A hoped-for ‘deal of the century’ involving a permanent Saudi Arabia-Israel detente diplomatic recognition based on Trump’s Abraham Accords looks to be effectively dead, at a moment that a hoped-for Hamas-Israel truce also looks dead.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry has issued a new statement confirming the kingdom will not participate in deal with Israel until an “independent Palestinians state is recognized”.

Riyadh has made it clear in the Wednesday statement that Saudi-Israel peace off the table until an “independent Palestinian state is recognized on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

The statement included a demand for a full Gaza retreat on the part of Israeli forces. The Saudis say there can be no detente until “Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip stops and all Israeli occupation forces withdraw from the Gaza Strip.”

It further calls for east Jerusalem to be established as the capital of a Palestinian state, “so that the Palestinian people can obtain their legitimate rights and so that a comprehensive and just peace is achieved for all.”

Crucially it was only on Monday that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Riyadh as part of his new Gaza-related tour. Blinken met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud in Riyadh. The top US diplomat is currently in Tel Aviv.

Below is the full English translation of the Saudi statement…

Prior to Oct. 7 and Hamas’ massive terror raid on southern Israeli communities, relations between Riyadh and Tel Aviv appeared at a high point. Mutual delegations were touring the others’ cities, and Saudi Arabia had even opened its airspace to Israeli airliners for the first time in history. In the prior decade, the two had covertly worked together to wage war against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and pro-Iran interests.

Some analysts have speculated that the Palestinians sensed their cause was about to be thrown under the bus, forever forgotten about if the Abraham Accords finally got extended to Saudi Arabia. They say that Hamas launched its terror attack precisely to prevent and completely sever Saudi-Israel normalization. And now, this is looking like precisely the outcome. 

Authored by Tommy Tuberville via RealClear Wire,

It’s the coldest time of the year, and the demand for energy is significantly higher as people try to warm their homes. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in Alabama seven out of ten homes rely on electric heating during the winter months. Increasing demand is placing a strain on our power grid, and the Biden administration has no solution to the problem.

Instead of providing families with reliable energy, Joe Biden and his administration have other priorities. They’ve spent the last three years on a crusade to make America dependent on unreliable energy sources such as wind and solar power, all in the name of supposedly fighting “climate change.” While wind and solar have roles to play in domestic energy production, we simply cannot rely on them. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, but our energy grid needs to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Despite Joe Biden’s best efforts, most of our energy still comes from fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. Democrats don’t like to admit this, but when wind and solar power fail, the backup generators are powered by oil and natural gas. Without fossil fuels, our energy grid and our economy could not function.

To keep prices low and capacity high, the U.S. must have an “all-of-the-above” approach to American energy production. This must include investing in nuclear power.

Right now, nuclear energy accounts for approximately 20% of our power grid, which is more than wind and solar combined. The U.S. has the most nuclear power production of any country in the world, but we could be producing even more. Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic red tape from the Biden administration are slowing down nuclear permitting and production from doing even more. 

Once again, Democrat politicians would rather play politics than do what is best for the working people of this country. They know their left-wing voter base hates nuclear energy—and they won’t risk offending them. 

There is neither an economic nor a scientific basis for opposition to nuclear energy, which is the single most efficient source of energy known to man. It is 8,000 times more efficient than fossil fuels—which are already much more efficient than wind and solar power. This efficiency grants nuclear power an unparalleled ability to bring down the price of energy—and, in turn, reduce prices throughout our economy.

Nuclear is also safe for the environment. Nuclear energy produces zero emissions and removes harmful pollutants from the atmosphere. Claims that nuclear energy production is dangerous are simply outdated. After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, there was a panic among Americans, and the federal government canceled President Nixon’s goal of building 1,000 nuclear reactors. Despite zero deaths from the Three Mile Island incident, our energy policy has never recovered from this mistake and continues declining with the close of 13 American nuclear reactors since 2013.

Scientists are always working to learn from the past and improve our technical knowledge. We know a lot more about nuclear safety now than we did in 1979. Our technology is better than ever and continues to improve each day.

Alabama understands this better than almost any state as we are proud to be the nation’s fifth-largest producer of nuclear energy with two nuclear plants and five nuclear reactors. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry in Athens, Alabama, which is their largest nuclear plant and has the second-largest nuclear power generating capacity in the nation. Browns Ferry directly supports 1,500 Alabama jobs and powers more than two million homes.

