Authored by Jeff Minick via The Epoch Times,

Thomas Jefferson proclaimed “all men are created equal” as a self-evident truth, but was a slaveholder. Ulysses S. Grant led the Northern armies to victory in the Civil War, but was a long-time alcoholic and also far too trusting of others, a fault that damaged his reputation and left him bankrupt at the end of his life. George Patton is recognized as one of our nation’s most brilliant generals, but possessed an explosive temper and a gutter vocabulary to go with it.

All of these figures are flawed heroes, as are all the other great men and women from our past. The reason for this is simple: Heroes spring from the same clay as the rest of us, and to be human is to be flawed.

Most of us accept small imperfections in others and in ourselves as part and parcel of the human package.

Marriages and friendships survive, and are often enriched, by turning a blind eye to another’s shortcomings or making it a subject for gentle teasing.

In the broader arena of public affairs, most of us follow this same route of discernment when supporting certain politicians. They draw us to their cause by their words and deeds, and though we see their weaknesses and defects, we cut them some slack. We deem their deeds greater than their defects. As for those politicians we oppose, our enmity should ideally derive from the programs they have proposed or from their voting records rather than from the half-truths conveyed via the news. Common decency demands we exercise wisdom and prudence in reaching our conclusions.

Unfortunately, American politics has become a battleground of mudslinging and defamation.

Both private citizens and those prominent in the public arena, including certain members of the media, tag those they consider their political enemies with derisive nicknames or broad labels, like sexist, fascist, or racist. They slap these often baseless smears onto an enemy hoping they will stick and so silence their opponent and shame their supporters. There’s no middle ground, no nuanced reflections, only the desire to attack and destroy.

A penchant for vilification has poisoned our politics. Worst, it is corrupting our morals.

When we call our opponents Nazis or libtards, deplorables or snowflakes, or any of the other often groundless insults making the rounds these days, we objectify those people, stripping them of their humanity. Though we may not realize it, by diminishing them we diminish ourselves.

Totalitarians use this tactic of the smear all the time to create a scapegoat or to divide a population.

The Nazis dehumanized Jews by depicting them as vermin. Soviet propaganda labeled middle-class farmers as kulaks, a word meaning “fist,” and depicted them in posters as fat and avaricious enemies of the state. The Chinese communist Cultural Revolution savaged tradition, intellectuals, and the middle class, and led to the death of millions.

Our country is entering what will certainly become a nastier and even more acrimonious battle of charges and countercharges. Leaders and commentators who practice this totalitarian strategy, who flag entire groups of people by some derogatory name or who defame individuals with lies and absurd labels, deserve neither our respect nor support.

By no means does this mean that we must yield on our principles or our causes.

If anything, when this dangerous totalitarian tool of the smear is brought into play, we should stand even more steadfast for our beliefs. We must never surrender to these glib and ugly attacks on our basic principles.

In the wake of the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, some of our leaders have called for lowering the heated rhetoric that has marked our national conversation. We’ll soon see whether they’ll practice what they preach.

In the meantime, we ourselves, you and I, can refuse to engage in the vicious name-calling and slurs that are tearing apart our country.

Price cuts on BYD vehicles in Thailand are “angering” current owners of the vehicles, just days after we noted how Chinese EV manufacturers were disrupting the EV market in the country. 

BYD slashed prices on its Atto 3 SUV this month, aiming to stay ahead in a crowded market. Discounts of up to 340,000 baht ($9,460) are lowering the resale value for current owners, according to Nikkei Asia. 

One owner named Darakorn, who bought a BYD in January 2023, said: “I was told the price would go up in two months, after the government subsidy expired. Usually, insurance covers 80% of the new car value, and it depreciates 10% per year, but the discount pushes it even lower.”

According to Nikkei, with a bank loan and a government subsidy of 100,000 baht, the SUV cost him 1.19 million baht. Now, even the latest Atto models are priced under 1 million baht.

Darakorn organized BYD owners on Facebook to explore a class-action lawsuit. Complaints have reached the Consumer Protection Board, which is now investigating the discounts offered by BYD and its competitors.

“If you announced then that the price would drop 340,000 baht a year later, do you think anyone would have bought your cars at all?” he exclaimed.

Recall, days ago we noted that it wasn’t just in Europe and the U.S. where the EV industry is seeing jolting effects of Chinese EVs entering their respective markets.

The industry in Thailand has accidentally also set off chaos in their home market by offering subsidies to Chinese EV makers, a move that Nikkei Asia reported last week was “wreaking havoc” in Thailand. 

The unintended consequences of EV subsidies have also affected supply chains, with at least a dozen parts producers shutting down as subsidized Chinese EV makers avoid buying from most of them.

Since the Thai government introduced the EV subsidy scheme in 2022, 185,029 EVs have been imported. However, new EV registrations stand at 86,043, indicating an oversupply of around 90,000 vehicles.

EVAT President Krisda Utamote, noting more Chinese EV makers are now investing in Thai production, said: “We are experiencing an EV oversupply as plenty of EVs imported from China over the past two years [remain in dealer] inventories.”

