82.7 F
Chicago
Sunday, August 16, 2026
Home Blog Page 3676

Russia Seeks To Overwhelm Ukraine’s Anti-Air Defenses, Both Sides Claim Gains In Bakhmut

Russia Seeks To Overwhelm Ukraine’s Anti-Air Defenses, Both Sides Claim Gains In Bakhmut

There’s been further contradictory reporting regarding the situation in Bakhmut, with Ukraine currently claiming a significant advance around the strategic city in Donetsk oblast, while Russia’s Wagner said its fighters had made gains.

“Today Wagner’s units advanced 200 meters and occupied an area of ​​113,000 m2. Only 1.46 square kilometres remain under enemy control in Bakhmout,” Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin said. New drone footage is also circulating which purports to show “the last remaining Ukrainian-held area in Bakhmut”

“The pincers are closing,” Prigozhin also previously said in a video message. 

The New York Times this week is offering an account which somewhat contradicts this: “Moscow’s troops still hold most of Bakhmut itself, Ukraine’s recent gains around the city are not large, and there is no guarantee that they will last. But for the first time in months, Ukrainian soldiers are on the offensive and the momentum in the longest and bloodiest battle of the war appears to have shifted their way — at least for now.”

The Russian side has long reported that it holds at least 90% to 95% of the strategic city, but it’s clearly been a slow grind. Some Ukrainian sources have suggested that Bakhmut is all about Kiev luring Russia into expending as much artillery ammunition and troops as possible as casualties mount.

Kiev is even claiming major new gains there: “In recent days, our troops have liberated about 20 square kilometres north and south” of Bakhmut, according to Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Ganna Maliar on Wednesday. With journalists being far from the front lines, and certainly not embedded in an urban warfare environment, there’s little which can be objectively verified of all this.

What is clear is that the city is utterly destroyed and uninhabitable…

In the rest of Ukraine, Russian aerial attacks have continued at a sustained heavy pace. CNN has cited US defense officials to say Russia is trying to “overwhelm” the country’s anti-air defenses:

Russia has been expending more munitions than usual in an attempt to overwhelm and confuse Ukrainian air defenses, according to a US official familiar with the matter. Russia has launched the larger aerial attacks from several directions at once, the official said, targeting command and control centers in Kyiv and other high-value locations, as well as the Patriot missile systems that provide Ukraine with a long-range air defense option.

Russia may have begun the expanded attacks in an attempt to force Ukraine to delay its highly-anticipated counter-offensive, the official said. But Ukraine has been able to withstand the attacks, intercepting a high percentage of the incoming missiles and drones with the layered air defenses provided by Western nations.

This comes as there’s been some level of confirmation from the US that Russia struck Patriot systems the day prior.

Meanwhile, places as far south as Odessa are getting hammered on Wednesday…

There are still questions over whether Ukraine’s much-touted spring counteroffensive has actually begun.

National security advisor Jake Sullivan said Wednesday, “Whether a counter-offensive has begun is up to the one who conducts it, and I will not proclaim it. I will let the Ukrainians characterize what they are doing.” He merely said that “intense military activity continues” – in a press briefing.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 17:20

China Says New US Support For Taiwan “Absolutely Intolerable”

China Says New US Support For Taiwan “Absolutely Intolerable”

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

On Tuesday, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) responded to US plans to provide Taiwan with $500 million in unprecedented military aid and reports that said hundreds of US troops have been deployed to the island, warning it will “firmly crush attempts at external interference.”

Taiwan’s defense minister recently said that Washington and Taipei are in talks about the US providing $500 million in “free” weapons. The arms will be sent using the Presidential Drawdown Authority, the same authority President Biden has been using to arm Ukraine, which allows him to ship weapons straight from US military stockpiles. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin confirmed on Tuesday that the Pentagon plans to send arms to Taiwan using the PDA soon.

Since Washington severed diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979, the US has sold weapons to Taiwan but never provided them free of charge. Taiwanese media also recently reported that about 200 US troops have been deployed to Taiwan to assist in training, marking the largest known US military presence in Taiwan in decades.

According to a PLA press release, PLA spokesman Col. Tan Kefe said attempts “of the US side to turn back the wheel of history on the Taiwan question are absolutely intolerable.”

When asked about the aid and the troop deployment, Tan said the US has “the US has stepped up its military collusion with the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) authorities by strengthening military contacts and upgrading substantive relations between the two sides, which has shaken the foundation of the China-US relations and undermined the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

Tan said that the issue of Taiwan is the “first red line that must not be crossed in China-US relations,” something Chinese President Xi Jinping told President Biden when the two leaders met face-to-face in Bali last November. Beijing views Washington’s recent efforts to increase support for Taiwan as an affront to the US’s one-China policy.

Tan noted that Washington severing diplomatic relations with Taipei, ending its Mutual Defense Treaty with the island, and withdrawing troops were “the preconditions for the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the US.”

He called on the US to stop increasing support for Taiwan and “reiterated that the Chinese PLA will continue to strengthen military training and combat readiness, firmly crush ‘Taiwan independence’ attempts and external interference in any form, and resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Hawks in Washington argue the US must arm Taiwan “to the teeth” to prevent a Chinese invasion of the island. But Beijing’s rhetoric and actions demonstrate that Taiwan will be put under more military pressure in response to growing US-Taiwan ties.

For example, China launched its largest-ever military exercises in August 2022 in response to then-House Speaker visiting Taiwan. In April of this year, the PLA conducted similar drills after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy hosted Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in California.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 17:00

Another Disney World Brawl: Guest Conduct Mirrors Company’s and Society’s Decay

Another Disney World Brawl: Guest Conduct Mirrors Company’s and Society’s Decay

Once quintessential family-friendly environments, Walt Disney amusement parks now mirror down-market food joints in featuring the basest displays of godawful human behavior. 

To put it another way, Mickey Mouse is fast gaining on his rodent cousin Chuck E. Cheese in hosting viral-video slugfests. 

The latest example was served up on Monday, as two families brawled just beyond Disney World’s entrance gates, in a fight that reportedly arose from a family’s desire to take a photo at the iconic location. 

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office responded to emergency calls at 2:30pm. Reportedly, one family asked another family to move so they could take a group photo at a spot that has the Magic Kingdom train station as a backdrop, along with Mickey Mouse topiary and, this year, a sign calling out the 100th anniversary of the Walt Disney Company. 