On the other end of the state, just outside of Dothan, Alabama Power runs Plant Farley, generating nearly 20% of Alabama Power’s electricity. Plant Farley supports 900 good jobs in the Wiregrass area, and I am grateful to Alabama’s energy workers for keeping the lights on for us.

America needs to learn from Alabama. We need to stop the obsession with wind and solar energy and do a better job of investing in nuclear energy. The polls show that a clear majority of the public wants more nuclear power—and that majority is growing by the day. It’s good economics. It’s good energy policy. It’s good environmental policy. And it’s long overdue.

Tommy Tuberville is an American politician who is the senior U.S. senator from Alabama, a seat he has held since 2021.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Tel Aviv for hostage negotiation talks following widespread reports that Hamas has received Israel’s truce offer ‘positively’. And yet, other statements suggest these talks are in reality just barely getting off the ground. Just before arriving in Israel, Blinken met with another key mediator in the process, Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and admitted “there’s still a lot of work to be done.” Blinken also stressed Tuesday, “But we continue to believe that an agreement is possible and indeed essential. And we will continue to work relentlessly to achieve it.”

The Israeli plan envisions a 2-month ceasefire, during which time there would be hostage/prisoners swaps in multiple phases, by the end of which all remaining Israeli and foreign captives would be set free. On Wednesday Hamas finally presented its more detailed response to the Israeli plan. “Hamas proposed a ceasefire to quiet the guns in Gaza for four-and-a-half months [or 135 days], during which all hostages would go free, Israel would withdraw its troops from the Gaza Strip and an agreement would be reached on an end to the war,” Reuters writes. The proposed Hamas plan, which Israel now says it is studying intensely, would be implemented according to the proposed stages:

• Phase one: A 45-day pause in fighting during which all Israeli women hostages, males under 19, the elderly and sick would be exchanged for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli jails. Israeli forces would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza and the reconstruction of hospitals and refugee camps would begin

• Phase two: Remaining male Israeli hostages would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners and Israeli forces leave Gaza completely

• Phase three: Both sides would exchange remains and bodies

The above remains somewhat vague, and perhaps for good reason, given a key point of disagreement has centered on just who gets released from Israeli prisons, as we detailed earlier. During the initial weeklong truce last year, the list of names was negotiated at every phase which saw a new swap, and the deal wasn’t renewed precisely because of a breakdown over the list of names.

Israeli officials have balked at current Hamas efforts to free several mass murderers and assassins. For example, a top Hamas official has been cited in Israeli media as saying the following: 

He mentioned two by name, including Marwan Barghouti, a popular Palestinian leader seen as a unifying figure. Barghouti was arrested by Israel in 2002 and is serving five life terms for planning three terror attacks that killed five Israelis during the Second Intifada.

In addition to Barghouti, Hamdan named Ahmad Saadat, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group, as well as Hamas prisoners and those from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. Saadat is serving a 30-year sentence for his role in the 2001 assassination of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Ze’evi.

NBC is meanwhile reporting that the Israeli government remains pessimistic about the reality of a deal being implemented. According to sources from PM Netanyahu’s office, Hamas has been demanding the withdrawal of all Israeli forces before an agreement is even reached, which has been a non-starter for Israeli negotiators.

“The fact that Hamas is asking for a cease-fire for Israelis to withdraw its forces, that’s something that Israel will never agree to,” the Netanyahu official told NBC. 

But Netanyahu has consistently said that the operation will not finish until Hamas is wiped out. He has pledged “absolute victory” over Hamas which could in reality take many months if not years. According to fresh Wednesday reports:

Israeli PM Netanyahu told US Secretary of State Blinken that he cannot end the war without eliminating Hamas in Rafah, according to Israeli Channel 12.

#BREAKING: Defense Minister Gallant to the US Secretary of State in Blinken: “Hamas’ answer was formulated so that Israel would refuse it. Their position will lead to the continuation of the war, and our forces will reach other places in Gaza, soon.’

— Amichai Stein (@AmichaiStein1) February 7, 2024

Additionally, some within the governing coalition are even talking about Jewish resettlement of the Gaza Strip after the war, and this remains a hot point of contention with Washington, which has condemned such rhetoric.

Authored by Lee Fang via RealClear Wire,

As the 2020 Election Day count dragged on into the next morning in the crucial swing state of Wisconsin, the New York Times campaign reporter Reid Epstein reported a hiccup at 4:52 a.m.: “Green Bay’s absentee ballot results are being delayed because one of the vote-counting machines ran out of ink and an elections official had to return to City Hall to get more.”