The EV subsidy program, initiated in 2022 under the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, aimed to make EVs more affordable by offering up to 150,000 baht ($4,130) per vehicle and eliminating tariffs on Chinese imports, provided the manufacturers produce an equivalent number in Thailand. Manufacturing was required to begin this year.

Nikkei Asia reports that BYD, China’s largest EV maker, aggressively cut the price of its Atto model by 37%, while Neta reduced its V-II model price by 9%. When fully operational, Chinese EV makers in Thailand will have the capacity to produce about 750,000 vehicles annually.

These subsidies have impacted the Thai automotive sector, which employs over 750,000 workers and contributes 11% to the GDP. The automotive sector is the fourth-largest economic contributor, following tourism (18%), retail (16%), and ahead of agriculture (8.6%).

Sales of fossil fuel vehicles have declined since the subsidies, significantly affecting Japanese automakers who produce 90% of these vehicles in Thailand. Additionally, economic weaknesses have led consumers to cut back on expensive purchases, with vehicle sales in the first five months of the year down 23% from the same period in 2023, the lowest in a decade, according to the article. 

Recall, we have also extensively covered how the EU is attempting to tariff their way out of oversupply problems and what the Union sees as a price distortions as a result of China’s contributions to the industry. 

Authored by Travis Gilmore via The Epoch Times,

Two-thirds of California fast food restaurant operators who responded to an online survey believe their costs will increase at least $100,000 annually per location, according to a report released July 19 by the Employment Policies Institute—a Washington D.C.-based lobby group.

Approximately 26 percent of respondents said they expect costs to increase by more than $200,000 at each location.

In June and July, 182 operators were polled on their thoughts about a new minimum wage law requiring quick service restaurants with at least 60 locations nationwide to pay employees a minimum of $20 per hour. The law took effect April 1.

“Even before the $20 wage went into effect, fast food restaurants made it clear they would not be able to survive,” Rebekah Paxton, research director for the institute, said in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times.

“Now after just a few months, the policy has been a disaster, killing jobs and shuttering restaurants.”

The report did not say how many restaurants have closed, but a study published July 10 by restaurant technology firm Snappy found that 897 fast food locations in the state have permanently closed since April 1.

Ms. Paxton said state officials “should be listening to small business owners and their employees instead of trying to sugarcoat the truth.”

Pointing to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data that shows growing employment in the fast food industry since the new minimum wage law took effect, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office rejected the survey results and any claims that the higher wage is jeopardizing the industry.

Alex Stack, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, called the survey a “bogus online survey conducted by a DC lobbying firm.”

“Federal government data shows the actual facts here—fast food jobs have increased every month this year, including since California raised the minimum wage for workers,” Mr. Stack told The Epoch Times.

According to its website, the Employment Policies Institute is a nonprofit think tank that studies the impact of minimum wages and other issues that affect entry-level employment. Its founder, attorney Richard Berman, also owns Berman and Company, a public relations firm based in Arlington, Virginia. Both companies have a history of focusing on leisure, hospitality, and restaurant-related issues.

The labor statistics data shows five consecutive months of job growth and an increase of nearly 3,000 jobs in the past year, with about 745,600 employed in the sector, in California, in May.

Mr. Stack said higher wages for employees are proving beneficial for families and the state.

“Simply put, what’s good for workers is good for California,” he said.

The institute, however, said the data cited by the governor’s office is inaccurate because it is not seasonally adjusted and highlighted Federal Reserve data that suggests the industry is losing jobs—down about 6,300 since January and approximately 3,000 since the law took effect.

“Employees are losing their jobs … restaurants are shutting down or moving out of state … [and] customers are eating out less,” Ms. Paxton said. “This isn’t good for workers, … restaurants, or California consumers.”

When questioned about the impact of the higher costs, 98 percent of operators surveyed said they have already raised menu prices.

Believing that some consumers are increasingly more price conscious, 92 percent of the restaurant operators surveyed said they expect the higher prices to reduce foot traffic.

With the goal of reducing costs, 89 percent of survey respondents said they are reducing employee hours. Nearly three-quarters said they are limiting overtime, and 70 percent said they have reduced staff or consolidated positions.

The number of employees at each location is expected to decrease, according to 75 percent of operators, with 25 percent saying staff levels will “significantly decrease.”

Some restaurants have closed California locations in the past months, and nearly three-quarters of operators questioned said the likelihood of shutting down their restaurants has increased.

Regarding future investments, 89 percent of owners said they are not expecting to expand their operations—with 73 percent saying they are “significantly less likely” to develop more locations.

However, 59 percent said they are now more likely to invest in expansion outside of California.

Determining the impact of the law, to date, is challenging, given the short time frame since higher wages were implemented.

But now about three months into the new law, 93 percent of survey respondents said they will be forced to raise menu prices again in the next year, 87 percent will cut hours, and 74 percent will reduce staff.

Some fast-food chains are charging significantly more for the same meal in California compared to locations in other states. Del Taco’s price for a combo meal with two tacos costs $14.79 in the Golden State, compared with $8.79 in Ohio, according to the company’s website.

Executives representing some fast food chains anticipated such challenges earlier this year before the law took effect.

“As we look to 2024 with elevated … prices and muted consumer confidence, we believe that consumers will continue to be more discriminating with their dollars,” Chris Kempczinski, president and CEO of McDonald’s, said in a February earnings call.

