PM End of Week Market Commentary - 10/27/2017

davefairtex
By davefairtex on Sat, Oct 28, 2017 - 9:35pm

On Friday gold rose +7.00 [+0.55%] to 1274.60 on very heavy volume, and silver climbed +0.07 [+0.45%] to 16.87 on heavy volume. The metals managed to rally in spite of a continued move higher in the buck.

Market-moving news this week was led by the ECB's announcement on Thursday that they would reduce their bond-buying by 30 billion Euros per month, while at the same time saying that there was currently no end date for the operation. Then on Friday, Catalonia's parliament declared independence, and then minutes later Madrid dissolved the parliament, ordered a snap election, voted to impose direct rule on the province. Where things go next is uncertain. As a result of all that, the Euro was hit hard, plunging -1.53% on the week.

The metals sector map shows that miners led metal, and silver led gold lower this week.  This is the typical pattern that shows up during PM downtrends. Palladium is the sole item that remains above all 3 moving averages.

Name Chart Chg (W) 52w ch EMA9 MA50 MA200 50/200 Last Crossing last
Palladium $PALL -0.43% 57.87% rising rising rising falling ema9 on 2017-10-26 2017-10-27
Gold $GOLD -0.56% 0.43% falling falling rising falling ema9 on 2017-10-20 2017-10-27
Platinum $PLAT -0.61% -4.70% falling falling falling falling ema9 on 2017-10-18 2017-10-27
Silver $SILVER -1.03% -4.26% falling falling rising falling ema9 on 2017-10-20 2017-10-27
Copper $COPPER -2.08% 43.44% falling rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-10-27 2017-10-27
Senior Miners GDX -2.84% -4.89% falling falling falling falling ma200 on 2017-10-24 2017-10-27
Junior Miners GDXJ -3.52% -18.96% falling falling falling falling ema9 on 2017-10-16 2017-10-27
Silver Miners SIL -3.85% -19.69% falling falling falling falling ema9 on 2017-10-16 2017-10-27

Gold fell -7.20 [-0.56%], a surprisingly small drop given the large move down in the Euro. Gold was one of the best performers in the metals sector, and measured in Euros, gold actually rallied on the week. The candle print on Friday was a bullish harami, which had a 36% chance of being a reversal. The forecaster remains in a downtrend, ending the week at -0.33.

Gold in Euros is looking much better than gold in USD, having bottomed out on Wednesday, and printing a 3-candle swing low on Friday. The GC.EUR forecaster jumped higher, ending the week with a rating of +0.38 - a reasonably strong uptrend.

The December rate-increase chances rose to 98%.

COMEX GC open interest fell -7,862 contracts this week.

Silver fell -0.18 [-1.03%] this week. Silver did fall more than gold, but the chart for silver remains looking a bit stronger - you can see that gold was quite close to making a new low on Friday, while silver remains more distant from its previous low point. Friday's candle print was a bullish-looking hammer, which had a 47% chance of being a reversal. The forecaster closed the week at -0.14, jumping +0.32 on Friday - forecaster for silver looks stronger than that of gold. Silver might have reversed on Friday, but it will require confirmation next week.

The gold/silver ratio rose +0.35 to 75.55, which is bearish.

COMEX SI open interest rose by +3,750 contracts.

Miners had a relatively bad week, with most of the losses happening on Thursday following the ECB announcement. Friday's candle prints were not reversal bars, although though both miner ETFs managed to rally on the day. Forecasters: GDX -0.47, GDXJ -0.37, and that was after a modest bounce on Friday. Volume on Friday's rally was relatively heavy, which is a positive sign, but the candle was a bearish continuation.  The chart of GDX overall was substantially more negative than gold - you can see the breakdown to new lows that happened on Wednesday (with the big follow-through on Thursday) that both gold and silver managed to avoid.

The GDX:$GOLD ratio fell -2.27% on the week, and the GDXJ:GDX ratio gained +0.70%. That's generally bearish.

USD

The buck staged a strong rally this week, rising +1.21 [+1.29%] to 94.71, with most of the gains happening on Thursday following the ECB taper announcement. Friday's print was a spinning top – it looked a bit like a failed rally – and it had a 47% chance of being a reversal. Its possible that this will mark the high for the buck for a while. Forecaster ended the week at +0.65, which is a very high value. Sometimes the forecasters give off their highest ratings right at turning points. Longer term, both the DX weekly and monthly charts issued a buy signal last month and are pointing at a higher dollar going forward.

Trump tax reform (the details of which are tippy-top secret – no doubt the flock of lobby-creatures flapping around Washington are all authoring chunks of the damn thing) is proceeding apace. Goodies for everyone. I wonder if regular people will end up with more than table scraps. Obamacare, written in secret too, was a massive win for sickcare industry.  This particular slice of likely-corruption is probably dollar positive.

US Equities/SPX

SPX rose 5.86 [+0.23%] on the week, dropping briskly on both Monday and Wednesday, only to shoot higher on Friday after a surprisingly good earnings report from AMZN which shot up +13.22%, dragging the entire tech sector higher. That resulted in a new all time high for SPX on Friday. Any hints of a nascent downtrend were erased with Friday's new high.

Sector map this week shows tech in the lead along with cyclicals, while sickcare and staples brought up the rear. Pattern this week (and the larger pattern of above/below the 3 moving averages) is relatively bullish – tech leading is usually a positive sign.  Sickcare is having troubles - those highly profitable opioids (they were addictive!  who knew?) are now under assault.

VIX fell -0.17 to 9.80. The VIX did shoot higher during the early part of the week, but lost all its gains after the new high on Friday.