Tempers flared, and violent impulses prevailed as a member of one family reportedly punched a member of another in the face. Things then quickly devolved into the kind of messy, co-ed slugfest seen with increasing regularity as American society steadily unravels — and companies like Disney set out to destroy the values that once bound it. 

One person received medical treatment at the scene, but chose not to press charges against the assailant. Two people were ejected from the park. 

More civil times: Disney World during its 1971 grand opening (via Orlando Sentinel)

Monday’s meleé didn’t quite match the ferocity or duration of last summer’s free-for-all at Disney World, which apparently erupted after a woman left an attraction line and then returned to her family:   

Meanwhile, though Disney has the larger catalog of increasingly unwatchable flicks, Chuck E. Cheese is still the most prolific rodent in the genre of trashy people beating the #@%$ out of each other in front of their children: 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 16:40

Turley: Durham Report Condemns FBI’s Russia Probe… But Don’t Expect It To Make A Difference

Turley: Durham Report Condemns FBI’s Russia Probe… But Don’t Expect It To Make A Difference

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated.”

Those words from the Durham Report summed up one of the most damning investigations in the Justice Department’s history.

In the 305-page report released Monday, special counsel John Durham concluded that the Trump-Russia investigation was launched without a required minimal level of evidence and shattered a host of departmental standards. Let that sink in: The Justice Department — as well as the media that covered it — effectively shut down a duly elected presidency, based on what turned out to be a politically engineered hoax.

That would make anyone angry. Really angry. Trump-level angry.

The fact is, in this instance, Donald Trump was correct when he said he was the target of a political hitjob funded by the Clinton campaign and maintained by virtually every media outlet. There is a word for that: disinformation.

Democrats such as former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California have pushed for censorship by claiming that disinformation is a threat to democracy.

Well, this is that threat — the real one. This actually left an administration mired in a faux scandal for years, with high-ranking officials paraded before grand juries and their guilt then proclaimed nightly on cable news shows.

Even after the Mueller investigation found insufficient evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, Rep. Schiff assured the public in March 2018, that “I can certainly say with confidence that there is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia” and he repeatedly promised to reveal it in his committee.

He never did, of course. Instead, he regularly criticized Durham’s investigation and called for it to end, to prevent this report from ever being released.

Others on the intelligence committee, like Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), also insisted there was clear evidence of collusion. No less a figure than Obama’s former national intelligence director James Clapper suggested Trump was a Russian “asset.”

For its part, most of the media portrayed the now-infamous Steele dossier — the original basis for the collusion claims — as true, and the New York Times and Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for a story that not only has been debunked but shown to be the product of Hillary’s Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The Durham report is everything that the FBI investigation was not. It is dispassionate, detached and detailed. It exposes the origin of the collusion effort in the Clinton campaign, which hid its funding in legal fees. (The campaign was later fined by the Federal Election Commission for that concealment.) A few reporters did ask about a possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials lied and denied it.

There was little need for concealment, however, when there was so little interest in investigating the story, either by key FBI figures or by the media.

American intelligence discredited the Steele dossier early on as likely Russian disinformation; the credibility of specific sources for the dossier was shredded. Yet then-FBI Director James Comey opened the most extensive investigation ever into an American president based on that tawdry, tattered record.

The lack of supporting evidence did not matter.

Instead, Comey clearly relished the dossier’s more salacious details. For example, in a 2018 interview, he declared: “Honestly, I never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current President of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013.”

The “pee tape” story was repeated endlessly by the media and by Comey. Durham, however, eventually showed that the source of the story was a Clinton associate.

For Comey, though, it appeared to be one of those stories that was just too good to fully check. Nor did he appear concerned that, before the Clinton campaign pushed the dossier to the media and the FBI, then-CIA Director John Brennan had briefed President Obama and his national security team on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

According to Durham, Comey — who later wrote and sold a book on “ethical leadership” — led the FBI to use “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence” to effectively tie up a duly elected president for three years.

Durham reports that FBI personnel admitted they disregarded standards for surveillance despite “acknowledging — both then and in hindsight — that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly [working for a foreign power].”

In the end, it is not a crime to be unethical or incompetent, so no charges will be filed as a result of the report. Durham clearly hopes that the belated transparency provided by his report will produce greater future accountability. That may be the only naive aspect of his findings.

Of course, the FBI promptly issued a statement that it has — once more — reformed itself in light of its failures. But who really believes this is unlikely to occur again?

Indeed, the same pattern and figures reemerged in 2020, when another false narrative was created to dismiss the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Some of the officials involved in the false Russia collusion conspiracy were signatories on the letter by 51 former intelligence officials claiming that the laptop story was likely “Russian disinformation.” And the media again pushed that version before the 2020 election — only to admit, two years later, that the laptop was authentic all along.

Conspicuously missing in the aftermath of Durham’s report is the one thing that would establish a clear commitment to reform: an apology. Clinton, Comey, members of Congress and others could apologize to the American people — and, yes, even to Trump.

That, of course, will never happen. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in releasing a report that concluded this investigation never should have occurred, made no statement whatsoever.

Thus, Durham was left throwing haymakers in an empty political boxing ring — and those who perpetrated this scandal on the nation are left to carry on making money on books, speeches, TV commentary and lectures about political or electoral ethics. The media, meanwhile, is offering little more than a shoulder-shrug and more spin.

So, in the relative silence of media coverage following the report’s release, Durham can contemplate an ultimate Zen-like question: If a 305-page report proves a concerted political hoax but no one is there to read it, does it make a difference?

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 15:05

US Officials Confirm Russian Strike On Patriot System In Ukraine: CNN

US Officials Confirm Russian Strike On Patriot System In Ukraine: CNN

On Tuesday Russia’s military announced it destroyed US-supplied Patriot anti-air battery in Ukraine during a hypersonic missile strike on Kiev. Widely circulating video appeared to confirm the destruction of a Patriot battery, but still there was much speculation over the event, given it was a significant first on the Ukrainian battlefield.

US defense officials are now confirming that US Patriots were hit by Russia, however, they downplayed the degree of devastation of the strike. CNN reports

The damage to a Patriot air defense system following a Russian missile attack near Kyiv on Tuesday morning is minimal, three US officials tell CNN, with one official describing it as “minor” damage.

The US sent inspectors to examine the system on Tuesday after being told by Ukrainian forces that the system appeared to have been damaged, one official said.