The iconic Big Mac meal is now $13.69 in California, nearly $5 more than in Texas, where the average price is $8.79, according to Grubhub.

Such price discrepancies are “because of the impact … of what we’re going to have to work through in California… and the significant wage increases,” Ian Borden, executive vice president and chief financial officer at McDonald’s, said in the earnings call. “We certainly know consumers are more wary or weary of pricing, and we’re going to continue to be consumer-led in our pricing decisions as we kind of look forward to 2024 and knowing that the environment will continue to be competitive.”

The week after the new law became effective, managers at several fast-food restaurants across the state told The Epoch Times that menu prices would increase, and staff hours would be reduced to maintain profitability.

“We already raised prices, and we’re … reducing hours and the amount of people working,” said Kevin Cortez, general manager of a Wendy’s location in Northern California.

Some businesses are focusing on improving efficiencies and increasing automation using robots and artificial intelligence to reduce the number of employees needed.

Others, including some Taco Bell and El Pollo Loco locations in Northern California, have installed kiosks in lobbies to take orders, reducing staff needed, and freeing up employees to work in the kitchen and perform other tasks.

The 15-question survey was emailed to a list of quick-service operators in California—including some associated with partners of the surveyor–and researchers reported a margin of error of 7 percent.

The introduction of Amazon Prime Video’s ad-supported tier has pressured Netflix’s advertising plans and forced other top players in the streaming space to lower advertising prices amid ongoing ‘streaming wars.’ 

Financial Times reported that the streaming ad market was upended earlier this year when Amazon announced plans to incorporate ads into movies and TV shows streamed on its Prime Video Service. 

At the time, Amazon told customers, “This will allow us to continue investing in compelling content and keep increasing that investment over a long period of time, adding, “We aim to have meaningfully fewer ads than linear TV and other streaming TV providers. No action is required from you, and there is no change to the current price of your Prime membership.” 

Amazon allowed customers to pay an additional $2.99 per month to avoid advertisements. 

FT noted that Amazon entered a highly competitive market for ad-supported streaming services. Its rivals, including Netflix, Max, Paramount+, and Disney+, have already introduced ad tiers for cash-strapped consumers.   

FT pointed out that Amazon is currently in the “up front” process, in other words, selling TV advertising time months in advance.

“Amazon’s Prime Video is undercutting rival Netflix on advertising pricing, as it battles for marketers’ attention in an increasingly crowded field of ad-funded streaming services,” FT said. 

Executives at rival platforms and advertising execs say the spot price for ad space on Amazon is cheaper than Netflix but slightly higher than Disney.

According to advertising insiders, Amazon’s move into the video ad market has already forced rivals to lower rates.

One rival executive mentioned Amazon’s “vast supply of inventory” has pressured prices lower. He said, “They knew what they were doing in terms of flipping everybody over into the tier.”

Amazon converted more than 200 million global subscribers to the ad tier unless they opt out by paying for the premium ad-free service. This means the platform has one of the most massive audiences to attract advertisers. Netflix, on the other hand, has about 40 million on its ad tier.

“Amazon is, in many ways, building the killer app,” John Terrana, chief media officer at the ad firm VaynerMedia, told The Wall Street Journal last month. It has “premium content, live sports, immense scale,” and advertisers can target ads to their customers and often see if a viewer bought the product on the platform.

Jonathan Carson, chief executive of industry data provider Antenna, told FT that Amazon’s move earlier this year left it with a “sudden accumulation of an advertising audience, which is pretty powerful.” 

In June, analysts at JPMorgan told clients that Amazon’s multibillion-dollar advertising business was one of the company’s “fastest-increasing revenue streams and one of its highest-margin businesses.”

Chief executive Andy Jassy believes Prime Video can be “a large and profitable business on its own.”  

So, as the streaming wars progress, Amazon’s move to convert its entire Prime Video subscriber base to a new ad-supported version will be enough to increase market share in the ad space, driving down rates, which in return crushes competition. 

Update(1715ET): The Lebanese government has condemned the “blatant act of aggression” following the Israeli airstrikes on southern Beirut. While some reports have claimed US warships are moving closer to Lebanon in the wake of the crisis, the reality is that American warships and military assets were already in the eastern Mediterranean region.

Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) has reported that a female civilian was killed after a building was destroyed in Haret Hreik, in Beirut’s sout. “Sixty-eight civilians were injured, five of whom were critically injured, while the rest suffered moderate to minor injuries. Most of them were treated in emergency departments and were discharged from hospitals,” NNA said. 

More footage has emerged showing the extent of damage.

Israel just bombed a residential area near a hospital in Beirut, Lebanon and violated Security Council resolution SCR 1701 with absolutely no consequences. This is a war crime.

Lebanon has the right to defend itself under international law. pic.twitter.com/JQPJDCXuX9

— Mohamad Safa (@mhdksafa) July 30, 2024

Currently there are contrasting reports over whether or not Israel took out its target – Fuad Shukr, said to be a commander that oversaw the deadly weekend Hezbollah rocket salvo that left 12 dead in a Golan town.