Eight minutes later Epstein sent a follow-up tweet giving the all-clear: “Clerk has returned with printer ink!”

This tiny drama from Wednesday, Nov. 4, would be lost to history but for the deep consternation it ignited among influential members of the government and tech industry. Details uncovered in the Twitter Files and revealed here for the first time show that Epstein’s tweet prompted immediate and mostly successful speech suppression efforts by the Department of Homeland Security and others who were intent on undermining any facts or claims that might possibly be used to question the integrity of the 2020 election.

The episode is of more than passing historical note because it is the first known case of the agency attempting to silence a social media account associated with a national newspaper – and because the Times, which has long professed to report the news “without fear or favor,” did little to push back against the censorship, even though nothing has emerged to invalidate Epstein’s reporting.

Epstein’s tweet set off immediate alarm bells in Wisconsin and Washington, D.C. At 5:11 a.m., 19 minutes after Epstein’s first tweet, an election clerk from another part of the state, Rachel Rodriguez, disputed the Times’ reporting on Twitter: “I’m very familiar with the ballot scanners Green Bay uses,” wrote Rodriguez. “There’s no ink involved.”

Four minutes later, at 5:15 a.m., the official Twitter account of the Wisconsin Elections Commission retweeted Rodriguez’s post commenting, “Rachel is correct.”

Except she was not. Although most of Green Bay’s voting machines did not use ink – the DS200, the primary vote-counting machine, relied on thermal tape – that year, there was another machine involved. Local officials, in expectation of higher turnout for the heated presidential race and newly eased rules concerning absentee ballots, opted to additionally use the DS450, a high-speed tabulator that prints results through an external ink-jet printer.

Rodriguez recently told RCI that her 2020 tweet was based on the mistaken understanding that Green Bay used only DS200 machines for the election. She also confirmed that if the city had indeed used a high-speed tabulator, like the DS450 or its variation, the DS850, then her tweet would have been mistaken, because that system uses ink cartridges through an external printer. She explained over phone that her tweet fact-checking Epstein got “way more traction than I thought.” Rodriguez added that “it was 3 a.m. and I was just being sarcastic.”

Her tweet did, indeed, set off a chain reaction at the highest levels..

“This is false,” Amy Cohen, the executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors wrote at 7:45 a.m. on the morning of Nov. 4, linking Epstein’s tweet. “There is no ink involved in the machines used in tabulation of the ballots, a fact confirmed by the state.” Cohen’s email was addressed to the election consortium organized by the Center for Internet Security (CIS), a contractor tasked with facilitating misinformation reports from a variety of stakeholders to DHS and private social media firms.

CIS quickly elevated the tweet in a “Misinformation Report” sent to officials at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the DHS sub-agency with a focus on policing social media. Brian Scully, a DHS official with CISA who then led a task force on “countering foreign influence,” attached a screenshot of the Epstein tweet and sent it to Twitter along with a note that claimed the “tweet alleges tabulation machine ran out of ink which caused delay in counting absentee ballots – there is no ink involved in tabulation machine (Green Bay, WI).”

Stacia Cardille, then a senior Twitter legal executive, thanked Scully for the alert and told the DHS official, “We will escalate.” She then forwarded the email on to a team devoted to “site integrity.” “Hi GETSupport, can you please review this report from the National Association of State Elections Directors by way of DHS?” wrote Cardille in an email time-stamped 8:30 a.m. “Please note the rebuttal information from the official handle of the state election director.”

By 9:27 that morning, Cardille wrote to inform Scully that the social media platform had “labeled this Tweet.” Scully emailed back to convey his appreciation.

The “label” action appears to refer to what’s known as a shadow ban. After receiving significant attention, the Epstein tweet disappeared for most users. The tweet became invisible for those who had quote-tweeted it and users could no longer reply to it. The public metrics of the tweet, with over 1,000 retweets and 3,180 ‘likes,’ as well as all reply tweets, vanished. Any user attempting to view the Times reporter’s tweet via direct link was greeted by a warning label that it might contain misinformation.

Adding to the uncertainty around the issue, the Green Bay Press Gazette, the local newspaper, also criticized Epstein’s tweet as inaccurate. Sandy Juno, who oversaw the 2020 election ballot count as the Brown County Clerk, told RealClearInvestigations that she may have also contributed to the misunderstanding about the voting machine issue and printer ink.