Via Reuters

CNN writes further based on the statement from US officials: “It is not clear what part of the Patriot was damaged or if it was damaged by an actual missile strike or falling debris. The Ukrainians said they successfully intercepted all six Russian Kinzhal missiles on Tuesday morning.”

Despite claiming the Patriot wasn’t utterly “destroyed” in the attack, CNN’s reporting seems to confirm the narrative from the Russian Defense Ministry, which said in a Tuesday Telegram post: “a high-precision strike by the Kinzhal hypersonic missile system in the city of Kyiv hit a US-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile system.” Ukraine had publicly denied Moscow’s assertion.

The Pentagon on Wednesday said that Russia is currently attempting to overwhelm Ukraine’s anti-air system with large-scale barrages in various places, including with missiles and drones. Previously The National Interest described how the Patriots are vulnerable

Patriot systems are limited to pinpoint defense of major assets and are designed to operate in tandem with air defenses engaging targets at higher and lower altitudes. Without these additions, Patriot will have too many threats to engage and the result will either be porous coverage that doesn’t protect its defended assets, or coverage that quickly subsides when Patriot runs out of interceptors.

Moreover, Patriot systems are themselves vulnerable. Operating a Patriot radar system gives away its location, making it an open target for Russian attacks. This means that Patriot is not a one-stop-shop for defending Ukraine’s military assets or its people.

Confirmation of the strike on one or more Patriot systems is not something the Ukrainians or Americans want to own up to, given it would show them to be deficient. 

The White House when asked refused to confirm, but Kirby’s words suggested the accuracy of the CNN report: 

“First of all, I can’t confirm these reports,” said Kirby.

“It would depend on the scope of the damage if it could be repaired by Ukrainians on site. Obviously, if there was damage done to a Patriot system that needed to be repaired outside Ukraine, we would certainly assist with that.”

Earlier, CNN reported that a U.S.-made Patriot missile defense system was likely damaged, but not destroyed, during a Russian missile attack on Kyiv on May 16. Two Patriot systems are currently located in Ukraine, one provided by the United States and the other by Germany and the Netherlands.

Commenting on the video of the purported Russian direct hit on the Patriot battery, Kim Dotcom wrote on Twitter, “30 US Patriot PAC-3 MSE launch at a cost of $5 million per missile. That’s $150 million gone within 2 mins. At the end the Patriot launch platforms were destroyed by Russian missiles. Why would any military still want to buy Patriot after this failure?” 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 14:45

Stockman: Why Grandma Yellen Must Be Forced To Prioritize Spending

Stockman: Why Grandma Yellen Must Be Forced To Prioritize Spending

Authored by David Stockman via LewRockwell.com,

Let’s first reprise the great 2011 debt ceiling showdown. On July 28, just a few days prior to when the Treasury’s borrowing authority would have been exhausted, the yield on the benchmark 10-year UST note stood at 2.98%. And despite months of heated warnings to the freshly elected GOP House majority about its duty to promptly pass a “clean” debt ceiling increase that figure was actually down considerably from the 3.36% yield of early January 2011.

That’s right. As shown below, the whole seven month ordeal on Capitol Hill about the expiring borrowing authority resulted in, well, an irregular but marked decline of the benchmark bond yield.

Yield On 10-Year UST, January 2011 to August 2012

On July 31st the House GOP famously capitulated, agreeing to a big debt ceiling increase in return for what was advertised to be $2.1 trillion of deficit reductions over the next decade. At that point the yield dropped further to 2.58% on August 5th, the day S&P dramatically cut the UST credit rating from AAA to AA+ after the market closed.

The folks at S&P were apparently not amused by the banana republic “brinkmanship” that had prevailed on Capitol Hill for the better part of the year. So they sternly admonished Washington that—

The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenge,” the company said in a statement.

Did the yield soar the next week in response to America’s loss of its purported pristine credit rating, as had been warned ad nauseam by the Wall Street and Washington powers that be in the run-up to the crisis?

Why, no, it did not. By year-end 2011 the yield had further fallen to 1.89% and, as shown above, by the first anniversary of the downgrade in early August 2012 it had plummeted to just 1.50%.

Moreover, by the latter point the Y/Y inflation rate was running at 2.0% on our trusty 16% trimmed mean CPI. In effect, one-year after all the debt ceiling strum and drang of 2011 the real yield on the benchmark government security was negative 50 basis points. That is to say, the US government lost its pristine credit rating and was rewarded with tens of billions of annual debt service savings!

It might be argued, of course, that the $2.1 trillion deficit reduction plan which accompanied the GOP debt ceiling capitulation was what caused yields to go down, not up. But that doesn’t wash, either.

These deficit reductions were to be achieved by—

  •  A defense and nondefense discretionary appropriations freeze that was to save $900 billion over ten years;

  • A further $1.2 trillion of savings from entitlements based on permanent reforms to  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps etc. via the recommendations of a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

As it happened, the latter “study committee” approach to sweeping entitlement reform was not meant to be the usual duck and dodge airball. The debt ceiling deal also established a backup procedure to increase the incentive on the Joint Committee to reach a compromise. This was to occur in the form of automatic cuts called “sequestration” that would trigger if the committee failed to make and implement the $1.2 trillion of additional savings.

Broadly speaking, for 2013 and future years these automatic across-the-board cuts would have meant about an 8.4% reduction in most affected non-defense discretionary programs, a 7.5% cut in affected defense programs, an 8.0% savings in affected mandatory programs other than Medicare, and a 2.0% cut in Medicare provider payments. For 2014 through 2021, the Medicare cut were to remain at 2 percent while the percentage cuts in other programs would gradually shrink.

As it happened, the Select Committee produced a big fat goose egg in terms of actual budget savings. So then, piling gimmick upon gimmick, the above described sequestration process was triggered for FY 2014 to FY 2021.

Alas, on the entitlement side of the budget ledger it is hard so see where the sequester “cuts” drew any fiscal blood. Federal transfer payment spending, in fact, rose from $1.8 trillion in 2011 to $2.9 trillion by FY 2021, representing a gain of 64%.

Federal Transfer Payments, 2011 to 2021

Likewise, in the case of nondefense appropriations the eight-year total of outlays (FY 2014-2021) was to be capped at $4.11 trillion. In fact, outlays for the period totaled $5.49 trillion or 34% more.

Moreover, by the last year of the House GOP plan (2021) the results were nothing short of a joke. The capped annual level of spending was supposed to be $558 billion, but it actually clocked in a $895 billion or 60% more.

Similarly, the eight-year defense cap was supposed to total $4.342 billion, but actually came in at $5.109 trillion or 18% more. Again, the FY 2021 cap was $589 billion under the House GOP plan, but actual outlays came in at $742 billion.

Overall, the Rube Goldberg budget device that then GOP Speaker John Boehner had crafted in return for the debt ceiling increase was supposed to limit appropriated defense and nondefense spending to $8.45 trillion over the next 10-years in the absence of entitlement reforms from the Joint Select Committee. The actual level, as it turned out, was $10.60 trillion. That is to say, these fakers missed their targets by $2.15 trillion over the period!

Moreover, since the Boehner gimmicks left entitlements largely unaddressed, the overall deficit outcome after FY 2011 made a pure mockery of the plan. At the time, CBO estimated that during the 10-year budget window impacted by the Boehner plan (FY 2012 to FY 2021) the cumulative Federal deficit would total $3.49 trillion.

Alas, the actual figure turned out to be 3.3X higher at $11.60 trillion!

As a result, the public debt actually doubled during the decade after the July 2011 debt ceiling showdown. The $15.2 trillion public debt of 2011 became $29.6 trillion by 2021, and has continued to climb from there into still another so-called debt-ceiling crisis.

Total Public Debt, 2010 to 2021

So here we are again—allegedly three weeks away from Fiscal Armageddon. But what actually lies ahead is not a rendezvous with the ballyhooed “national default” event, but something actually far more important: Namely, the hour when Grandma Yellen must be forced to use the Treasury’s authority to allocate receipts on a priority basis among spending accounts.

For crying out loud. The US Treasury is still being gorged with hard-earned tribute from the taxpayers—so there is more than enough inflow to pay the debt service, as well as other priorities that the Treasury might establish.

During the just completed month of April, for instance, the interest payment was a hefty $62 billion, but that was just 9.5% of the $639 Federal receipt collection for the month. So by every form of math we are aware of, there was not a remote chance of failing to pay Uncle Sam’s interest obligations—even without borrowing another dime.

And, yes, April is a big collection month with April 15 tax payments and all, but even on a average monthly basis for the first six months of FY 2023, there has been plenty of current inflow to cover interest payments and several other priorities that are likely to float to the top of the heap when push-comes-to-shove.

Average Per Month, FY 2023 To Date:

  • Federal receipts: $448 billion;

  • Net interest payments: $61 billion;

  • Social Security Payments: $128 billion;

  • Veterans Services & Compensation: $26 billion;

  • Military Pay and O&M: $47 billion;

  • Food Stamps, Welfare & SSI: $22 billion

  • Total Big Five Spending Accounts: $285 billion;

  • Receipts left for all other spending accounts: $163 billion.

As it happened, during the first six months of this year the average monthly outlay for all spending accounts outside of the Big Five was $318 billion. So in theory, if the debt ceiling stand-off were to go on for a full month, only 51% of pending bills could be paid to defense contractors, medicare providers, state medicaid agencies, Federal civilian bureaucrats and retirees, highway builders, student aid recipients, farm subsidies, public works projects, community development grants, etc.

Then again, it would never come to a whole month. The mere act of shoving what would amount to $318 billion of non-prioritized due bills into a drawer at the US treasury would bring down the wrath of the impacted constituencies on the White House like never before.

In a word, Sleepy Joe would negotiate and negotiate fast and flexibly on real spending cuts, not just the usual budgetary flim-flammery.

Accordingly, the make or break matter which now stands before Speaker McCarthy and the House GOP is to force Grandma Yellen to prioritize spending. Once the Big Lie about debt “default” is broken wide-open in this manner, the fiscal equation would be changed forever.

Instead of the entitlements and the uniparty pork barrel spenders taking the nation’s fiscal accounts hostage, the taxpayers and their representatives would finally have the leverage to stop the fiscal doomsday machine in its tracks.

Stated differently, what is really at stake in the current standoff is the urgent need to refute the endlessly repeated notion that the president must helplessly sit on his hands, making debt payment default unavoidable and instantaneous.

To the contrary, no less a scholar than Harvard Law School’s Laurence Tribe, the dean of liberal constitutional experts, has forthrightly debunked that hoary notion—among many others. Several weeks prior to the great August 2011 debt crisis professor Tribe declared as follows:

All of this brings me to my second point: what is the government to do if, come August 3, it does not have enough money to make all of the expenditures that Congress has required by law? The answer, I think, is that it must prioritize expenditures: some payments simply have to be postponed until the Treasury has enough money to make them.

So what are the House Republicans waiting for?

The nation’s foremost liberal scholar has given them the green light to stand their ground. And in the first instance that means forcing Grandma Yellen to prioritize the incoming revenue to debt service payments and other key items, while leaving the rest of the unpaid bills to pile-up in the great hall of invoices at the US Treasury.

And it is well to remember that when an accrued military contractor bill or Medicaid reimbursement payment to state governments is paid 5,15, 30 or even 60 days late that is not an earth-shattering default; it’s merely a case of “slow pay” by Uncle Sam just like financially pinched private companies do from time to time, and in this case the tardiness would be for good and substantial reasons.

Stated differently, the great army of sucklers on the public teat need to understand that while Uncle Sam will always make his bond payments on time, what amount to his trade “payables” might get stretched occasionally when his checkbook is overdrawn.

Needless to say, prioritizing debt service and the above illustrated set of priorities—or any other plausible set– would be blessed in a heartbeat by the Roberts Court. That is, even if it got litigated, should some lobby group be foolish enough to bring suit against the President’s prioritizing of available receipts.

It’s hard to be more unequivocal than that—a truth that your editor well understands because we confronted exactly that question more than once during Ronald Reagan’s short-lived rebuke to Leviathan. As a later budget director and then Member of Congress, Mick Mulvaney, noted in October 2013 on the occasional of another feigned default:

We’re not going to default; there is no default. There’s an [Office of Management and Budget] directive from the 1980s, the last time we got fairly close to not raising the debt ceiling, that clearly lays out the process by which the Treasury secretary prioritizes interest payments.

Needless to say, the Imperial City fears these three bolded words more than Dracula feared a glittering crucifix. Yet what hangs in the balance is whether even a semblance of fiscal sanity can be recouped based on this primal and only remaining source of budgetary leverage.

This time, however, there may actually be a chance for sanity. That because the Fed is in no position to monetize the debt, as it was in 2011 and thereafter. In the great scheme of history, that was one of the most foolish financial undertakings of the state ever recorded.

As shown below, it meant that for the 10-years of the 2011 debt ceiling deal, the inflation-adjusted interest rate on the benchmark UST was negative nearly 50% of the time. And when it was positive it registered well below 1.0% in all months except five. Altogether, therefore, the weighted average real interest rate during the period was well below the zero bound.

And it was the resulting massive distortion of the economic signalling system that led to the the Brobdingnagian financial bubbles and debts which now hang over the American economy like the Sword of Damocles.

Inflation-Adjusted Yield On 10-Year UST, September 2011 to September 2021

To repeat, interest rates did not soar when first the Congress dallied by not promptly enacting a “clean” debt ceiling increase in the spring of 2011; and they did not rise, either, when S&P downgraded the nation’s credit in August, nor did they increase thereafter when the big deficit reduction agreement solemnly entered into by the Washington uniparty was torn to shreds and made a mockery of by these same politicians during the following decade.

But that was not because deficits and debts don’t matter. It was because the day of reckoning was postponed by the Fed’s money-printing spree during the period in question.

To wit, at the time of the S&P downgrade the Fed’s balance sheet stood at $2.8 trillion, which had taken 98 years to accumulate from the Fed’s launch in 1914. Ten year latter and deficit reduction agreements notwithstanding, it stood at $8.5 trillion or triple what had previously taken a century to accumulate.

That is, the Fed monetized $5.7 trillion of the public debt during that 10-year period or well more than 40% of the new US Treasury issuance, while a large share of the remaining issuance was taken down by other fellow-traveling central banks.

No more. The Fed has decisively “pivoted” but not in the good way the Wall Street gamblers are pining for. The fact is, even our Keynesian money-printers know they have let the inflation-genie out of the bottle and will have no choice except to keep the printing presses not just on idle, but operating in reverse for a considerable period ahead.

That is, even as the US Treasury contemplates issuing upwards of $2 trillion of new debt per year as far as the eye can see, the Fed will be shrinking its balance sheet via what is its actual anti-inflation program. By that we mean, of course, QT (quantitative tightening) which has the effect of dumping existing Federal debt back into the bond pits at a $1.14 trillion annual rate.

That’s right. The net US Treasury call on funds in the bond pits will run at a $3 trillion+ annual rate for a considerable period of time. And we do mean “considerable” when it comes to the shutdown of the Fed’s printing press.

Here is the latest inflation data based on the 16% trimmed mean CPI. The brown lines represents the Y/Y rate of increase, while the yellow line is the annualized rate for the current month. As is evident from the chart, the brown line is bending lower, albeit at a snail’s pace.

At the peak last June, the Y/Y rate peaked at 7.3%, but as of April 2023 the gain was still 6.1%. More importantly, the average monthly annualized gain (yellow line) since November has posted at 5.0% and was still running above 4.0% in April.

So do we expect the inflation rate to descent rapidly toward the Fed’s dubious 2.00% target during the balance of this year or even 2024—the likely onset of recession notwithstanding?

We do not. The US economy is heading into the worst stagflation—high inflation and weak growth—since the early 1980s. Yet the Fed has backed itself into such a deep corner after years of flooding the system with excess liquidity and cheap central bank credit that it will have no choice except to keep shrinking its balance sheet until it has drained a substantial portion of these excesses from the bond pits.

16% Trimmed Mean CPI, Y/Y Gain Versus Annualized Monthly Gain, May 2020 to April 2023

For want of doubt, the chart below needs be gazed upon intently. The Fed’s reverse repo facility now stands at $2.23 trillion, and that, folks, is utterly absurd. It amounts to overnight Fed borrowings at a current rate of 5.05%.

The “bringing-coals-to-Newcastle” metaphor has long been overworked. But pray tell, why in the world does the most prodigious legal printing press on the planet need to borrow $2.23 trillion each and every night at rates better than 5%?

Outstanding Balance On Fed Reverse Repo Facility, December 2020 to May 2023

Actually, there is no mystery as to the above absurdity. Over the last decade or longer the Fed and other central banks have so water-logged the financial markets with excess liquidity that interest rates on the free market would be far lower than the Fed’s current 5.25% target.

Interest Rate On the Fed’s O/N RRP,  2018 to 2023

So the geniuses in the Eccles Building are borrowing trillions to show that like some monetary King Canute, they can still command the financial waters to rise or fall.

Then again, the stair-step line in the chart below shows how desperate the Fed’s belated battle against inflation actually is. There can be no abatement of inflation until real interest rates in the open market turn decisively positive. Paul Volcker proved that four decades ago when he pushed the real Fed funds rate north of 8.0% before he finally broke the inflationary momentum.

Of course, the rising red line in the chart below is wrecking havoc with the banking sector, especially smaller and mid-sized banks. Owing to the Fed’s generous 5.05% standing offer at the O/N RRP, it is now draining massive amounts of deposits out of the banking system and into money-market funds, which, in turn, are pouring these new deposits back into the RRP!

Perhaps, therefore, geniuses at work in not the most apt metaphor. But it does remind that the destructive Washington chain of spending, borrowing and printing has to finally stop, and soon.

And making Grandma Yellen shatter the “default” myth is the only practical place to start.

*  *  *

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 14:25

FBI Leadership Sabotaged Clinton Foundation Investigations: Durham Report

FBI Leadership Sabotaged Clinton Foundation Investigations: Durham Report

Remember the Clinton Foundation? Which, took millions in foreign donations when everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win the 2016 US election, only to see donations plummet by 90% after she lost?

To review:

Now we learn, thanks to the Durham report, that the FBI had three concurrent investigations into the Clinton Foundation, which were shut down during the 2016 election year by top brass.

As attorney and political commentator Techno Fog notes at The Reactionary (emphasis ours);

Durham’s scope included the FBI investigations “directed” at the Hillary Clinton campaign. It seems the purpose of that review was to assess and compare the favorable treatment received by Clinton to the targeting of Trump.

The first investigation involved an FBI tip from a CHS that a foreign government was sending a person “to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency.” (Which country?!) An FBI field office sought a FISA against the foreign contributor and made that request to FBI headquarters, which ignored it for four months due to the fact that they were careful that Clinton was “involved.” According to one FBI Agent, “They were pretty ‘tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next president.” The FISA was approved on the condition that the FBI give defensive briefings to Clinton.