Two Israeli officials tell me there are growing indications that Hezbollah top military commander Fuad Shukr has been killed in the airstrike in Beirut https://t.co/2ovjeq20PH

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) July 30, 2024

* * *

Israel’s anticipated big ‘retaliation’ has begun, apparently, after major airstrikes were felt in the Lebanese capital of Beirut. Large smoke clouds were seen above a suburb in southern neighborhoods, sparking momentary panic and a large emergency response amid reported casualties.

An Israeli military statement quickly owned up to the attack: “The IDF targeted in Beirut the commander responsible for the murder of the children in Majdal Shams and killed many Israeli civilians,” a translated statement said.

The destruction is large in scale, and took place at around 8pm local time in the Haret Hreik neighborhood, still within daylight hours just before nightfall.

Earlier, a weekend missile attack from Lebanon (widely blamed on Hezbollah) killed 12 young people playing on a soccer field in the occupied Golan town of Majdal Shams.

Foreign Minister Katz told a state broadcaster over the weekend, “There is no doubt that Hezbollah crossed all red lines.” And soon after that, the country’s war cabinet authorized the military to retaliate.

Massive Damage to the Building which was Struck just now by an Israeli Airstrike within the Haret Hreik Neighborhood in the Suburbs of Beirut. pic.twitter.com/DOB8dku3HH

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 30, 2024

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has announced just after the Tuesday Beirut strikes, “Hezbollah crossed the Red Line.”

Harrowing footage of the strike aftermath points to large-scale casualties given it is a densely-packed civilian area…

The Israeli regime has bombed the capital of Lebanon leaving Beirut in a state of emergency: if threats mean anything Tel Aviv should brace itself pic.twitter.com/RKC6T0sOfV

— Sarah Wilkinson (@swilkinsonbc) July 30, 2024

Given already there have long been fears of ‘all-out’ war in Lebanon, oil jumped on news of the attack.

Israel is quickly signaling that this was a ‘limited’ attack and that it doesn’t seek full war in Lebanon. “At the moment, there are no changes in the Home Front Command defensive guidelines,” the IDF said.

Bloomberg’s live blog has cited Rosalind Mathieson, the outlet’s news director for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, who comments:

There are signs Israel was aiming for an action that sent a message without triggering a full blown war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Netanyahu has also been opening the door to fresh talks for a cease-fire with Hamas on Gaza – and that wouldn’t be possible if Israel is engaged in a ground conflict with Hezbollah.

Several Israeli news outlets reported earlier this week that the government was seeking a “limited but significant” action that sends a strong message to Hezbollah but ensures the situation doesn’t spiral out of control.

More footage showing the large scale of the aerial bombing…

BREAKING REPORTS: ISRAEL HAS BOMBED BEIRUT

Beirut has been Hezbollah’s red line pic.twitter.com/VTSViPCJ3w

— Afshin Rattansi (@afshinrattansi) July 30, 2024

Many regional analysts believe that a broader war in Lebanon will draw in Iran-backed groups and actors across the region, eventually leading to an open war between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Hezbollah sources are meanwhile denying that Israel killed the senior commander that was targeted on Tuesday.

TOP HEZBOLLAH COMMANDER TARGETED IN ISRAELI STRIKE ON BEIRUT SUBURBS HAS SURVIVED, TWO SECURITY SOURCES TELL REUTERS

developing…

Oil prices declined for the third straight day as general risk-off sentiment combined with traders anxiety over Chinese demand to pull WTI down near two-month lows.

“Questionable data coming out of China is the main driver in the overall retraction” for oil, Gary Cunningham, director of market research at Tradition Energy, told MarketWatch.

China’s “petroleum demands may not be as robust as we thought just a few weeks ago.”

Meanwhile, U.S. summer travel demands remain a “bright spot, but are not enough to support the entire market as political risks due to escalating tensions in the Mideast are also easing,” said Cunningham.

API

• Crude -4.495mm (-3.9mm exp)

• Cushing -929k

• Gasoline -1.917mm (-1.6mm exp)

• Distillates -322k

API reports that crude inventories tumbled for the 5th straight week. All cohorts saw drawdowns last week…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI traded modestly higher on the API report, well off the day’s lows (which tested two-month lows)…

Traders are also looking to an OPEC+ meeting of the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee via videoconference, expected Thursday. The panel conducts a review of the oil markets every two months and has the authority to call for a full OPEC+ meeting if it decides one is needed.

“No changes to output policy are expected,” said Lukman Otunuga, manager for market analysis at FXTM, so the focus will be on the Federal Reserve decision Wednesday and monthly U.S. jobs report on Friday.

“These key risk events may provide insight into when U.S. [interest] rates will be cut this year, influencing oil as a result,” as lower rates could stimulate economic growth, supporting oil demand, said Otunuga. Lower rates may result in a weaker dollar, boosting oil, which is priced in dollars, he said.

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe was directly involved in denying additional security resources and personnel, including counter snipers, to former President Trump’s rallies and events – despite repeated requests by the agents assigned to Trump’s detail in the two years leading up to his July 13 attempted assassination, according to several sources familiar with the decision-making.

Rowe succeeded former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, who resigned last week after bipartisan calls following her widely panned testimony before the House Oversight Committee. But both Rowe and Cheatle were directly involved in decisions denying requests for more magnetometers, additional agents, and other resources to help screen rallygoers at large, outdoor Trump campaign gatherings.