Name Chart Chg (W) 52w ch EMA9 MA50 MA200 50/200 Last Crossing last
Technology XLK 2.36% 31.69% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-10-26 2017-10-27
Cons Discretionary XLY 1.14% 18.13% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-10-27 2017-10-27
Materials XLB 0.65% 26.84% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-09-28 2017-10-27
Financials XLF 0.53% 34.84% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-10-18 2017-10-27
Utilities XLU 0.35% 13.95% rising rising rising falling ma50 on 2017-10-19 2017-10-27
Homebuilders XHB -0.02% 31.82% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-09-25 2017-10-27
Energy XLE -0.63% -3.19% falling rising falling rising ema9 on 2017-10-18 2017-10-27
Industrials XLI -0.88% 27.41% rising rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-10-27 2017-10-27
Telecom XTL -0.94% 8.10% falling falling falling falling ma50 on 2017-10-16 2017-10-27
REIT RWR -1.47% 1.77% falling falling falling falling ma200 on 2017-10-23 2017-10-27
Cons Staples XLP -1.48% 1.24% falling falling rising falling ema9 on 2017-10-18 2017-10-27
Healthcare XLV -2.07% 18.56% falling rising rising rising ema9 on 2017-10-24 2017-10-27
Gold Miners GDX -2.84% -4.89% falling falling falling falling ma200 on 2017-10-24 2017-10-27

Gold in Other Currencies

Gold fell in most currencies, and was down in XDR by -7.84.

Rates & Commodities

TLT fell -0.60% on the week, making its low on Wednesday but then reversing, and printing a 3-candle swing low on Friday. TLT ended the week with the forecaster reading of +0.19, which moves bonds back into an uptrend. I'm not entirely sure why bonds did so well on Friday – maybe it was just money flowing back into US assets after Thursday's ECB announcement.  Maybe it was just short covering too.

JNK fell -0.24% on the week, falling along with the equity market early in the week, and only recovering a portion of its losses on Friday. Still, the candle print on Friday was a swing low, which had a 53% chance of being a reversal. JNK is doing less well than equities, however, and is still hinting at risk off.

CRB jumped up +1.51% on the week, with most of those gains coming from energy (+3.49%). 3 of 5 sectors rose. CRB made a new high this week to a level that was last seen back in April 2017. CRB is above all 3 moving averages, and is in a clear uptrend.

Crude shot up +2.11 [+4.05%] to 54.18, which was the highest weekly close in more than two years. Most of the gains in crude happened on Friday. There were several bullish reports this week: North American rig counts dropped by 15, and the EIA report showed a crude build (+0.9m) gasoline draw (-5.5m) and distillates draw (-5.2m). Friday's close was the highest close for crude in several years. We are on the cusp of a crude breakout above 54 resistance. If so, this would be a huge deal. I'd guess there will be a fair amount of short covering once price pops convincingly above 54.  There would also - probably - be a flood of money into oil equities which have actually sold off in recent days.  Oil equities have been drifting lower, while oil itself is ready to break out.  One of the two of these will be wrong, and then the other will move big to catch up.

The crude COT report is not showing a top, interestingly enough.  While managed money longs are reasonably high, they are nowhere close to where they were the last time crude made it to 54 last December.  There are still managed money shorts to rinse also, which suggests "nobody believes in this rally."  Which to me, is bullish.  Commercial shorts have actually been dropping too - they dropped 11k contracts just this week alone.  Last December commercials went heavily short into the high.  According to the "tea leaves" provided by the COT report, this does not feel like a top.  My guess is we'll probably break out above 54 in the near term, more likely than not.

Physical Supply Indicators

* SGE premiums over COMEX are at +9.91.

* The GLD ETF tonnage on hand fell -2.36, with 851 tons in inventory.

* ETF Premium/Discount to NAV:

 PHYS 10.37 -0.69% to NAV [down]
 PSLV 6.32 -1.01% to NAV [down]
 CEF 13.18 -1.6% to NAV [up]

* Bullion Vault gold (https://www.bullionvault.com/gold_market.do#!/orderboard) no premiums for gold or silver.

* Big bars premiums were: gold [1kg] 1.23% and silver [1000oz] 3.23%.

Futures Positioning/COT

The COT report was as of October 24th, when gold closed at 1277.80 and silver at 16.95.

In gold, the commercial net position rose by +11k contracts; 12k shorts were covered, and 1.1k longs were also sold. Managed money net fell by -1.1k contracts; 3.8k longs were sold, and 2.7k shorts were covered. These were minor changes. We remain in COT limbo for gold.

In silver, the commercial net fell by -1.5k contracts; 3.9k shorts were added, and 2.3k longs were also bought. Managed money net rose by 1.2k contracts; 1k longs were added, and 214 shorts were closed. These were very minor changes in position. COT for silver is also not giving us a clear signal.

Gold Manipulation Report

There were no after-hours spikes this week.

Eurozone Status

  • Italian Elections: New polling data shows anti-Euro M5S are slightly ahead of the PD: 27.2% to 26.375%. A combination of FI + LN (both semi-anti-Euro parties) are now 28.5%.

  • Catalonia's parliament declared independence on Friday. The only supportive-sounding message from among the world leaders was a tweet from Nicola Sturgeon, PM of of Scotland: “We respect position...people of Catalonia must have ability to determine own future.” Gotta love that 140 character limit - it keeps those politicians from using too many articles. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/world-reacts-catalonia-calls-independence-171027221353642.html

  • An MP in Finland announced he would be submitting a motion to the Finnish parliament recognizing the new country of Catalonia. If it passes, this would run directly counter to the EU position put forward by Donald Tusk, who said that the EU will continue to only speak with Spain.