The second Clinton investigation involved the same CHS, who in November 2015 reported to the FBI that another foreign government was looking to contribute to the Clinton campaign “in exchange for the protection of [that country’s] interests should Clinton become President.” That CHS would end up making a $2,700 donation to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign insider, in violation of federal law which bans contributions by foreign nationals. The CHS told their handling FBI agent that “They [the campaign] were okay with it. […] yes they were fully aware from the start” of the contribution being made on behalf of the foreign interest.

Who was the FBI’s confidential human source that caught the Clinton campaign in illegal activity? Thanks to great work by the talented Fool Nelson showing a $2,700 contribution from Patrick Byrne, we have this admission from Byrne himself:

Somehow, the FBI did not obtain copies of the illegal payment and the CHS’s FBI handlers “could not explain why this apparent illegal contribution was not documented in FBI records.” Instead, the FBI handling agent “told the CHS to stay away from all events relating to Clinton’s campaign.” Later on, the CHS, who had essentially caught a member of the Clinton campaign facilitating illegal contributions, was admonished by the FBI:

“do NOT attend any more campaign events, set up meetings, or anything else relating to [Clinton’s] campaign. We need to keep you completely away from that situation. I don’t know all the details, but it’s for your own protection.”

Durham questioned how the FBI could reconcile giving defensive briefings to the Clinton campaign while denying defensive briefings to the Trump campaign. He compared the FBI and DOJ’s “measured approach” to the Clinton campaign investigation to the speed at which the FBI ran with Crossfire Hurricane. He also contrasted how the FBI made almost “no effort to investigate the possible illegal campaign contribution” to the Clinton campaign “or the Clinton campaign’s purported acceptance of a campaign contribution made by the FBI’s own long-term” source.

The other Clinton investigation Durham reviewed – the investigation into “possible criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation” – demonstrated, yet again, favorable treatment received by Clinton from FBI leadership. According to Durham, the Clinton Foundation case opening communication:

referred to an intelligence product and corroborating financial reporting that a particular commercial “industry likely engaged a federal public official in a flow of benefits scheme, namely, large monetary contributions were made to a non-profit, under both direct and indirect control of the federal public official, in exchange for favorable government action and/or influence.”

Additionally, the FBI Little Rock and New York Field Offices investigations “included predication based on source reporting that identified foreign governments that had made, or offered to make, contributions to the Foundation in exchange for favorable or preferential treatment from Clinton.”

Despite this evidence, DOJ and FBI leadership essentially sabotaged the Clinton Foundation investigation. The DOJ was “hostile” to the Clinton Foundation presentations from the FBI Field Offices. And at a February 2016 FBI meeting to discuss the Clinton Foundation investigations, Assistant Director Andre McCabe ordered the cases to be closed. He would reconsider that demand following objections. However, any overt investigative steps needed McCabe’s approval. In May 2016, FBI Director Comey would, through an intermediary, demand the New York Field Office “cease and desist” their Clinton Foundation investigation. And in August 2016, as the presidential election approached, the US Attorneys’ offices in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York declined to issue subpoenas to the FBI New York Field Office in support of their Clinton Foundation investigation.

We highly recommend subscribing and reading the entirety of Techno Fog’s report, which goes far deeper into Durham’s bombshell findings, including; The DNC hack, Crossfire Hurricane, spying on President-Elect Trump, Clinton’s plan to smear Trump, and other prosecutorial decisions.

*  *  *

Recall that McCabe’s wife accepted nearly $700,000 from Clinton ally, then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), to support her run for a state legislative seat.

Meanwhile, a guy who made a meme tricking people into voting for Clinton from home is facing 10 years in prison, while those guilty of actual election interference are not.

Lastly, click into this thread from RealClear‘s Benjamin Weingarten, who has dissected more of the Durham report for public consumption.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 14:05

The UAW Demands A “Just Transition” To Electric Vehicles

The UAW Demands A “Just Transition” To Electric Vehicles

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The big US automakers cannot turn a profit on EVs anytime soon. So guess what…

Massive subsidies and other goodies in the Inflation Reduction Act are not enough to satisfy the United Auto Workers union. 

The UAW now seeks a “Just Transition” to EVs. Their new concern is a “race to the bottom” started by Elon Musk.

Question of the Day

How can car manufacturers make money as Tesla cuts prices and the White House and unions demand higher output and wages?

Please consider Elon Musk Squeezes His Electric-Vehicle Competitors

The Inflation Reduction Act includes truckloads of subsidies for electric vehicles, including tax credits for battery makers and consumers. But despite these handouts, traditional automakers still don’t expect to turn a profit on the cars for several years. Ford recently forecast its electric-vehicle division would lose $3 billion this year and committed to getting in the black in 2026.

In the first three months of this year, Ford’s electric vehicles posted a negative 102% operating margin—that is, its losses on electric-vehicles exceeded its sales. Yikes. Ford blamed a battery problem in its much-hyped F-150 Lightning pickup for interrupting production. Even if it weren’t for that, Ford still would have posted a huge loss.

Automakers and the UAW are preparing to begin collective-bargaining over a new national labor agreement this summer. UAW leaders have made clear their goal is to increase wages and benefits at new electric-vehicle battery plants, where workers currently earn about half as much as their counterparts at other factories. 

Stellantis recently announced it would offer buyouts to 31,000 hourly employees. Ford last year announced it was laying off 3,000 white-collar and contract employees to finance its electric-vehicle expansion. Automakers will almost certainly have to issue more pink slips, if only because manufacturing electric vehicles requires significantly less labor than gasoline-powered cars.

“The federal government is pouring billions into the electric vehicle transition, with no strings attached and no commitment to workers,” UAW President Shawn Fain wrote to his members on May 2. “The EV transition is at serious risk of becoming a race to the bottom.”

Mr. Fain is threatening to withhold the union’s endorsement of Mr. Biden unless his administration backs a “just transition” to electric vehicles. Translation: The union wants the White House to wield subsidies and regulation as a cudgel to drive its labor agenda. But all this will do is render automakers less competitive in a race in which they’re starting laps behind Tesla.

The risk isn’t merely that U.S. automakers can’t catch up; it’s that they could crash right out of the gate.

Understanding Tesla’s Lead and the UAW’s Predicament

Tesla is in front partially because it was first. But it’s also in a great position now because of cheap money by the Fed, subsidies on which only it gained, and energy tax credits.

The cheap money, subsidies, and tax credits should not have happened. 

Thank the Fed for the cheap money. Thank Biden for the subsidies, regulations, energy credits and the Inflation Reduction Act.

In the push to reduce carbon emissions, Biden handed out tax credits that Tesla could sell at a huge profit to other automakers who could not meet the regulatory requirements that Biden imposed.

Three Things to Expect

  1. The UAW will seek handouts that it gets, not Tesla. 

  2. Look for Biden to accuse Tesla of dumping cars because it now makes a profit and the big automakers can’t. 

  3. Look for Biden to force unionization on Tesla.

This is all in the name of a “Just Transition”.

What a hoot.

Everything Biden does adds inflation pressures. 

Please note The Inflation Reduction Act Price Jumps From $385 Billion to Over $1 Trillion

Expect more of the same when Biden tries to impose a “just transition”.

*  *  *

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 13:41

Japanese Stocks Just Hit A 33 Year High And “Have Further To Go”

Japanese Stocks Just Hit A 33 Year High And “Have Further To Go”

While everyone was looking at the recent move in US stocks, or rather lack thereof now that 0DTE vol-suppression has seemingly frozen the S&P in a 4100-4150 range in perpetuity…

… the real move has been taking place in Japan, where the Nikkei 225 closed above 30,000 for the first time since September 2021, just one day after the Topix closed at its highest level since 1990.

The Topix benchmark climbed 0.3% to close at 2,133.61 on Wednesday, taking gains this quarter to 6.5%. That compares with a less than 1% advance for the S&P 500 and a sub-2% rise for the Stoxx Europe 600 index. The Nikkei 225 Stock Average, which closed 250 points higher, and above 30,000 for the first time since Sept 2021, rose over 7% during the period.

Japanese stocks, which not long ago were hammered amid misplaced speculation that the BOJ would normalize monetary policy (spoiler alert: the BOJ, which owns more than 100% of GDP in JGBs will never be able to normalize and hyperinflation has always been the endgame), have benefited greatly from the renewed plunge in the yen following Ueda’s recent confirmation that Japan will remain the loosest developed nation, even if it means inflation keeps rising higher.

And with the status quo not expected to change, many predict the rally will continue: strategists at Goldman Sachs to Macquarie Group say the case for a bull run is solid with corporate governance reforms set to boost valuation and loose monetary policy adding tailwinds. Meanwhile, the economy, long beset by deflation, is seeing a revival in price pressure as activity revs up — a combination that sets it apart from the stagflation woes stifling developed peers in the US and Europe.

“We have entered a two to three year bull market period for Japan now, this has legs,” said Neil Newman, deputy head of Japan research at Macquarie Capital Securities. “Japan has breadth and depth, liquidity is good and with corporate earnings looking solid now, this will draw further attention.”

Expectations on such structural changes as well as solid fundamentals are helping “justify a bullish stance” on the nation’s equities, Goldman Sachs strategists Kazunori Tatebe and Bruce Kirk wrote in a note. The outlook for the world’s third-largest economy is strong given positive factors including an inbound tourism recovery, plans for robust capital expenditure and ongoing easing by the Bank of Japan, they wrote.   

A testament to just how powerful easy monetary policy is in a world where everyone is still tightening, the world’s third-largest economy stands out as overseas investors have concerns about investing in the other Asian giant — China — with its increased geopolitical risks and the policy whims of Beijing… oir the US for that matter, where if one excludes the impact of AI stocks, the market is down more than 2% for the year.

Warren Buffett’s renewed endorsement of Japanese stocks has also provided hope that foreign investment is returning to the market. Sure enough, overseas traders bought a net $15.8 billion worth of the nation’s stocks in April, the most since October 2017, according to Tokyo Stock exchange data.

“Domestic and foreign investors are positive about Japan relative to the US and Europe, as it does not face an imminent recession and yet has very low valuations,” said John Vail, chief global strategist at Nikko Asset Management Co. “There is a strong possibility that it will outperform global markets.”

It’s not just the BOJ’s ever-easy policy: it’s the buybacks too. As Bloomberg notes, a renewed push by companies to increase buybacks and focus on returns is boosting sentiment, after the Tokyo Stock Exchange called on firms that are trading below book value to outline capital improvement plans. Dai-Ichi Life Holdings Inc. shares jumped on Monday after it announced plans to repurchase as much as 120 billion yen ($882 million) of its stock. Mitsubishi Corp. said on May 9 that it expects to buy back up to $2.2 billion.

The optimism is further boosted because the Topix still has some 26% to go until it hits its 1989 “peak Japan bubble” all-time high (we are talking Nakatomi tower days).

Despite the gauge’s outperformance, when and if it will reclaim that level remains in doubt. Fundamental changes in the economy over the past decades including a population decline and maturing industries suggest the days of inflated asset prices are gone.  

Still, earnings and cheap valuations are in bulls’ favor, as well as the relentlessly dovish stance by the BOJ. As Bloomberg notes, positioning in Japanese equities has also been light, which means there’s room for more gains, Keita Matsumoto, head of financial institutions sales and solutions at Citigroup Japan said last month.  

“We believe Japanese stocks still have further to go,” Fabiana Fedeli, chief investment officer for equities and multi assets at M&G Plc, said on Bloomberg Television. “Companies in Japan were improving their balance sheets and were giving back to shareholders in terms of buybacks and dividends.”

Options trading implies the rally may have legs. The put-to-call ratio on the Nikkei 225 Stock Average has trended lower even as the index has climbed more than 14% this year, indicating rising bullishness despite technical signals the advance is getting overheated.  

“The outperformance of Japan versus Europe and US has been happening and that will continue as long as the BOJ doesn’t change. I think that’s a key criteria,” said Alexandre Tavazzi, head of CIO office and macro research at Pictet Wealth Management.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 12:25

Bruce And Nellie Ohr Had Bigger Roles In Dossier Than Known: Durham Report

Bruce And Nellie Ohr Had Bigger Roles In Dossier Than Known: Durham Report

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClear Wire,

While it’s bad enough the debunked dossier the FBI used to spy on the Trump campaign was paid for by the Clinton campaign and authored by a foreign FBI informant and his carousing researcher, the newly released report of Special Counsel John Durham strongly suggests a top Justice Department official and his wife had an early hand in shaping the political rumor sheet. 

According to the 306-page report, former Justice Department prosecutor Bruce Ohr’s wife Nellie Ohr first plowed the ground for the dossier with a series of a research reports she wrote for Fusion GPS, the D.C.-based opposition research firm the Clinton campaign commissioned to dig up dirt on Trump and Russia.

Obtained by Durham, her reports zeroed in on Sergei Millian and his connections to Russia and Trump, falsely portraying him as a key intermediary between the Kremlin and the Republican candidate. They would later provide the foundation for the dossier’s many fictions.

Fusion GPS records demonstrate that Nellie Ohr first identified Millian,” Durham states in his report. “All told, Ohr prepared at least 12 reports that discussed Sergei Millian.

She wrote her first Millian report in April 2016, the month before Fusion GPS hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to put his imprimatur as a supposed former “spy” and “Russian insider” on the dossier.

This report was prepared just ten days after Fusion GPS was retained by [Clinton campaign law firm] Perkins Coie to conduct opposition research on Trump,” the Durham Report states, “and prior to Steele being retained by Fusion GPS.”

Durham suggests Nellie Ohr planted the seeds of sourcing for the most explosive allegations leveled by the dossier against Trump, including the oft-cited notion that he and his campaign were engaged in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with the Kremlin. The dossier attributed this, falsely, to Millian. Durham found that the Belarusian-American realtor was never a source for the dossier and was simply invented as one, along with the allegations attributed to him.

In fact, Durham says that Millian initially wasn’t even on the radar of Steele and his dossier “collector” Igor Danchenko, a former Brookings Institution analyst who’s admitted much of the information he provided Steele was alcohol-lubricated gossip. Millian was called to their attention by Nellie Ohr, who the prosecutor said “implicated” Millian through her own reports. Durham suggests Steele and Danchenko merely followed her leads.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor added, Bruce Ohr, an anti-Trump Democrat, pushed his wife’s reports that cited Millian — 12 in all — onto the Crossfire Hurricane team at FBI headquarters that was investigating Trump and his campaign for possible espionage. Agents used her reports as a source of corroboration for the Steele reports they received in the summer and fall of 2016, even though it was circular reporting.

The reports prepared by Ohr and others at Fusion GPS were ultimately provided to Crossfire Hurricane investigators by Ohr’s husband, Bruce Ohr,” according to the Durham Report.

Durham notes that Danchenko was tracking leads on Millian from Nellie Ohr within “approximately one week” of Fusion GPS retaining Steele to compile the dossier. He concludes that this “strongly supports the inference that Fusion GPS directed Steele to pursue Millian.”

In other words, Steele was not the catalyst behind the dossier’s central claims. Rather, it was Clinton’s contractor Fusion GPS — but more specifically, the wife of a senior DOJ official who worked for Fusion. So the FBI wasn’t really investigating “Crown reporting,” as officials referred to Steele’s dossier, implying it was British intelligence. More accurately, it was investigating information from inside its own department that was laundered through Steele and his dossier.

On page 97 of their book, “Crime in Progress,” Fusion GPS co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch maintained that it was Steele who identified Millian as “one of the key intermediaries between Trump and the Russians.” Durham’s report shatters their claim.

The special counsel also found that Simpson worked with Bruce Ohr to pressure the FBI to investigate the dossier allegations.

On Aug. 22, 2016, Simpson asked Ohr to call him. About an hour later, Ohr emailed the FBI agent handling Steele as an informant to, as he said, “check in.” Ohr and the agent, Michael Gaeta, spoke over the phone on Aug. 24. During their call, Ohr inquired if the FBI was going to do anything with the dossier reports that Steele had passed along to Gaeta in July. In response, Gaeta “told Ohr that a group at FBI headquarters was working on them,” according to the Durham report. This undercuts the official FBI timeline of when HQ first received the dossier. For years, the bureau has insisted it did not receive the reports until a month later — Sept. 19, 2016.

Fusion GPS also pitched the press the false narrative that Millian was a key intermediary between Trump and Russia. For example, on June 27, 2016, Fritsch sent an email to Franklin Foer, a reporter at Slate magazine, stating “this dude is key” and claiming “he is clearly kgb.”

The next month, Simpson reached out to ABC News producer Matthew Mosk about Millian. Mosk emailed Simpson and reported back that he was “making arrangements to interview Millian on camera” and that he and Simpson “should chat.” On July 29, 2016, Millian ultimately was interviewed by Brian Ross, formerly of ABC News, who asked Millian whether he was a Russian spy.

On Sept. 13, 2016, Mosk emailed Simpson and asked, “What’s the most official thing we have showing Millian tied to Trump? That would make it hard for the Trump org to disavow Millian?”

Ross later left ABC after being suspended for erroneous reporting on Russiagate, while Mosk has moved to CBS News.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2016, Fusion GPS also promoted to the Washington media the false allegation the Trump campaign maintained a secret hotline to Moscow through Russia-based Alfa Bank. In an attempt to tie Millian to the Alfa Bank allegations, Durham found that Fusion GPS sought the assistance of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who in turn contacted D.C. tech executive Rodney Joffe to determine if Millian had any ties to Alfa Bank.

On Aug. 20, 2016, Joffe emailed federal computer contractors at Georgia Tech a document titled “birdsnest-1.pdf’ that contained “known associates” of Trump. Included in the attached document was a description of Millian along with his past mailing addresses; various email addresses; websites; and IP addresses that were associated with him. Joffe, who was recently fired as an FBI informant, described Millian as “the most likely intermediary” between Trump and Russia.

On Sept. 27, 2016, Simpson and Fritsch emailed IP “look-up” information for one of Millian’s websites to then-New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, whom Fusion was pressuring to write a story about the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations. In the email, Fritsch pointed out that “Alfa” was the website service provider for Millian’s website. However, Durham determined that the relevant IP information did not indicate that “Alfa Bank” was the service provider, but rather Alfa Telecom — a Lebanese-based telecom company, which appears to have no affiliation with Alfa Bank.

Fusion GPS and Steele also provided the substance of the Alfa Bank allegations to Bruce Ohr, the DOJ official, who passed the false tip on to the FBI. The Crossfire Hurricane team used Ohr as a conduit to continue to receive information from Steele about Trump throughout 2017, even after the FBI had to terminate Steele as an informant for leaking information about its investigation to the media. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/17/2023 – 12:06