It was Rowe’s decision alone to deny counter sniper teams to any Trump event outside of driving distance from D.C., these sources asserted.

Rowe and FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate are set to appear Tuesday before a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security and Government Affairs committees.

Senators on both sides of the aisle have vowed to press for answers on the assassination attempt of former President Trump that took the life of rally-goer Corey Comperatore and wounded two others. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who chairs the Homeland Security panel, said he plans to grill Rowe and Abbate on the “litany of gaps and failures.”

“There are monumental, critical questions that so far the leadership in these two agencies have failed to answer [for, and] even to begin to respond to,” Blumenthal said.

Sen. Ron Johnson, a senior member of the Homeland Security committee, told RCP he was initially impressed by Rowe’s willingness to answer senators’ questions late last week but pledged to question him closely about the denying of resources to protect Trump.

“I will also hold him fully accountable for being 100% transparent and honest in cooperating with our investigation and oversight,” Johnson said Thursday.

Johnson and other members of the committee are expected to focus on Rowe’s role in the Secret Service’s repeated denials of extra security requested by agents assigned to Trump’s protective detail and about decisions regarding the number of placement of snipers assigned to some of Trump’s events.

Assigning counter snipers based on the ability to drive to an event may sound far-fetched, but knowledgeable sources explained that there’s a limited number of these highly trained Uniform Division officers. It’s easier for counter sniper teams to carry their guns and gear in a van they can all use to transport the teams to the site for advance work for the event and then use the same vehicles, referred to by the Secret Service as “push vehicles,” to return to D.C.

The alternative is for counter sniper teams to board commercial flights or Amtrak (if the event is in the Northeast corridor) with all their gear, find a rental vehicle once on the ground, and then do it all in reverse on the way home. It’s all possible under the “needs of the Service,” one source contends, but in reality, it’s much easier and far more cost-effective for counter snipers to drive to and from a site.

“They can carry their guns and gear on airplanes – there’s an efficient process for that – but it’s going to be much easier, because they have all their gear with them, to drive rather than fly because then they have a push vehicle to take the whole team to and from a hotel to the site each day,” a source in the Secret Service Community told RCP. “They would always rather drive than fly.”

The Secret Service has not responded to several questions from RCP about decisions to deny or limit security resources and personnel, including counter snipers, to Trump’s events.

At first, the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania had no Secret Service sniper teams assigned to it, but at the last minute, agency officials reversed course and decided to add two snipers to the outdoor event. It’s still unclear whether there were just two counter snipers or two two-man teams for a total of four individuals. (Two-man teams usually include one spotter and one sniper.)

So far, there has been no explanation as to why agency officials made the late counter sniper assignments to the Butler event, though it could be in response to the increased threat level Trump has faced in recent weeks. The Secret Service has said the agency increased security for Trump for an unknown time period before the Butler rally in response to an Iranian plot against the former president.

As RCP previously reported, the late decision to add the two counter snipers cut short the time the team had to conduct a detailed on-site survey in advance of the Butler rally. Such a survey would usually take two to three days to complete, but the counter snipers had only one day to complete that critical advance work.

Sources familiar with counter sniper advance work also said an outdoor forum such as the Farm Show site in Butler should require at least three two-man counter sniper teams.

Instead, the Secret Service sent two counter snipers and then relied on a local law enforcement counter sniper team to man the American Glass Research, or AGR, building, placing that structure outside the official Secret Service perimeter.

The decision to rely on local law enforcement to man the AGR building has come under scrutiny in the weeks after the shooting – especially as new details have emerged about local law enforcement’s tracking of gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks more than an hour and a half before he opened fire and its communications breakdown with the Secret Service.

Local law enforcement snipers and their superior officers have said that they tried to keep the Secret Service informed about their concerns about Crooks, but their communications were siloed from the agency, even though they said they notified the site’s Secret Service command center of Crooks’ suspicious activity.

The Secret Service command center is supposed to be manned with both senior Secret Service agents and local law enforcement bosses to facilitate coordination and “interoperability,” as Cheatle testified during last week’s congressional hearing.

But a breakdown in communication occurred, and the Secret Service was tracking several suspicious persons that day and apparently never deemed Crooks a threat until he was crawling on top of the AGR roof with a rifle. The Secret Service counter sniper killed Crooks as soon as he had him in his line of sight, Rowe told senators in a close-door briefing last week.

Sen. Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, told RCP that Rowe told senators during the briefing that Crooks was hiding behind the lip of the edge of the building, and the Secret Service counter sniper shot and killed him as soon as he could detect his forehead above that lip on the building’s roof edge.

Several members of Congress have questioned the role poor communications played in allowing Crooks the opportunity to shoot at Trump and the crowd and why local law enforcement snipers were tracking Crooks as early as 4:26 p.m., more than 100 minutes before he opened fire.

Lawmakers have repeatedly asked why, if local law enforcement was tracking Crooks so closely, didn’t the Secret Service agents detailed to Trump whisk him off the stage or prevent him from going on stage in the first place?