Summary

The ECB meeting announcement proved to be more interesting (and dovish) than expected, smashing the Euro through 117 support, helping to drive PM prices further downhill. Catalonia declared independence, and Madrid promptly dismissed the government and called for new elections in December. There were hints on Friday of possible reversals in gold and silver, and gold in Euros actually rallied fairly strongly, but the current momentum for PM remains downhill.

Gold and silver big bar shortage indicators shows no signs of shortage; premiums on big-bar gold and silver remain normal. GLD tonnage changed just slightly, while ETF premiums were mixed but mostly lower. Shanghai premiums are slowly rising.

COT report shows only small changes in commercial short positions for gold and silver again this week. Gold is still out of balance, but we could be at a low for silver – but its hard to say for sure.

In the medium term, I continue to see the fate of PM being dominated mostly by currency movements. The longer term charts show uptrends for the buck in both the weekly and the monthly timeframes. With the ECB having removed any potential for central bank-driven Euro-positive news, that leaves the dollar in a position to continue surprising us to the upside. We've got the expectation of the Trump tax cuts (which theoretically could cause a flood of repatriation followed by a flurry of stock buybacks – which would be dollar positive and US equity market positive) and of course there is also the shenanigans of the new country of Catalonia which should help move the buck higher vs the Euro.

When there is a trend in place, the market often finds a reason to move in the direction of the trend. Right now, the buck is moving higher – and that's not good for gold. Unless and until there is some break in confidence, gold will probably remain the plaything of the currency markets.

One final wrinkle in the “dollar uptrend” storyline: Muller has finally obtained a sealed indictment on Friday, filing the first criminal charges of his investigation. Supposedly, an arrest could come by Monday. Depending on the substance of the charges and who is charged, this could be significantly dollar-negative, or it could end up being a nothing-burger. I'm sure that whatever the truth happens to be, we're going to see a whole lot of spin next week.

On the calendar for next week, we have a flurry of ISM releases, as well as Nonfarm Payrolls on Friday, which often provides plenty of excitement too.

I leave you with the monthly USD.  It is not yet complete (we have two more trading days left this month) but here is where it stands now: buy signal last month, strong uptrend this month, monthly swing low.

Trend-following code is unchanged from last week:

Uptrend: crude, USD, SPX.

Downtrend: gold, silver, copper, platinum, natgas, treasurys, miners.

Note: If you're reading this and are not yet a member of Peak Prosperity's Gold & Silver Group, please consider joining it now. It's where our active community of precious metals enthusiasts have focused discussions on the developments most likely to impact gold & silver. Simply go here and click the "Join Today" button.

31 Comments

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
btc update 2017-10-28

Sell signal today in BTC.  "This could be it" - at least for a while anyways.

My concern: progressively lower highs by the forecaster shows clear signs of declining upside momentum.  There is a rough head & shoulders pattern forming, and we just got a sell signal off the "right shoulder."  Risk is high right now of a significant decline.

ETH right now is in a very gentle uptrend, tracking sideways.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1208
Good to hear it...

... from somebody.else!  Just today at lunch I happened to bring up the Coinbase app and the monthly chart, and was thinking "Yes I'm still a relative noob at this, but that kind of looks like a head-and-shoulders pattern...". 

On one hand BTC is not exactly the same as a publicly traded stock, but on the other hand you have a lot of traders involved with it now so there might be good reason to suspect it could BEHAVE like stocks given the changing demographics of the people holding and trading it.  If it does follow the expected pattern of behavior, would it be reasonable to suspect it will (near term) drop down to roughly the $4000 level, give or take a few hundred?  And if the suspected substantial decline occurs, I wonder to what degree ETH will follow along?  It seems that ETH is moving a lot more independently of BTC recently...

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5754
One wonders...

Will this have the same impact on financial markets that reduced debt increases has on GDP?

Market-moving news this week was led by the ECB's announcement on Thursday that they would reduce their bond-buying by 30 billion Euros per month

If it does, and I suspect it might, then the reduction experiment will not last long because we all know that the CB's will cave and print more at the first sign of a market decline.

If they don't we'd all better be happy with our levels of preparation...the potential energy in this beast is enormous.

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
why TA works

nickbert-

You don't need traders to be involved with BTC for TA to work.  TA works because of people and their emotions.  Think about why a H&S pattern "works" (i.e. is bearish).

Left shoulder: a strong rally that peaks out, drops, and then more buyers appear to buy the dip, pushing prices to a new high...

Head: the new high which eventually peaks out, drops down a bit, and then

Right shoulder: rallies, but not quite up to where the head was.  There just isn't enough buying interest to push prices back up to the head.  That's a sign of weakness.

It is called a "lower high".  All the people who *could* have sold at the top of the head and locked in big gains are now eyeing the right shoulder nervously.  Did they miss their chance at selling the high?  All that needs to happen is for some of them to bail out now, while they still can...

And that causes the breakdown on the right shoulder.  "Cash in before I lose all my profits."

And its all because the total amount of money flowing in has dropped.  There just isn't enough buying interest to push prices higher.  Its less about "traders" and more about money flows.

ETH/BTC looks relatively weak.  I'd think that if BTC sells off, ETH will follow.

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
30 billion taper

Well let's see.  The ECB taper party starts in January.  Until then, we just have the Fed at the 10B rate.

