I hope this is not preliminary results of the massive illegal immigrants of recent!

— Jeremiah Adetunji (@jeremiadetunji) September 10, 2024

Lawlessness. #Obamala

— EggmanCO (@EggmanColo) September 10, 2024

Mobs are allowed by the Democrat Party because they are desired chaos.

— Daniel (@endikux) September 10, 2024

This was only made possible by Biden-Harris’ ‘new way forward’ of so-called change, quickly spiraling the nation into chaos.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Michigan Supreme Court has denied Robert F. Kennedy’s request to have his name removed from the state’s general election ballot, reversing a lower court ruling and closing the last legal avenue available to Kennedy in the case.

In a split 5–2 ruling issued on Sept. 9, the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the original ruling by the Michigan Court of Claims, which denied Kennedy’s motion for mandamus relief, an extraordinary legal remedy that requires a plaintiff to demonstrate a clear legal right and that the defendant, in this case the Michigan Secretary of State, has a clear duty to act.

The high court ruled that Kennedy did not provide a clear legal basis requiring the removal of his name from the November ballot and failed to identify a law that would leave no room for discretion in this matter on the part of election officials.

“Plaintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines a duty to withdraw a candidate’s name from the ballot nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with ‘such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment,’” reads the majority opinion, which reversed an appeals court’s decision that sided with Kennedy and reinstated the lower court’s decision that dismissed his request with prejudice.

Michigan Supreme Court Justices Brian K. Zahra and David F. Viviano dissented. They argued that there was no statute prohibiting Kennedy from withdrawing from the election and no practical reason to deny Kennedy’s request to remove his name from the ballot before ballots were printed. Their dissent focused on harm to voters, contending that keeping Kennedy on the ballot would confuse voters and distort the true electoral choice.

“There is, however, a significant cost to the integrity of the election: the voters will be improperly denied a choice between persons who are actually candidates, and who are willing to serve if elected,” the dissenting justices wrote.

“The ballots printed as a result of the Court’s decision will have the potential to confuse the voters, distort their choices, and pervert the true popular will and affect the outcome of the election.”

Days before the Supreme Court decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals argued that Kennedy had a “clear legal right” to withdraw, emphasizing that no specific statute prevented a presidential candidate from stepping down, even one nominated by a minor party.

Kennedy, who had been nominated by the Natural Law Party, withdrew from the presidential race on Aug. 23 and endorsed former President Donald Trump. At the time, Kennedy said he wanted his name removed in key swing states so as not to draw votes away from the former president.

“In about 10 battleground states where my presence would be a spoiler, I will remove my name and urge voters not to vote for me,” Kennedy said.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office initially refused Kennedy’s withdrawal request, citing state law that restricts minor party candidates from withdrawing after being nominated at a state convention. Benson’s office also argued that Kennedy’s withdrawal request was too close to the ballot printing deadline.

Kennedy sued over the Secretary of State’s refusal to remove his name from the ballot, with the Michigan Court of Claims ruling against him and the Michigan Court of Appeals later ruling in his favor, prompting Benson’s office to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Neither Kennedy’s campaign nor Benson’s office returned a request for comment on the ruling.

The ruling could have implications for the presidential election, as reports have shown that in swing states like Michigan, Kennedy would take more votes away from Trump than Vice President Kamala Harris.

The decision echoes similar legal battles in other states, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, where Kennedy has faced opposition to his ballot withdrawal requests.

In news that should surprise no Zero Hedge readers, SEC Chair Gary Gensler is going to be forced to abandon his idiotic plans for incorporating ESG into public disclosures, according to a new report from Bloomberg Law.

As a reminder, prior to basically all of Wall Street abandoning its love affair with ESG, Gensler pushed for public companies to disclose climate risks, workforce management, and board diversity.

He also proposed rules to curb greenwashing and misleading ESG claims by investment funds.

Now, nearing the likely end of his term,  most major ESG regulations remain unfinished.

With less than five months left in Gensler’s tenure, they likely won’t be completed, according to Bloomberg. A conservative backlash against ESG and federal agency power has sparked legal challenges to SEC rules on corporate emissions reporting, weakening the commission’s influence.

Tyler Gellasch, who was a counsel to former Democratic SEC Commissioner Kara Stein and is president and CEO of investor advocacy group Healthy Markets Association, told Bloomberg: “It’s clear the commission leadership is exhausted and feeling buffeted by the courts, Congress and industry complaints.” 

Plans for requiring human capital and board diversity disclosures remain unresolved, and final rules on ESG-focused funds are still pending. Even if the SEC adopts them by January, a Republican-controlled Congress and White House could overturn them via the Congressional Review Act.

After a surge of significant rulemaking in 2022 and 2023, the SEC’s activity has slowed in 2024. Bloomberg Law reports that SEC Chair Gary Gensler has fallen behind his predecessors, Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, in advancing major regulatory matters through open meetings this year.

Susan Dudley, a George Washington University professor who oversaw the White House regulatory policy office under President George W. Bush said about propsed ESG fund rules: “If it’s a Republican Congress and Trump administration, you could imagine they would be willing to disapprove those.”

Gensler’s policies saw massive pushback during his tenure. 

Bloomberg Law writes that in 2022, Republican attorneys general from states like West Virginia and Louisiana urged the SEC to drop proposed fund regulations after pushing it to abandon climate rules for public companies.

When the SEC adopted a diluted version of the climate rule in March, all 27 Republican-led states either sued or backed the lawsuit with a court brief.

The SEC, under Gensler, has faced significant legal defeats, including the Fifth Circuit’s June ruling striking down hedge fund fee disclosures and the Supreme Court’s decision limiting the agency’s enforcement power. The SEC decided not to challenge the Fifth Circuit ruling, ending its defense of the hedge fund rules.

Alexandra Thornton, of the Center for American Progress, says it’s unclear what regulations remain viable after these losses.

We’ll venture a guess…none.