But those familiar with Secret Service protocol under similar circumstances say there are always multiple suspicious persons being tracked at Trump’s rallies and they often do not rise to the level of alerting the president’s security detail, those five to 10 agents whose sole job is to provide immediate security for Trump and act as a human shield if and when a threat emerges.

On the day of the rally, more than 100 people needed medical attention for heat exhaustion, and there were three other suspicious people besides Crooks that the Secret Service and/or local law enforcement were tracking, according to testimony by Christopher Paris, head of the Pennsylvania State Police, before the House Homeland Security panel last week.

Even if Secret Service received notification that local law enforcement was tracking Crooks and considered him suspicious, Secret Service agents wouldn’t go into high alert unless they knew he was armed or on top of a roof, which texts show local law enforcement never observed or notified the Secret Service command center about – even though they appear to have flagged Crooks as engaging in suspicious activity, including pointing a range finder toward the stage at one point in the hour leading up to the shooting.

“Use of the word ‘threat’ would have changed things and Trump would not have been allowed on stage,” a source in the Secret Service community told RCP. “A suspicious person on the far outer perimeter where eight cops are looking for him would not make 99% of agents keep the president off stage.”

If that suspicious person were reported crawling on a roof before Trump went on stage, then most likely the Secret Service would have prevented Trump from beginning his rally. If Crooks was spotted with a gun, then Trump definitely would have been held back, the source asserted. If Crooks was reported as running from police, then it would be more a Secret Service judgment call in the moment.

But Crooks apparently put the rifle together after scrambling up to the rooftop, leaving the Secret Service possibly only minutes or even just seconds to react once they learned that he had a gun and was crawling on the roof. Crooks’ position at the lip of the rooftop’s edge further hindered the Secret Service’s ability to shoot him before he opened fire, according to Rowe’s briefing with senators last week.

At least one knowledgeable source blames the local law enforcement counter snipers for what appears to be at least one officer’s failure to remain in his position and keep an eye on the AGR rooftop.

“The Butler ESU was told where to be and what their job was likely by a supervisor who had been in meetings with the Secret Service,” the source said. “They had one job. They should have kept their eyes on the rooftop they were assigned to man.”

Several local law enforcement officers assigned to a building on the outer perimeter of the Butler rally appeared on ABC News over the weekend and accused the Secret Service of failing to coordinate with them or even meet with them before the rally.

“We were supposed to get a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service members whenever they arrived, and that never happened,” said Jason Woods, lead sharpshooter on the SWAT team in Beaver County. “So, I think that was probably a pivotal point, where I started thinking things were wrong because it never happened,” he added. “We had no communication.”

The first communication between the local law enforcement group and the Secret Service, Woods said, was not until after the shooting. By then, he said, “it was too late.”

Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi declined to respond directly to the assertions by the Beaver County SWAT team.

Instead, he said that the agency “is committed to better understanding what happened before, during, and after the assassination attempt of former President Trump to ensure that never happens again. That includes complete cooperation with Congress, the FBI and other relevant investigations.”

A timeline released by Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office of local law enforcement’s activity in the 45 minutes before shots rang out sheds some light on their activity and efforts to keep track of Crooks.

At 4:26 p.m., a Beaver County counter sniper assigned to the AGR building left it after finishing his shift and spotted Crooks at a picnic table outside. The counter sniper alerted the remaining Beaver and Butler snipers in the AGR building about Crooks’ presence, according to texts released Grassley, an Iowa Republican.

At 5:38 p.m. a Beaver County sniper sent photos of Crooks to the Beaver, Butler, and Washington snipers in a group chat, with the Beaver sniper noting that Crooks was using “a range finder” looking toward the stage. He then recommended that the group notify Secret Service to “look out,” according to the texts. It’s unclear if that range finder information was ever conveyed to the Secret Service.

Additional texts among local law enforcement officers and a timeline of local law enforcement activity Grassley made public Monday further detail that the local law enforcement officers called into a local Butler law enforcement “command” radio frequency at 5:41 communicating Crooks’ description. They also conveyed that Crooks had a range finder and was “lurking” near the AGR building.

Then at 5:45 p.m. a Beaver County sniper sent photos of Crooks to a local law enforcement group chat with one Beaver law enforcement officer recommending that they alert “command,” though it’s unclear whether that reference is to the official Secret Service command center. The Grassley timeline, portions of which are redacted, indicates a text was sent at 5:45 p.m. to “Beaver ESU Command” about Crooks and “to relay to command.”

A Beaver County After-Action Report released by Grassley also indicates that the local law enforcement officers lost sight of Crooks in the minutes before he climbed up to the roof, then spotted him again at 6:05 p.m. at “picnic tables” with a backpack and “moving in the direction of Sheetz.”

Then from 6:06 to 6:12 p.m., a local law enforcement officer appears to have left his assigned post at a building to meet a local patrol “to let them know suspect is around the building on the side of fairgrounds,” according to the Grassley timeline.

But by that time, Crooks was already crawling on top of the AGR building, and at 6:12 p.m. opened fire on Trump and the crowd.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ national political correspondent.

In our preview of today’s main event, we said that mood for the Mag7 would be defined by Microsoft’s fiscal Q4 earnings, and for those long the AI sector we have some bad news: Microsoft, true to its name, just shat the bed, because despite beating on revenue and EPS, the company missed on cloud and its shares are tumbling.