So Q4, ECB + Fed = 60B - 10B = net +50B/m

Q1 18 ECB + Fed = 30B - 20B = net +10B/m

Q2 18 ECB + Fed = 30B - 30B = net no change

Its a pretty brisk monthly jump there in Q1.  Maybe that's when the real effect will take place.

 

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
btc buyers

Well it looks like a bunch of buyers appeared on that right shoulder instead of people looking to cash in.  We are just a few bucks away from a new high.  A new high would, of course, invalidate the H&S pattern.

Never a dull moment.  :)

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
Muller charges: a nothing-burger

At least its a nothing-burger related to the Trump administration.  Manafort might have some problems, but there was no Russian collusion charges - it was just Manafort's own business dealings that got him in hot water.  That, and presumably the extreme scrutiny that a six-month investigation by a large team of FBI agents can bring to bear on an individual.   https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.ZTk02H4M5

I'm guessing that it is also the case that Manafort would not have been charged had he agreed to roll on Trump.

Anyhow, its a Trump nothing-burger.  That's the opinion of the markets anyway, as far as I can see.

Buck down -0.22%, gold up maybe $4.

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2840
Re: Nothing burger

JHK already called that one winkhttp://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/thar-she-blows/

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1930
Prisoners Dillemna

From a friend:

Welcome to a real-life prisoner’s dilemma: 

Gates and Manafort indicted, likely goal is to have two people who have easy-to-prove financial charges against them, with hard evidence, who, importantly, likely *both* know the same things about the crimes of their boss, *and each other*.

The risk is of course that if one flips and the other doesn’t, then one goes to jail, and the other doesn’t, the fact that there are two of them puts pressure on each of them to flip first.

And James Howard Kunstler:

 

 

...Paul Manafort, the Swamp-creature-fixer-lobbyist-grifter who spent his summer vacation of 2016 managing Donald Trump’s election campaign.

... Before that unfortunate summer internship, Manafort was just a shadier-than-average influence-peddler. It happened that many of his clients were bigshots in foreign lands — Mobuto Sese Seko (Congo), Jonas Savimbi (Angola), and Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), as well as interests in Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, the Dominican Republic, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ukraine, and other world beauty spots. Also, most notably, Russia where the wicked Mr. Putin dwells and incessantly plots evil against our shining city of a republic.

Over the years, Manafort took large sums of money to the DC laundry room and then distributed bales of it around town to other lobbyist subcontractors, but he left quite a trail. And he overlooked the requirement to register as an agent for foreign interests. So, indicting him looks like a no-brainer....

If I am right, his indictment will provoke a five-column headline in The New York Times, Don Lemon will have a multiple orgasm on CNN tonight...

It’s hard to see where it goes from there. The standard plot-line is to net these smaller fish and use them as bait to harpoon the Big White Whale. Give them immunity and let them sing their hearts out to avoid getting sent to ping-pong camp in the Poconos for a five-year stretch.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
JHK

Yeah he sure did call it.

I had no idea who Manafort really was.

I do wonder why Trump didn't go after HRC before - and why he doesn't go after her now.  If Muller is pursuing him, it would seem - at a minimum - to be a good distraction technique.  And maybe even a quid pro quo opportunity.

Uranium One sure seems to have plenty of smoke billowing forth.  A hundred million bucks for that shady "foundation" of hers, just for starters.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 864
nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1208
Motivations and technical analysis

I understand that TA applies to a certain degree whenever people are involved... what I'm trying to say is that the motivations of the kinds of people involved in the stock/investment/currency/whatever could have a big effect on how useful TA is for the given asset.  If you have a majority that consists of 'true believers' that are more likely to hold (or buy!) even when logic, or especially fear, would convince many others to sell, it would make TA somewhat less useful wouldn't it?  But if traders and typical investors make up the majority, TA would be more predictive because not only are they more likely to be following the typical fear/greed response but also because a number of them follow TA and are more likely to make decisions off of it.  It just seems logical to me that a substantially different mindset of the buyers & sellers involved would affect the rate of predictability.

That being said, logic would lead me to suspect that with the current popular interest in the cryptocurrency space, the ratio of 'true believers' to 'average investors/traders' is probably at an all-time low.  So my above hypothesis about TA probably wouldn't be applicable much right now anyway even if it were correct. 

The recent buying on the right shoulder is interesting... I wonder if the planned hard fork next month is creating some extra buying incentive?

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3176
Quote:I do wonder why Trump
Quote:

I do wonder why Trump didn't go after HRC before - and why he doesn't go after her now.  If Muller is pursuing him, it would seem - at a minimum - to be a good distraction technique.

He has and does go after her at every opportunity.  I think its fair to say he is obsessed with her long after she lost the electoral vote and has become a non-player in presidential politics.

Uranium One

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/


Quote:

The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States.

We covered it during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed — without evidence — that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Now, the issue is back in the news, and numerous readers have asked us about it again. So we will recap here what we know — and don’t know — about the 2010 deal.

If you're looking for a "nothing burger", this is it.  Just more flak being thrown up by FOX News and other right wing media, and Trump to distract from the Russian scandal that is just beginning to rear its ugly head.  Trump is panicking.  Sending his kids back to NYC where they will be insulated from sh*t storm that will soon be burying Trump.  Get the popcorn kids.

Oh yeh.  Bill Clinton's speaking fee was $500K, not $500M as indicated in the cartoon.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
Uranium One

Its not a nothing burger.  Here's the line I like best:

It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department’s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case. We will update this article with any major developments.

So what the article is saying, is:

* yes there was money paid; 130 million + 500k dropped onto the Clintons

* yes, it was almost certainly a bribery attempt [if you have an alternative explanation as to why this specific group handed over such a huge sum of money, I'm all ears.  "Gosh all of us just love that charitable work HRC is doing."  My common-sense litmus test would be: how much did that same group donate AFTER they got what they wanted?]