“I got a call from the media about the ink situation,” said Juno. “I said, ‘What do you mean, these machines don’t use ink?’“ But she misunderstood that the questions revolved around the count at the convention center using DS450 tabulators, not the sites using DS200 machines.

“So I might have started the confusion,” added Juno. The former clerk, who has since resigned and openly criticized Green Bay over its management of the election that year, said she is confident that the ballot certification numbers were correct. Juno confirmed that the high-speed tabulation machines, like the DS850 and DS450, use an attached ink-jet printer. Juno also noted that the KI Convention Center vote-counting site had photocopiers, which also use an ink cartridge, another possible explanation for the ink cartridge issue.

Questions swirling around the integrity of the 2020 Wisconsin vote have led to official court challenges and probes by Republicans. Those investigations, while failing to overturn the result, further confirmed the likely accuracy of the Epstein tweet.

Simple Explanation Dismissed

Observers note that neither the state commission nor CIS disputed or even addressed the root issue – the pause in vote counting – but refocused the discussion on the reason why it had occurred. The effort to dismiss the simple explanation – the printer ran out of ink – may have increased skepticism about the results.

Wisconsin local officials whom RCI contacted for this story said they remembered questions concerning why one election official left and returned to the KI Convention Center during the count and recalled rumors that an official was seen carrying a thumb drive that could have been used to tamper with the results. But the probe revealed that the clerk was carrying an ink cartridge. It seems likely that the cartridge was the same one referenced by Epstein.

In response to concerns around the election process that year, the city of Green Bay commissioned a study. The report, overseen by city attorney Vanessa Chavez, confirmed the use of a DS450 high-speed vote tabulation machine at the offsite WI Convention Center, a few blocks away from city hall.

NASED, the election official group that reported the Epstein tweet to the DHS consortium, did not respond to a request for comment.

The New York Times also did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Epstein declined to comment, as well – even though he could help resolve the matter by identifying the source for his tweet. The Times has not corrected the tweet and, notably, referenced the Green Bay ink delay issue in a Nov. 6 article. Nevertheless, neither Epstein nor the Times appear to have pushed back against the shadow-ban on the tweet. Even today, the message is still throttled and carries the warning label: “Some or all of the content shared in this Post is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process.”

Adam Candeub, professor of law at Michigan State University and an expert on free speech issues, said he could not comment specifically on decisions made by the New York Times, but noted there has been a sea change among major organizations on speech issues.

“Institutions with a left of center, left-wing perspective have usually been associated with free speech,” said Caneub. “The most important First Amendment case is New York Times v. Sullivan. But one has to get the feeling that institutions that traditionally have been pro-free speech have retreated from that,” he said. “There could be political or cultural reasons.”

“Journalists and media organizations should be deeply concerned about the government using backchannels to pressure social media companies to censor reporting, especially given that half of Americans get their news on social media,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

CISA released a statement noting that its misinformation reports relied upon “state and local election officials and other election infrastructure stakeholders.” CISA, through a spokesperson, declined to address the accuracy of the Epstein tweet or the allegation that led to the suppression. The spokesperson noted that the agency would not continue the misinformation reporting program for the 2024 presidential election.

The agency declined to take responsibility for the censorship of the Times journalist. “Social media companies, as always, made their own decisions regarding the content on their platforms,” the spokesman said in an email.

Whether the agency intended to pressure Twitter to censor the tweet is open to interpretation. The email chain obtained by RCI and other documents from the Twitter Files and recent congressional investigations strongly suggest that CISA sought action on the Epstein tweet, as it had sought action on other instances of alleged misinformation.

The backend system used by the Election Integrity Project, CISA’s stakeholder partner for its 2020 program to report misinformation, gave explicit censorship demands, according to records released by the House Judiciary Committee last year. “We recommend you label or reduce the discoverability of the post,” noted one EIP request. Other tickets similarly asked that Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit “remove” social media posts and “suspend” certain users.

Often, tweets singled out by watchdog groups as misinformation contained lawful speech that was either accurate or areas of intense scientific debate with no clear answer. The Virality Project, a successor group to the EIP, flagged a tweet from Rep. Tom Massie, R-Ky., that cited research showing that natural immunity provided the same effectiveness as the Pfizer vaccine. Another tweet from Massie flagged by the Virality Project was a message that the vaccine is likely to harm young children more than the COVID-19 “virus is likely to harm young children,” a claim that has been largely substantiated by government research.

Government encroachment on the free press and on social media has raised increasing concerns for civil liberty groups.

“The government should never ask platforms to remove journalists’ truthful reporting,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “If the government is going to be in the business of flagging misinformation for social media platforms it has an obligation to do its homework and make sure it gets it right.”

“Government officials leaning on social media platforms to suppress so-called misinformation is dangerous because it inevitably denies Americans access to truthful information,” noted Terr. “The government itself often gets things wrong or makes politically motivated decisions about what speech to purge from public discourse.”

The history of the development of CISA as a misinformation-fighting government agency, with sprawling influence within multiple social media platforms, is detailed in investigative reporting I published in October 2022. The story revealed whistleblower documents that show the agency had planned to widen its reach to counter “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”

Many of the censorship plans were intentionally concealed through third parties. Documents released by court order showed that Geoff Hale, the director of the Election Security Initiative at CISA, said that the agency should use nonprofit groups as a “clearing house for information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”

The legality of such measures is now under Supreme Court review. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Missouri v. Biden, retitled Murthy v. Missouri, which challenges the constitutionality of government social media interventions as a form of censorship, beginning next month.

Not for the first time, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has warned that a direct war between Moscow forces and NATO would lead to nuclear apocalypse.

The current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council issued the warning on Telegram Wednesday, in response to recent statements and reports that some European leaders are telling their populations to ‘prepare for war’. For example, just last month UK Army chief General Patrick Sanders called on authorities to “mobilize the nation” to prepare for war with Putin, and that the population needs a “shift” in thinking to be ready.

Medvedev mocked this and other examples of NATO leaders accusing Moscow of seeking a broader war as but “dangerous drivel”. He said that this all about trying to bolster support for sending more weapons to Kiev amid what’s become war fatigue among Western publics.

According to Russian media translation of his words, Medvedev said this is part of efforts to prop up Ukraine—”a dying country that is foreign to taxpayers”—while ignoring problems at home. “Therefore, every day the leaders of these countries broadcast: We need to prepare for war with Russia and continue to help Ukraine,” he wrote.

That’s when he said that people in the West have to be told the blunt truth. Medvedev underscored that the Russian response to attack by NATO would without doubt be “asymmetrical”. He explained:

“Since our military capabilities are incomparable, we will simply have no choice. The response will be asymmetrical. To protect the territorial integrity of our country, ballistic and cruise missiles with special warheads will be used… This will be the proverbial Apocalypse. The end of everything.”

This is certainly not the first time that Medvedev, known for this bellicose and hawkish rhetoric, has warned of nuclear apocalypse. But it is the clearest he has ever spelled out that the Kremlin would not hesitate to activate its nuclear arsenal if Russian territory is directly threatened by NATO. 

His comments also come at a very dangerous moment where Ukraine security services are increasingly targeting oil refineries on Russian soil with drone and missile attacks, sometimes at long ranges.

Below: UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says Britain ready for war….

If Russia turns its guns in our direction, is Great Britain ready to defend itself?

“Yes. And my task is to ensure everyone’s safety.”

‼️🇬🇧🇷🇺 Unelected UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says rainbow flag waving #Britain is ready for war with #Russia

If Russia turns its guns in our direction, is Great Britain ready to defend itself?

“Yes. And my task is to ensure everyone’s safety.” pic.twitter.com/7Vba4ClzEd

— Maimunka News (@MaimunkaNews) February 6, 2024

Moscow has accused Western and NATO intelligence services of assisting with such attacks. Recently it has accused France of maintaining mercenaries in the northern city of Kharkiv, in order to mount attacks on nearby Belgorod Oblast. There are rising fears that this ‘indirect’ fighting or proxy war could drift into direct ‘live fire’ between Russia and NATO countries, but so far this has been narrowly avoided.

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Whatever “it” takes

The market take at the start of the year was rapid, deep Fed cuts were coming. 38 days into in 2024 we have seen some stick to a similar take, but also:

• Red-hot payrolls, even if some say ‘Goskomstat’;
• Powell say no cut in March, bringing June into play as the earliest start-date;
• Red-hot ISM services prices paid;
• The RBA’s first meeting under new rules and new governor Bullock say it could raise rates again if needed (see more on that from Ben Picton here);
• The Fed’s Bostic say the long-term rate of US unemployment might be lower than assumed;
• Kashkari say neutral rates may be higher and he’s keeping his fingers crossed the Fed are done;
• Red-hot German factory orders despite a collapse in auto output; and
• Mester say the Fed should gain confidence to cut “later this year”;

On balance, it’s still reasonable to expect some rate cuts in 2024, but not the “NEW NORMAL HERE WE COME!” wave of their own saliva that some hoped to ride imminently. But stumbling New York Community Bank, now downgraded to junk, saw the “banking crisis!” surf-board polished, and yields and the dollar dip: the Fed *must* cut rates to save them, right? But how does cutting rates bring people back to work in the office or change new regulations in the New York rent-controlled apartment market? More Fed acronyms like BTFP are surely more logical again(?)

Moreover, the BOC’s Macklem said monetary policy can’t solve housing shortages, which opens the door to not even looking at shelter inflation anymore. That logically means it might be able to cut rates sooner; which will of course push housing prices even higher – but that won’t be looked at anymore, so ‘whatever’. (And note the BOC’s ‘non mea culpa’ follows that of the government: apparently *nobody* in Canada is responsible for unaffordable housing. And not just Canada, of course. The ‘whatever’ is global.)     

Chinese markets are truly surfing the Big One, however, on news Xi Jinping is going to meet with market regulators. This dull headline prompted drooling comments on Bloomberg that the authorities were doing “everything they can” except say “time to buy”, and, yes, “whatever it takes.” In short, the algo, headline, political trend is your friend.

The problem is these are all ‘whatever’ takes given nobody has a clue what “it” is that can reverse the $5.6 trillion slump seen in stocks. $278bn didn’t move the needle, nor did $1.4 trillion, so is $7 trillion next to continue the exponential? Where does this money come from? The Beijing promise to help stocks has no details yet, except more short-selling bans and forced SOE buying. And you can’t sort Chinese stocks without sorting Chinese property: and that needs much more than $7 trillion.

There’s also a key link between China and the US that few market takes cover properly. Part of the reason for the drop in US inflation is the slump in China: the Fed doesn’t get that as its economic staff barely understand their own economy. Conversely, China is waiting for the US to start easing before it launches its own stimulus: Bloomberg notes PBOC Governor Pan Gongsheng stating Fed cuts “will expand space for China’s monetary policy operations.” So, when the Fed thinks inflation is done, China will push demand/commodity prices higher again!

Indeed, I contend tighter Fed policy narrows US geopolitical rivals’ room for manoeuvre, keeps commodity prices low, and the dollar top dog: note Powell’s comment Sunday about the importance of the US global economic and security role – maybe he also sees that a little(?)

In geopolitics, the prospect of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is fading given the latter’s demands that it means an end to a war.

In response, the Houthis say they will escalate their attacks on global shipping: there are reports they might cut key Red Sea internet cables too. Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports Chinese carriers are getting discounted insurance to sail through the Red Sea, which increases their commercial advantage. Some will say ‘whatever, lower prices’; others, ‘Deep Ship’ at the geopolitical implications.

As if that weren’t enough, we have a slew of other market ‘whatever’ “it” takes on:

• The SEC ruling many hedge funds trading US Treasuries have to register as dealers, increasing bureaucracy and oversight. (Is this really just about the basis trade, or is there a bigger game being played?)
• Former President Trump’s appeal against his DC January 6 court-case being denied, as expected. (However, it still remains uncertain if this trial can proceed before the election given the options Trump has open to him –tradition says the DOJ may not want to proceed, if so–and the possibility that the Supreme Court steps in in some form. Given the crucial importance of this trial to the election, and the election to economic policy, one might think the market would be listening to the most experienced legal takes, not bullet-point headlines: but whatever.)
• The DOJ reportedly being set to give President Biden only a slap on the wrist for having his own stash of classified documents dating from when he was vice president in his garage – Trump is being charged over holding his in Florida. (While the two cases are not the same, this is still likely to polarize US political debate even further into the 2024 election.)

Take from all of this whatever you will!

In 1941, American journalist Pierre Huss interviewed German dictator Adolph Hitler in German-occupied Russia as part of a reporting staff orchestrated by CBS News‘ Edward R. Murrow. He won the George Polk award in 1951 for war time reporting, and was honored by the NY Times in a 1966 obituary.

In 1941 war correspondent Pierre Huss Interviewed Hitler in German occupied Russia for the International News Service, a team assembled by CBS news’ Edward Murrow pic.twitter.com/s4OPHQ3gPN

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) February 6, 2024

Nearly 80 years later, EU lawmakers want to sanction Tucker Carlson for his upcoming interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian Prime Minister and current member of the European Parliament who has called for the EU to impose a “travel ban” on the former Fox News host, told Newsweek that Carlson is nothing more than a “mouthpiece” for former President Donald Trump and Putin.

Tucker Carlson is surely on the path to being labelled a propagandist for the Russian regime.

If he enables disinformation for Putin, the EU should explore a travel ban ! pic.twitter.com/RKwEtvg0pR

— Guy Verhofstadt (@guyverhofstadt) February 5, 2024

“As Putin is a war criminal and the EU sanctions all who assist him in that effort, it seems logical that the External Action Service examine his case as well,” he said.

The real journalists in Russia are in jail or had to flee !

Carlson is Putin’s mouthpiece and an enemy of everything the US stands for — no more, no less.https://t.co/Nu58d6mnXD

— Guy Verhofstadt (@guyverhofstadt) February 7, 2024

Former MEP Luis Gariocano told Newsweek that he agrees with Verhofstadt.

“He is no longer a newsman, but a propagandist for the most heinous regime on European soil and the one which is most dangerous to our peace and security,” he said of Carlson.

MEP Urmas Paet, who was previously Estonia’s foreign minister, told the outlet: “First of all, it should be remembered that Putin is not just a president of an aggressor country, but he is wanted by the International Criminal Court and accused of genocide and war crimes,” adding “Carlson wants to give a platform to someone accused of crimes of genocide—this is wrong. If Putin has something to say he needs to say it in front of the ICC. At the same time Carlson is not being a real journalist since he has clearly expressed his sympathy for the Russian regime and Putin and has constantly disparaged Ukraine, the victim of Russian aggression.”

“So, for such propaganda for a criminal regime, you can end up on the list of sanctions. This concerns primarily travel ban to EU countries.“

Carlson explained on Tuesday that he’s interviewing Putin because “Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or what his goals are now,” adding “We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin….We are not encouraging you to agree with what Putin may say in this interview, but we are urging you to watch it. You should know as much as you can.”

According to a Telegram channel believed to be run by Kremlin reporters, Tucker’s interview may be released Thursday in the late afternoon, EST.

Carlson is the first to formally interview Putin since October 2021, when CNBC’s Hadley Gamble sat down exclusively with him, according to Reuters via The Indian Express.

Earlier that year, NBC News senior international correspondent Kiers Simmons sat down with Putin for a June 11, 2021 exclusive interview.

The Associated Press also interviewed Putin on September 3, 2013.

And one more thing, in 1997, four years before the 9/11 attacks, CNN interviewed Al-Qaeda terrorist Osama bin Laden inside of a cave in Afghanistan.

How odd:

Al Cook, CEO of De Beers, the world’s largest diamond company, appeared on Bloomberg TV Wednesday morning to discuss the future of diamond prices. He anticipates that demand will follow a “U” shape pattern. 

Bloomberg’s Jennifer Zabasajja asked Cook: “Where do you see demand coming from?” 

Cook responded: “So 2023 was a very challenging year for the diamond industry. And lower demand was driven by three things: falls in the global economic growth rate, long-Covid (lack of interaction between the world’s largest economies), and encroachment of lab-grown diamonds.” 

He said all three factors that suppressed the diamond market “will reverse in 2024.” 

“We see 2024 as a year of recovery,” Cook added. 

Over the last year, we have outlined to readers that diamond prices are imploding as luxury demand floundered and lab-grown diamonds flooded markets worldwide (here & here & here). 

According to Bloomberg data, the Diamond Standard Index Price recently hit lows not seen since 2004. 

How long until De Beers or other miners are hit with convenient labor actions at mines that curb global supplies? 

Authored by Frank Fang via The Epoch Times,

Former President Donald Trump said Bud Light’s parent company is not “woke” and suggested that it “deserves a second chance.”

“The Bud Light ad was a mistake of epic proportions, and for that a very big price was paid,” President Trump wrote on his Truth Social account on Feb. 6, referring to Bud Light’s decision last year to produce a customized beer can featuring the face of transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney.

The promotion led to a sustained boycott of the brand, with Bud Light’s parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev losing billions of dollars in revenue.

“Anheuser-Busch is not a Woke company,” the former president added.

“Anheuser-Busch spends $700 Million a year with our GREAT Farmers, employ[s] 65 thousand Americans, of which 1,500 are Veterans, and is a Founding Corporate Partner of Folds of Honor, which provides Scholarships for families of fallen Servicemen & Women. They’ve raised over $30,000,000 and given 44,000 Scholarships.

“Anheuser-Busch is a Great American Brand that perhaps deserves a Second Chance? What do you think? Perhaps, instead, we should be going after those companies that are looking to DESTROY AMERICA!”

While asserting that Anheuser-Busch is not a “woke” company, the former President said he can name “plenty that are.”

“[I] am building a list, and might just release it for the World to see,” President Trump wrote.

“Why not, the Radical Left does it viciously to well-run, Conservative companies—and people! Very nasty, but it’s the way they play the game!”

In May last year, the former president joined conservative criticism of Anheuser-Busch, while promoting the “The Great Patriot BUY-Cott Book” by Wayne Allyn Root.

“It’s time to beat the Radical Left at their own game,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time.

“Money does talk, Anheuser-Busch now understands that.”

Bud Light has pivoted back to its more traditional, sports-related advertising. It is now the “official beer partner” of the mixed martial arts league UFC after a multiyear deal was signed late last year.

The brand has created a 60-second commercial dubbed “Easy Night Out” that will air during the Super Bowl on Feb. 11. The advertisement centers around a group of friends who release a genie from a bottle of Bud Light.

In January, Anheuser-Busch agreed to partner with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for events through 2028. Corona Cero, AB InBev’s zero-alcohol beer, will be the global beer sponsor of the Olympic Games.

“Beer and sports are better together, so we are proud to be the first beer sponsor for the Olympics at the Worldwide Olympic Partner level,” Anheuser-Busch CEO Michel Doukeris said in a statement.

“We look forward to partnering with the IOC, and activating at the 2024, 2026, and 2028 games.”

Anheuser-Busch also signed a sponsorship deal last month with the U.S. Olympic team for its Michelob Ultra light beer brand. The brewing company will sponsor Team USA at this year’s Olympic and Paralympic Games in Paris, the 2026 Winter Olympics (Milan-Cortina 2026), and the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

“Team USA joins Michelob ULTRA’s incredible roster of sports partners including the NBA, WNBA, PGA, U.S. Soccer Federation, Mexican Football Federation, Copa America, and Professional Bull Riders, all of which share our passion for quality, excellence, and celebrating an active and balanced lifestyle,” Anheuser-Busch U.S. CEO Brendan Whitworth said in a statement.

Modelo Especial, owned by Constellation Brands in the United States, overtook Bud Light as the best-selling beer in the United States in June last year.

In October 2023, Anheuser-Busch reported a 13.5 percent loss for its third-quarter revenue in the United States.

Bud Light sales dropped by nearly 30 percent year over year for the week ending Jan. 20, 2024, compared to the same period in 2023, according to Fox Business, citing data from Bump Williams Consulting.

NYCB shares puked down to $3.50 overnight after Moody’s downgraded them to junk.

This morning, the beleaguered, CRE-heavy bank released a statement from Chief Executive Thomas Cangemi that:

“The Moody’s downgrade is not expected to have a material impact on our contractual arrangements.”

Which seems a little disingenuous, given Moody’s comments on the fact that one of the bank’s major vulnerabilities is its need for market financing.

Additionally, as Goldman’s Sara Cha notes, the lender stated that deposits are up from YE23 at $83b and that total liquidity at the firm exceeds uninsured deposits ($37.3b vs $22.9b of uninsured deposits), while adding that “this doesn’t give much insights into types of deposits,” and it does show a decline in uninsured deposits.

That data was as of the close on 2/5 (i.e before yesterday’s share price collapse and the downgrade).

The bank also named board member Alessandro (Sandro) DiNello as executive chairman to “work alongside” Chief Executive Cangemi in an effort to “improve all aspects of the bank’s operations.”

All of which dragged the share price well off the lows.

And DiNello has just held a conference call during which he stated that the bank has “seen virtually no deposit outflow from retail branches.”

Interesting choice of words – what about deposit flight from online?

NYCB’s CFO commented that deposits on Feb 6th were “relatively stable” with Feb 5th.

DiNello reassured that the lender is focused on doing “whatever it takes” to build capital, has “really curtailed” CRE origination in recent months, and will consider loan sales among the options to reduce CRE exposure, as well as selling assets.

The market’s response was disappointment…

Not exactly the vote of confidence they were expecting as shares are now down 4% from yesterday’s close.

Jamie Dimon says your deposits will make a welcome addition to my financial empire https://t.co/PGD8oadBTZ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 7, 2024

We warned…

…and there’s lots of big bank cash.