Here is what Microsoft just reported for Q4:

• EPS $2.95, up 11% YoY, and beating estimate of $2.93
• Revenue $64.73 billion, up1% YoY. and beating estimate $64.52 billion
  • Intelligent Cloud revenue $28.52 billion, missing estimate $28.72 billion
    • Azure and other cloud services revenue Ex-FX +30%, in line with estimates of +30.3%
  • Productivity and Business Processes revenue $20.32 billion, beating estimate $20.21 billion
  • More Personal Computing revenue $15.90 billion, beating estimate $15.54 billion
• Revenue at constant currency +16%, beating estimate +14.7%
• Operating income $27.93 billion, beating estimate $27.63 billion
• Capital expenditure $13.87 billion, beating estimate $13.27 billion, which normally would have been sufficient to send the stock higher but not this time.

Here is the big picture breakdown:

And the segment detail:

While the results were generally strong, investor focused on the AI-heavy cloud segment: here, Azure posted a 29% revenue gain in the quarter, decelerating from the 31% growth in the previous period, with revenues just missing estimates.

Commenting on the quarter, CEO Satya Nadella said that “our strong performance this fiscal year speaks both to our innovation and to the trust customers continue to place in Microsoft. As a platform company, we are focused on meeting the mission-critical needs of our customers across our at-scale platforms today, while also ensuring we lead the AI era.”

Nadella has been infusing Microsoft’s product line with AI technology from partner OpenAI, including digital assistants called Copilots that can summarize documents and generate computer code, emails and other content. The company also is selling Azure cloud subscriptions featuring OpenAI products. However, judging by the disappointing cloud numbers, chatbots, pardon AI is rapidly emerging as the next “3D TV” megadud.

The market did not take it quite that way and the stock is plunging 8% – or roughly $250 billion in market cap – in after hours trading on the small miss in cloud revenue…

… with both S&P and nasdaq futures getting hammered after hours as the world’s biggest company craters.

With gamma ‘unclenched’ (and now solidly negative), markets have been free to roam…

Source: SpotGamma

And today saw more downward pressure as trader anxiety built ahead of the major macro catalysts and the fact that approximately 40% of the S&P 500 is expected to report this week across all sectors making it the biggest and perhaps one of the most important weeks of earnings this season.

Nasdaq was the biggest loser (again) today with Small Caps and The Dow managing gains (as tech weighed on the S&P 500 too). The last few minutes of the day-session (before MSFT) saw a panic-bid hit the major indices (but it didn’t last long)…

Nasdaq has almost perfectly recoupled with Russell 2000 YTD now…

Source: Bloomberg

Goldman’s trading desk noted that overall volumes and S&P top of book both muted heading into MSFT EPS post close and FOMC + BOJ tomorrow.

• Floor skewed 2% better to buy today after similar buy skews yday.

• LOs selling Tech vs buying Hcare and Fins.

• HFs much better for sale across Tech and Hcare vs buying consumer discretionary.

The basket of MAG7 stocks tumbled back to last week’s Global Outage spike lows….

Source: Bloomberg

UBS’ trading desk offered some additional color:

“today more than half of the selling is short looking at our Hedge Fund flow (35/32/33 – buy/sell/short sell).”

‘Most Shorted’ stocks were slammed…

Source: Bloomberg

Semis were slammed again today – back to an interestingly coincidental drawdown level from the past year…

Source: Bloomberg

S&P is hovering around its 50DMA…

…while Nasdaq has tumbled down to its its 100DMA and found support…

Much of today’s plunge was triggered by the ubiquitous leaks from BoJ…

1. BOJ leaks some more hawkish jibberish (it owns half of all JGBs, rates simply can not rise)

2. Yen spikes

3. Carry trades hammered

4. Tech crushed

And sure enough they tumbled together…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar ended unchanged, with the BoJ leaked comments erasing the overnight gains in the greenback…

Source: Bloomberg

Gold ignored the dollar and extended gains, spiking on the Israeli airstrikes headlines…

Source: Bloomberg

Treasuries were bid (as traders saw through the HL JOLTS data) with the short-end outperforming (2Y -4bps, 30Y -2bps). That small rally pushed all yields lower on the week…

Source: Bloomberg

…but expectations for a Fed rate-cut this week are practically zero…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin extended yesterday’s losses, testing a $65,000 handle (after briefly tagging $70k yesterday…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, the total market-cap of the Magnificent 7 stocks tumbled back below $15 trillion today (down over $2 trillion from its record highs) – in context, that is just a two-month low…

Source: Bloomberg

Another ugly day for NVDA today (down 6.5%)…

Source: Bloomberg

…but of course, we will see what MSFT has to say about that tonight.

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The market focus is this week’s confluence of Fed, BOJ, and BOE meetings. However, if you think there is room for uncertainty there, consider the global backdrop which they operate in – which is bananas, both in terms of the headlines and the banana skins it presents for policymakers.

In Europe, it’s ongoing sabotage in France and Germany, and self-sabotage in Brussels. EU trade negotiators are planning for a ‘tariff-ic’ Trump presidency by offering a quick deal to buy more –(checks notes) “lobsters”– to put a dent in the vast bilateral trade deficit; or the EU will slap up to 50% tariffs on US imports – faster and higher than vs. China. Yet in a three-way Mexican stand-off between the US, EU, and China, a two-gunned EU is pointing one pistol at the US, and the other at its own head: The Good, The Bad, and the Smugly. As Michael Pettis notes, the EU trade surplus with the US is structural, so more US lobsters means fewer other imports as demand is fixed. Moreover, the US exports commodities to Europe –is the EU going to tariff LNG?!– while Europe exports luxuries, and autos and pharma that can be Made in America. Europe could shift to military Keynesianism and import US weapons to re-arm – but oddly won’t; yet Trump also decides whether to back NATO or leave a defenseless Europe to fend for itself. Does one need special training as a trade negotiator not to see these obvious facts, or their massive tail risk downsides to Europe’s economy?

In the US, President Biden has floated radical changes to the Supreme Court. On one level, all presidents appointing a new Supreme Court justice every two years (with an 18-year term) rather than for life reduces the current winner-takes-all approach. However, that would mean a court that was always changing, and whoever wins the presidency gets to ‘flip’ it quicker, raising the political stakes there. It also implies an independent judiciary is fine with Democrats as long as it produces outcomes they agree with. Republicans say that due to institutional bias, they need parallel universities, media, and businesses, and even the supposedly apolitical federal bureaucracy: but can a stable economy have a parallel legal system too? This proposal won’t pass as it requires a constitutional amendment, but it opens further avenues for structural polarisation in a country that has already seen incredible political drama in the past month.  

On which, US intelligence is reporting Iran is interfering in the US election to stop Trump; Russia may want to help him; and China is perhaps more focused down ballot. Beijing may be waiting for follow-up on Matt Stoller’s suggestion that Harris might be Hillary 2.0 and shift policy to back crypto while dumping anti-trust Lina Khan at the FTC and Bidenomics tariffs.

In the Middle East, we are still waiting for the Israeli response to the recent Hezbollah attack which killed 12 Israeli Druze children. This might be due to the head of the Israel Defence Forces warning that the country is “bordering on anarchy” after recent far-right protests that broke into military bases; but more likely this has not already happened because it is going to be significant, aiming to reset the regional deterrence equation. The market assumption is that this won’t trigger a regional war, but when munitions are flying, tiny margins can make a huge difference – as Trump’s slight head movement recently underlined. Hezbollah and Iran have both warned they will escalate if the blow is hard (as has Turkey); yet a perceived weak Israeli response, as pushed by the West, would in the eyes of many regional strategists ironically encourage more attacks on Israel: Vegetius might never have seen one, but he understood banana skins.

In Latin America, President Maduro claimed victory in oil-rich Venezuela’s election despite “109%” proof of shenanigans and malarkey. Several Latin American countries have refused to accept the result, and major anti-government protests are breaking out, which makes the deal Biden national security advisor Sullivan struck with Maduro — lift oil sanctions for a free election — look like it was drawn up by EU trade negotiators. What happens next is unclear. Maduro might muscle this out with the help of Cuba, Russia, and Iran – but the West will find it harder to smile at his oil exports; and Maduro might then be goaded into moving on neighboring Guyana’s off-shore oil, as he has threatened, creating a Latin America crisis to take the US eye off Ukraine and Asia. Alternatively, he might be toppled, implying a huge pro-Western shift in the region – and the oil picture would move in the other direction. Or Venezuela might be in chaos, again suggesting a potential impact on energy supply. Traditionally, one knew what the US would do here (*cough* CIA *cough*), yet as an ‘X’ quip says that whatever the US policy is here, it shouldn’t include a floating pier, I think of Woody Allen’s ‘Bananas’:

US soldier: Any word on where we are heading for?

Officer: I hear it’s San Marco.

US soldier: We fighting for or against the government?

Officer. The CIA isn’t taking any chances this time. Some of us are for, and some of us are going to be against them.

US soldier: Oh.

In Africa, Ethiopia allowed its currency to float vs. the dollar, and it collapsed 30%: all in all, it’s just another BRICS in a fall. Like I said, if you think the Fed/BOJ/BOE confluence makes for volatility, and it does, you are still missing the scale of things already happening round the world. While Ethiopia might not be a large economy, it still has a population of 123m, not much less than nearby BRICS member Egypt – which has also seen its currency collapse. So 250m odd people struggling to get by not far from Europe, on vital trade routes already plagued with attacks on commercial shipping.

Again, nothing a 25bp rate cut in a developed economy won’t paper over, thinks the part of the market happily consuming bananas it can’t grow, so has to import, while scattering the skins around it on the floor.

I sometimes feel like I am living in the scene in ‘Bananas’ where Woody, now president of San Marco wearing a shabby army uniform and cap and a fake Castro beard, arrives in the US to ask for aid. As he disembarks from the plane on the runway, he speaks English as if to foreigners to a US diplomat speaking normal English back to him, with their conversation officially interpreted by a man who speaks English with a very strong Latin American Spanish accent… until two orderlies from a psychiatric institute run in and try to catch him in a giant butterfly net. I’m not sure if I’m Woody, the diplomat, the interpreter, or the orderly: but I do know bananas when I see them.