* yes, the gang engaged in the bribery attempt got the decision they wanted at the end of the day

The ONLY question remaining is, "was HRC actually influenced by the bribe that was both offered and accepted."

Bribe offered.  Bribe accepted.  Decision rendered in their favor.  "But we have no evidence that the bribe had any influence on the decision."

Except for the use of common sense, of course.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3176
I realize...

...it is hard to believe when it is contrary to the Fox narrative, but the donor had sold his shares in the company long before he made the donation. And Hillary had nothing to do with the decision which was made by a panel of officials from a variety of security related agencies who cumulatively concluded that it posed no security risk. Besides, none of the uranium leaves the US.

So, a rich guy donates money to a foundation. Gosh, that's hardly ever done, particularly if he's a philanthropist. Might he have hoped to curry favor from a fellow rich and influential person or family? Could be. Is that bribery? Not based on the facts we know. And again, Hillary had nothing to do with the decision.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
donation timelines

it is hard to believe when it is contrary to the Fox narrative...

Eh.  Don't watch Fox, so I don't know what their narrative is.

On a related note, I notice that your lead-in sentence activates my amygdala.  In other words, its probably the least persuasive technique you could have employed.  That's because you have no idea if I watch Fox news, if I'm persuaded by Fox news, if I follow the Fox narrative - it basically appoints YOU as the expert at the workings of my mind.  Which of course, you are not.

Anyhow.

Other sources I've seen say that it was more than just one donor that dropped money on the Clinton "foundation" and the timeline of donations was well into the acquisition phase.  And of course there's Bill's speech for which he was grossly overpaid that was roughly around the same time.

Speaking of which, I'd like to see the timeline broken down - who donated what, and at what time - to know for sure.  When did the speech happen, when was the approval granted, when were all of the donations made.  You know - the facts.

And my central question remains unanswered.  Did those rich guys (and there was more than one) continue to donate money to the "foundation" subsequent to the Uranium One situation working out for them?

Just eyeballing the Clinton "foundation"'s donors for 2017, I notice that they are a bit thin on the ground at this point.  It will be fascinating to read the 2017 tax filing and contrast vs the 2016 filing.  My prediction: after HRC lost her bid for the Presidency, "donations" will be down 90%.  Or more.

I wonder why that might be?

Could it be that nobody bothers to bribe a never-gonna-be-President/no-longer-Sec-State?  I'm guessing 90% of the "donations" were basically attempted bribes.

There is a fix for that, however.  CHELSEA 2020!

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3176
Well...

...I should apologize for associating your thinking with Fox.  I know I would be offended.

The thing is, I've only heard that storyline from vids of Fox personalities, Trump, Limbaugh, etc.  All sources with little credibility.

Also, I've only heard it in the past week or two since Trump is becoming increasingly desperate to distract us from his many lies, distortions, probable crimes and general incompetence for the job of POTUS.  You may have noticed he and his minions are sending up a lot of flak apparently for that very purpose.

At any rate that story was debunked long ago by people who know a lot more than I do.

You are apparently conflating donations to charitable organizations with bribery.  There is some middle ground where you might have a point, and as I noted earlier donations are sometimes made to curry favor.  But for bribery you have to have a quid pro quo.  Unsubstantiated claims made to that effect without evidence and by sources I don't trust and who have been convincingly proved wrong many times on many subjects I tend to discount as just more of the same.

That said, I don't doubt the Clinton Foundation will lose donations with her loss of political power.  That's the way these things work.  Take it or leave it, that's our system.  I don't know about 90% though.  That seems high.

As far as the excessiveness of Bill's speaking fee, you are perhaps too young to remember (I really don't know how old you are) but Reagan's first speech out of office went for $2 million.  That's when two million was real money.  Plus, he was already well into his dementia.  It must have been a real stem winder.

I suspect Chelsea doesn't have a bright political future.  At least not if she has two brain cells to rub together.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1930
Clinton Foundation Pay to Play

If anyone knows of analyses that indicate that the Clinton Foundation was NOT an organized bribery scheme, I would be interested to have these pointed out so I can read this viewpoint.

Is the Clinton Foundation truly a philanthropic organization? 

I did a search on "Clinton Foundation Pay to Play" and found links to at least 50+ news stories articulating the viewpoint that it was a bribery system.

Reminds me of the Animal Farm quote:

“This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half.”
George Orwell, Animal Farm

This of course established that there was no quid pro quo relationship between work and food.

 

 

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2840
NOT organized bribery
sand_puppy wrote:

If anyone knows of analyses that indicate that the Clinton Foundation was NOT an organized bribery scheme, I would be interested to have these pointed out so I can read this viewpoint.

Hey Doug, that's your cue.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Clinton Foundation Criminality

Some folks still seem to have trouble seeing the truth.... blinded by their mass media projecting goggles. 

The steak tastes good in the matrix...    

http://charlesortel.com/

"To informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully from inception in October 1997 to date--as you will grow to realize, it is a case study in international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions. In particular, the Clinton Foundation has never been validly authorized to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than as a presidential archive and research facility based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Moreover, its operations have never been controlled by independent trustees and its financial results have never been properly audited by independent accountants."

"The Clinton Foundation and each part of the Clinton Charity Network fails either the organizational test, the operational test, or both of these tests. The consequences for failing to meet either the organizational test or the operational test are severe. In normal circumstances, a charity would have its tax-exempt status revoked retroactively. The “charity” would then have to refile its tax returns and pay corporate income taxes upon any profits earned from the date its authorization is revoked, forward to the present. Donors who took tax deductions in the relevant time periods would owe personal income taxes on contributions they had made.  And, a raft of criminal as well as civil sanctions would likely ensue, whose financial consequences might, or might not be mitigated by insurance."

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2387
Hey, speaking of truth...

USGS don't lie.. spectrometer don't lie : )

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Five days after... 1340 deg. F.. wow.. one would almost think there must have been some residual nanothermite in the pile.. the kind that contains it's own Oxygen (as FeO). 

 

image hotspot.C.900to1000.perc.gif

Larger 16 KB image
Thermal Figure 7.

Oh wait, there was a highly engineered fine particle material found in ALL samples of 9/11 dust tested that bears the distinct elemental and calorimetric fingerprint of thermite! 

  https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.  The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures.  Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
close enough

...I should apologize for associating your thinking with Fox.  I know I would be offended.

Since I'm a positive guy, I'll say "Close enough for me!  Apology accepted."  I know I'm not an expert for why you think something - do you only read WAPO and watch CNN?  Unless I have you under surveillance (which I do not) how can I possibly know?  I credit you with having the ability to think for yourself.  I'm glad to see that you have decided to extend that same courtesy to me.

As far as the excessiveness of Bill's speaking fee, you are perhaps too young to remember (I really don't know how old you are) but Reagan's first speech out of office went for $2 million.

Sure the first one is always a novelty.  What was Reagan's 50th speech out of office going for?  Again, I'd like a list of what "normal" speeches went for for WJC - prior to HRC being Sec State and prior to her run for Prez in 2008.  I.e. when there's no expectation of that quid pro quo.  Then we can see just how out of line $500k was for his speech in Russia.  I'm making a request for evidence.  If you have the evidence, you can convince me.    "Here are his list of speeches, and how much he made for each one.  Note that $500k was his normal speaking fee."  If you can do that, you win.  I'll say "wow Doug, you're 100% correct" and I'll change my mind.

And FWIW, I do think that $2M speech was a form of ex post facto payola.  "We want Ronnie to be comfortable after all the good things he did for us."  Much like Obama's $400k speech at Goldman Sachs.  Stuff like that neatly skirts the quid pro quo requirement, but is bribery nonetheless.  Same as Rubin getting $10M/year job at Citibank for a decade after torching Glass Stegall.

You are apparently conflating donations to charitable organizations with bribery.  There is some middle ground where you might have a point, and as I noted earlier donations are sometimes made to curry favor.  But for bribery you have to have a quid pro quo.

Oh yes, I'll freely admit that.  I'm definitely assuming that the whole "foundation" scheme was about bribery.  Modern, 21st century bribery.

Do you recall that email from Huma that asked, "are they donors?" when trying to sort out who would get access to Sec State Clinton on her Ireland trip?  I sure remember this.  I went to the email collection and read the email myself.  It was a clear indication to me that a pay-for-access scheme was in place, and Huma made the mistake of actually recording one of them for posterity.

One wonders how many other bits of evidence just like that were bleach-bitted off HRC's server.  Gosh, could that - perhaps - be a reason they were bleach-bitted?  And the reason for having the server in the first place?

And when reports surfaced that Chelsea was blabbing to others about how everything functioned, she got a spanking for it.  That was in another email that I read.

I don't believe that 100% of the "foundation" went to fund the Clinton family lifestyle.  They just skimmed some of the cream off the top every year - for more than a decade.  How much cream?  I'd need to look at the books for that.  Certainly weddings, private plane rental, parties in fancy locations for "foundation" events, hefty salaries for family members, trips, that sort of thing.  And Obama wasn't going to investigate the "foundation", so they had (more or less) functional immunity from the IRS on any and all shenanigans they wanted to pull.

So yeah.  Bribery.  That foundation was a mechanism for laundering money targeted for supporting the Clinton family lifestyle, and everyone knew it - which is why it got so many contributions.  I know, I'm not allowed to say what "everyone knew", but her list of donors often didn't match up with what that "foundation" was working on, and the donations dried up once she was defeated.

Email evidence + common sense = bribery.

kaimu's picture
kaimu
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 20 2013
Posts: 160
THE BOOKS

Aloha! Dave the Clinton's are what J Edgar Hoover would look like if he married Eva Peron! That perfect mix of southern charm corruption and feminist retribution! 

Here are the Clinton Foundation published financials from 2014. I assume nothing but numbers would have increased for 2015 and 2016 and increased ten fold had she won. You can see it was a spending spree for lawyers, staff, entertainment and travel. The complete opposite of how a Fortune 500 company is run unless the Fortune 500 company had no shareholders or SEC to answer to!

My guess is that 99% of Washington DC goes to jail if Hillary does! A truly bipartisan blackmail!

So much for "public service" and that whole con job they call "eradicating poverty"!

 

PeakGold's picture
PeakGold
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 3 2017
Posts: 78
Kaimu
kaimu wrote:

Aloha! Dave the Clinton's are what J Edgar Hoover would look like if he married Eva Peron! That perfect mix of southern charm corruption and feminist retribution! 

Here are the Clinton Foundation published financials from 2014. I assume nothing but numbers would have increased for 2015 and 2016 and increased ten fold had she won. You can see it was a spending spree for lawyers, staff, entertainment and travel. The complete opposite of how a Fortune 500 company is run unless the Fortune 500 company had no shareholders or SEC to answer to!

My guess is that 99% of Washington DC goes to jail if Hillary does! A truly bipartisan blackmail!

So much for "public service" and that whole con job they call "eradicating poverty"!

 

 

The Clinton Foundation (the Clinton public foundation) had over 2,000 employees in 2015, so that's $47,500ish per employee in salary which is not too bad. The travel budget would suggest $10,500 per employee. I'm not sure how outrageous that travel expense is for a global organization with thousands of employees, but it's probably high. Nothing really seems overly suspicious about that financial statement though.

The other Clinton foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation (their private foundation) is estimated to only be worth about $15 million, therefore they only donate a few million a year. That's not too suspicious either as a few million dollars does not move mountains http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/3000484...

You would think that if the Clintons were doing anything illegal, they would be doing it through their private foundation, and not the organization with thousands of witnesses. 

PeakGold's picture
PeakGold
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 3 2017
Posts: 78
Kaimu
kaimu wrote:

Aloha! Dave the Clinton's are what J Edgar Hoover would look like if he married Eva Peron! That perfect mix of southern charm corruption and feminist retribution! 

Here are the Clinton Foundation published financials from 2014. I assume nothing but numbers would have increased for 2015 and 2016 and increased ten fold had she won. You can see it was a spending spree for lawyers, staff, entertainment and travel. The complete opposite of how a Fortune 500 company is run unless the Fortune 500 company had no shareholders or SEC to answer to!

My guess is that 99% of Washington DC goes to jail if Hillary does! A truly bipartisan blackmail!

So much for "public service" and that whole con job they call "eradicating poverty"!

 

 

The Clinton Foundation (the Clinton public foundation) had over 2,000 employees in 2015, so that's $47,500ish per employee in salary which is not too bad. The travel budget would suggest $10,500 per employee. I'm not sure how outrageous that travel expense is for a global organization with thousands of employees, but it's probably high. Nothing really seems overly suspicious about that financial statement though.

The other Clinton foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation (their private foundation) is estimated to only be worth about $15 million, therefore they only donate a few million a year. That's not too suspicious either as a few million dollars does not move mountains http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/3000484...

You would think that if the Clintons were doing anything illegal, they would be doing it through their private foundation, and not the organization with thousands of witnesses. 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
quickbooks feature

There's a great feature to quickbooks that lets you zoom in and see the details behind every line item on the books.  I'd love to do that to each of the line items on that statement.

If I wanted to hide a few large salaries, I'd hire a bunch of locals in emerging countries - making it so the average salary was $50k, but the median was somewhere more around the $20k level, leaving lots of room for the "important executives" to get paid high six figures.

Just as a for-instance, you can hire a nurse in Thailand for $12,000 per year.

There are lots and lots of ways to hide the crap if your goal is use an org like this to support your lifestyle.  I know, because I got to play the part of a CFO for a few years, and learned how to find out where the bodies were buried.

As you point out, that travel budget is useful.  If you hire mostly locals, they don't travel.  That leaves a big budget for the important executives to rent private jets and penthouse suites for all of their "foundation" meetings - which happen to be held in swanky resort towns.

Same with the training budget.  Have a "training" on the French Riviera.  Fly all your friends in.  Everyone gets a suite.  Attend a couple of days of training and spend the rest of the time at the beach.

With such a large budget, and a fair amount of creativity, the salaries end up being a small fraction of the effective total comp for the "important executives", assuming you have absolutely no moral compass to speak of.

Which of course is my operating assumption for the Clintons, given the demonstrated pay-to-play email from Huma, the "outlook mismatch" between donors and programs, the die-off in donations after Clinton lost, the bleach-bit email event, the private server, the remarks about Chelsea blabbing and how problematic that might end up being (weddings, lifestyle, salaries, etc).

It all adds up to charity fraud - but only you aren't an HRC supporter, of course.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3176
prove a negative
Quote:

If anyone knows of analyses that indicate that the Clinton Foundation was NOT an organized bribery scheme, I would be interested to have these pointed out so I can read this viewpoint.

You're asking that someone prove a negative, something that is never easy, sometimes impossible.  For instance: prove that you are not abusing your spouse.  You can't do it.  You might be able to come up with circumstantial evidence that suggests your innocence (no bruises today, your spouse says you don't abuse him/her) but you can't objectively prove it.

That's why the entire basis of our criminal justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty.  The burden is on the accuser (ie: state) to prove your guilt.  We don't ask you to prove your innocence without first presenting the case against you, and even then we only ask that you present enough evidence that there is "reasonable doubt" as to your guilt.  Now granted the system doesn't always work to perfection, but at least it is held to a standard that prevents fishing expeditions by those hoping to hang you out to dry.

Now, thats the problem with most conspiracy theories like the Clinton Foundation narrative.  They are frequently based on innuendo and so-called evidence that, even when based on apparently objective facts, is often tangential to the issue if connected at all or flat out lies.  In most cases you and I, assuming you too are a member of the unwashed masses that I am, don't have access to the fact based evidence.  So we need to rely on proxies of some sort.

I'm going to raise a dangerous proposition here that will no doubt raise howls of outrage on this site.  That is that the msm news is generally reliable, though certainly not in every instance or detail.  But, what is your measuring stick?  I recall that someone on this site stated that he/she could never trust (I believe it was) the NYT because it lied about (I don't quite recall which incident) either Tonkin Gulf or WMD.  In either case you are left with decades of stories and editorials that are relatively accurate in the absence of evidence to the contrary which the commenter didn't specify.  So, in the absence of raw data that I have already postulated you and I don't have, how do we judge the stories we run across? 

In the case of the Clinton Foundation we have non-profit organizations that have been established to rate charities based on things like tax records, proportion of funds that go to the charity as opposed to administrative costs and absence of evidence of fraud.  I suppose you could argue that these companies are also subject to chicanery or manipulation by tptb.  But I think generally their reputations for accuracy in reporting is the gold standard of their industry, without which they will lose their donors and revenue.  

One of the giants of that industry recently came out with its report on the Clinton Foundation: 

 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Overall the Clinton Foundation comes out pretty well.  You can choose to believe them or not, but you should probably make your decision based on data that is at least as good as theirs, not on innuendo and rumors that many websites profit from.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
multiple indicators

When I try to suss out market direction, I use lots of different indicators in order come up with a general assessment as to where things might be headed.  The more indicators that point in a given direction, the more likely it is that's how things will turn out.  I've noticed that when all my indicators point in a direction, it becomes close to a "sure thing" trade.

If it was the usual crap from Fox (the Benghazi situation comes to mind) I could dismiss it.  But there have been so many other coincident indicators, I just cannot give your "trusted news sources" the benefit of the doubt on this case.

With the Clinton "foundation", all the indicators I'm seeing point in the same direction: this is a criminal enterprise, focused primarily on laundering money for use by the Clinton family in order to support their lifestyle, and only secondarily to "do good works" - likely as a cover story.  "Doing well, by doing good."

* email server (with no backup) + bleach bit

* Huma's email: "are they donors"?

* Podesta email exchange: "Chelsea should keep her mouth shut.  Doesn't she realize..."

* Donations drying up after loss

* Donors sometimes not aligned with the "causes" being supported - in some cases, directly opposed to said causes - equivalent to anti-abortion groups providing money to fund a charity that supports abortion clinics.

No one item on its own would be enough to convince me.  All of them together - its a criminal enterprise.

kaimu's picture
kaimu
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 20 2013
Posts: 160
POINT COUNTERPOINT

Aloha Peak! My point is that some $214mil in "bribes" were given to Clinton legal and lobby confidantes in exchange for $33mil in actual "direct" charitable program expenditures. Now go investigate the "back end" of those deals and I guarantee you we'd have enough collusion and fraud to open another 20 "special investigations". 

Now couple that with the Clinton's $150mil in real estate. Not sure if their "charity" is an actual charity or a tax free REIT!

The bottom line is how do any of us know if these "reported numbers" are accurate. How do you know 2,000 employees is the actual number? Seen their payroll? Their 941s for 2015? How do any of us know if or where these $millions in cash and real estate are after they shut down their operation? When she did not win President they announced the Clinton Foundation would cease accepting donations. God only knows what Hillary and Bill and Chelsea's and their friends and relatives salaries are now!

You can never get 3 when you add 1+1!

 

lambertad's picture
lambertad
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2013
Posts: 180
From the Horse's Mouth

Clinton was essentially running a "money laundering" operation during her financial campaign. Donations that flowed to the state organizations, a total of 82 million bucks, could have stayed there for the Dems of the state to use. Instead, 99.5% went to the Clinton campaign. 

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.

That kind of talk from Donna Brazile takes balls. Big ones. I hope she doesn't have any private airplane rides or road trips planned for the near or distant future. I hope she also doesn't walk home, alone, and you know, get shot. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks...

Yeah, squeeky clean Clintons. No way, no how could they be using the CGI as a pay to play. I understand this is all circumstantial evidence and no way indicates the CGI as a money laundering operation,  but the Clinton's are morally bankrupt plain and simple.

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5465
DNC corruption & money laundering

The number of people who have met unfortunate ends (while weightlifting, flying in light planes, being mugged with nothing having been taken) around this whole situation suggests that Donna Brazile probably needs to be a bit more careful than usual.

Reminder: Donna Brazile was the person who fed CNN debate questions to HRC ahead of time.

This really underlines just how angry she was once she found out that HRC had totally co-opted the DNC long before she ever became the candidate.  She seems to be saying, "corruption is OK when fighting against the Republicans, but it is NOT OK inside the party."  Even Donna has a line that shouldn't be crossed, and its pretty clear that HRC crossed it.

Here was the smoking gun from that politico article:

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

The whole thing was about the money, which the broke DNC was desperate to have to stay in business, and which HRC had in vast quantities.

Campaign laws restrict individuals from giving more than $2700 to a particular campaign.  But you can contribute more money to political parties ($10k).  So if you are a Big Donor, the game is, you give $10k to each of the 32 state party orgs that were part of the DNC-HRC money laundering agreement, and $33k to the DNC.  Each state party org funnels the $10k contribution to the DNC, and the DNC forwards that money to HRC.  This means the big individual donors can effectively give HRC's campaign $350,000.  Donors win, HRC wins.  That's a win-win, right?

In exchange DNC got funded by the HRC campaign.

Bottom line, HRC owned and operated the DNC entirely because of the money flows from her big money donors.

I'm sure she wasn't influenced by any of this money, though.  Well, there is that bit of pesky common sense which suggests that if HRC didn't come through for them in the past, the Big Donors wouldn't be stupid enough to continue throwing money her way decade after decade.

So is anyone surprised?  I mean, really.  Anyone?  Doug?  I want to hear the "we have no evidence" speech just one more time, or perhaps you can explain how Donna Brazile is just part of the Fox News narrative.

Last thing.  I'm super impressed with Donna Brazile for speaking the truth.  Let's hope the Dems will clean up their act prior to 2020, and we can have a free and fair primary on the left.  Even though the two party system has major problems, it isn't quite so bad if we can have free and fair primaries on both the left and the right.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments