Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion

[dc_h]

Domestic spying activities aside (which I think are shameful, illegal, have no utility or oversight...), I think one of the most sensible approaches I've heard is simply to split NSA up in to two separate organizations. Right now, NSA has tremendous conflict of interest: it helps secure domestic computer infrastructure and software, advises on encryption standards, etc. But it also finds and develops new security exploits and keeps them secret so that it continue to exploit them.

Both of these make sense to me as missions carried out by government security agencies. It just makes no sense to have these two missions advanced by the *same* organization. You cannot improve security with your left hand and develop a bunch of 0-days with your right.

The irony is that govt backdoors have given China tens if not hundreds of billions in free R&D to help them match our best tech. Congress seems so technically backwards this can’t be expletive them, or they’d have to take some accountability themselves.

 

[Ulmo]

Domestic spying activities aside (which I think are shameful, illegal, have no utility or oversight...), I think one of the most sensible approaches I've heard is simply to split NSA up in to two separate organizations. Right now, NSA has tremendous conflict of interest: it helps secure domestic computer infrastructure and software, advises on encryption standards, etc. But it also finds and develops new security exploits and keeps them secret so that it continue to exploit them.

Both of these make sense to me as missions carried out by government security agencies. It just makes no sense to have these two missions advanced by the *same* organization. You cannot improve security with your left hand and develop a bunch of 0-days with your right.

NSA branched into providing software to the world after starting its spy missions. I don't know if it all happened the second the organization was formed, but I believe the derivation path is the same: the software is provided in order to spy. To me the new information is the concept that they provided any software at all for any purpose other than their spying.

 

[RobStark]

 

[Intl Professor]

Agreed. [Woith referenced post] There may well have been some minuscule influence on the campaign, but it was anti-Hillary and a bad thing. What scares me most is the sophistication of Putin's media campaign and I'm very concerned Cambridge Analytica had a good measure of responsibility for that.

We now know from Donald Jrs. post of his e-mails and other sources that Cambridge Analytica offered to help Wikipedia in release of Russian hacked e-mails detrimental to Hillary. We don't know whether Cambridge Analytica was aware the hackers were the Russian government. Wonder what Mueller's team will do establishing this connection in violation of foreign collaboration? Maybe Robert and Rebecca Mercer will be proactively pardoned by the Great Orange, as was Sheriff Arpaio? Would that be an obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense?

 

[neroden]

NSA branched into providing software to the world after starting its spy missions. I don't know if it all happened the second the organization was formed, but I believe the derivation path is the same: the software is provided in order to spy. To me the new information is the concept that they provided any software at all for any purpose other than their spying.

Well, early on they were supposed to be securing American communications so the Russians couldn't spy on *us*: they were the ones charged with developing new cyphers for the military. They seem to have TOTALLY abandoned this responsibility.

 

[ggr]

Well, early on they were supposed to be securing American communications so the Russians couldn't spy on *us*: they were the ones charged with developing new cyphers for the military. They seem to have TOTALLY abandoned this responsibility.

Chance for a plug. I just finished reading the biography of Elizebeth Friedman, "The Woman Who Smashed Codes", which also covered a little bit of the career of her husband William. Fantastic read, based on recently declassified documents.

 

[MitchJi]

Here's another land mine. Skimmed most but the end paragraphs reminded me of the sea change in treatment of sexual predators:

"Helping the rich get richer through offshore maneuvers is not a 'benign benefit,' said Harrington, the Copenhagen Business School professor. 'When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, because individual wealthy people are not paying their fair share of taxes.'”

“'It won’t be lost on wealth managers and those in the offshore industry,' she said, 'that we are reaching sort of French Revolution levels of inequality and injustice.'”

Paradise Papers Exposes Donald Trump-Russia links and Piggy Banks of the Wealthiest 1 Percent - ICIJ

Nothing of interest except a strumpet connect with Wilbur Ross which will probably go away. This might be helpful to the current debate on tax cuts which may, only just may, effect the economy.

We’re already somewhat close to a French Revolution level of backlash which is why trump won the election partly on his promise to drain the swamp. Unfortunately for the people who voted for him they are supporting someone who is one of the beneficiaries of the swamp,and is actively promoting the swamp.

He actually sent representatives from Peabody Coal (clean coal), and fracked gas and nuclear energy to the cop in Bonn! He says he believes that climate change is a Chinese hoax. The real hoax is clean coal.

I believe that if you believe that issue will have a substantial impact on the republicans tax plan debate you are delusional.

I think it was very unwise for Trump to so clearly tip the scales in favor of Saudi Arabia during his visit.

One analyst said that the Saudi’s taught the rest of the world how to game trump. Flattery and rolling out the red carpet. Worked perfectly in China etc.

His embrace of Duterti should be a national embarrassment. Duterti is actively murdering thousands of people who are supposed to be drug offenders.

 

[MitchJi]

In this podcast (12:45 minutes) Bernie explains the connection between the paradise papers, the republican tax plan and the trump administration. I’m pretty cynical but I’m shocked by how ugly the tax plan is. I highly recommend listening to this podcast:
The Bernie Sanders Show by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Apple Podcasts

In this Bernie Bonus episode, Sen. Sanders breaks down how the Paradise Papers reveal a world rapidly moving toward international oligarchy, controlled by a tiny number of billionaires.

 

[Intl Professor]

Sex, Congress, and the California Legislature

Nate Silver has a summary of thinking and academic research on the subject. "'It’s like secondhand smoke,' .... 'A workplace environment that encourages harassment hurts everyone.'”

The Workplace Culture In Congress Fuels Sexual Harassment

Two takeaways: I'm not at all sure the research is unique to the political environment. Also, Silver leaves out one aspect. People in power are tempted by women who are attracted to those in power. Not to excuse in any way Bill Clinton's behavior before or after becoming president, but it appears Monica Lewinsky was certainly a willing participant as even her mother had done with others before her. For the record, I was the local chair of an initiative campaign and was initially approached physically by a subordinate female just because I happened to be the local leader of the movement.

Because we are located in the capital of California our department has a strong connection to the Capitol, including rather extensive internships which clearly predate connections by our local rivals, including UC, Davis. Many prominent colleagues served previously as consultants to the legislature and our students often go on to leadership roles as lobbyists, legislative aids, and members or congressional representatives, mayors, county supervisors, and at least one lieutenant governor. I remember one particularly attractive female student who was scheduled for a job in the legislature and specifically counseled her to be wary. "There are two kinds of careers in the legislature. If you succumb to offers you will be typed and have a career in a subordinate position, but if you don't, and with your talent, you can have a professional career and will be treated with respect by most members." Sure enough, she said a few years later, "yes, I was harassed."

Some soul searching by yours truly in light of le cri du jour, uncovered memory of a letter of recommendation I wrote for a student who later went on to become a prominent lobbyist. Because one of our students was a partner in the most prestigious lobbying firm at the time I wrote him directly about her and she was hired as an unpaid intern for two years, much to the amazement of my colleagues who had never placed a student with that firm. After lavish and honest praise of her intellectual, moral, and political sensitivities, I concluded with "and she's pretty too." I must confess that was unnecessary given the integrity of the hiring partner and thus shameful by today's standards.

 

[MitchJi]

This article claims that the bets against the VIX could be a destabilizing force for the economy (not sure if that’s valid):
When one of history’s ‘greatest trades’ finally blows up, it could get ugly all over

Bitcoin’s face-melting rally toward $10,000 (see our chart of the day below) is the talk of financial circles these days. But if the digital currency is, indeed, the dangerous bubble many believe it to be, its inevitable implosion will pale in comparison to the potential damage caused by the demise of one of the best trades the Wall Street has ever seen: Shorting the VIX.

You’d have to be living under a rock — or maybe just a normal person who doesn’t fixate on the stock market — to not notice the incredible lack of volatility in this bull run. This persistent trend has lined the pocket of any investor who’s been savvy/lucky enough to bet against the VIX VIX, +1.34%

Count Seth Golden, a former Target TGT, -0.29% manager, among those fortunate to be on the right side of it. He told the Times this summer his net worth exploded from $500,000 to $12 million in about five years thanks to his VIX shorts.

Since 2009 a share of the VXX VIX ETF has with gone from $120k to $32!

But all good things come to an end, and when this historic trend finally reverses, the fallout could be devastating. In our call of the day, Kevin Muir of the Macro Tourist blog warns that these people face getting completely “wiped out” when volatility returns to this market. And it won’t end there.

“A VIX spike is dangerous not only for everyone that is playing in the VIX square, but for all market participants,” he explained in a recent blog post. “Given the size of the VIX complex, it has the potential to destabilize the entire financial system on its own. If the move is abrupt and large enough, it will not only bankrupt many different parties, but will cause a ripple effect in other markets.”

Muir went on to warn the real worry here is not just that those who have made enormous sums on shorting the VIX are about to give it all back. No, he believes they, as well as many others, stand to lose a whole lot more.

“Shorting VIX, at these low levels, in the size they are doing, is not only dumb, but crazily dangerous, not only to the parties trading it, but also to the stability of the entire financial system,” he said.

The day of reckoning may be a ways off. Those VIX shorts look to be doing just fine this morning, with stocks in the green early.

[/FONT]

 

[goinfraftw]

This is nuts. No thoughts on where this might go and how it'll apply to Tesla, but it's a gigantic wave of potential change in world politics and how we govern ourselves, nationally and globally.

"Both sides did not assess their risks and decide to hedge them with a compromise. Rather, as we’ve known for weeks, the special counsel, Robert Mueller, believed he had sufficient evidence to indict Mr. Flynn on a long list of criminal charges, including money laundering, tax offense and false statements."

Good luck, Mr. Mueller.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I have some serious gut feeling concerns about the broader stock market right now.

About 10 years and 6 months ago, I remember driving my car home and listening to the news reports of the Dow and S&P500 at record highs, and rising consumer confidence. At the time, I had some inkling of the unsteady underpinnings of the economy. A substantial number of people in my community were moving into newer and bigger homes, with some taking out "interest only" loans, which were clearly more than they could afford. A year later, the US was embroiled in a financial crisis the likes of which hadn't been seen in decades.

Today, the situation is not exactly the same, but I see warning signs. Consumer confidence is up, yet wages are largely stagnant even as housing and health care costs continue to rise. A lot of people are not doing well in this economy, despite seemingly good overall macro #'s, and the GOP tax bill is likely to put more money into the hands of business and less into the hands of ordinary citizens.

Something just does not feel right to me.

I have been re-balancing my retirement accounts by moving money out of stock funds (which have gotten overweight as a target % of my portfolio as the market has run up) and into bond funds. This is not a drastic move. It is merely resetting back to what I want as my asset allocation, but I feel it is also a prudent move to defend my assets.

With regards to TSLA and any other shares, I am doing nothing. If a crash occurs, I will not sell. My holdings are currently too small to make much of difference to my life anyway.

 

[Intl Professor]

There are certainly a number of issues in the political sphere to warrant consideration of turmoil reaching markets. One is the full implementation of the tax bill and related efforts by Republicans in Congress to loosen the "strangle hold" of Dodd/Frank mitigating the effects of a financial crisis similar to 2007/8/9+ you mention. The tax bill can have one positive effect on the real economy, the provision permitting one year right offs for investment. Even though he is critical of the overall bill, no less than Larry Summers approves of that and I'm sure Krugman also agrees. There is historical evidence that, contrary to proponents of the bill's positive effect on the economy, its provision for repatriation of profits to the US had little effect on the real economy, wages, and investment as corporations are unwilling to invest now unless they are the likes of Tesla and green energy in general. The time before repatriation of profits was invested in dividends, buy backs, and increases in managerial compensation. I don't know what the multiplier effects are but investment in education, technology, and speedier transition to a sustainable future will doubtless be slowed and rebuilding our "hard" infrastructure not even considered in the current political climate. And then there's the Senate's tampering with Obamacare. When the CBO scored an earlier version of the bill including the dollar loss of benefits in the bill designed to offset the tax cuts for corporations and the uber wealthy, percentage wise the hardest hit are the poor, and even our middle class $100,000 or so income. We would lose something on the order of $20,000 according to CBO calculations, I guess because of cutbacks scheduled for Medicare. (The property tax and mortgage deduction is not that great for us.)

I can see why billionaires might want a reduction in taxes, but have they really calculated the loss of demand created by this monstrous bill, subsequent drop in GNP, and loss of income earned by their investments? If it passes it would seem that would trigger an even greater catastrophe than the one we went through beginning ten years ago.

If these considerations are not enough, there is an eerie similarity to the Watergate crisis brewing now with recent revelations by the Mueller investigation. It took over two years from the original break-in until Nixon's resignation. Now, in less time we are much further along the road to impeachment (as a trigger) than before and the mess given what the Russians have done, perhaps on their own through social media, there is more and more evidence our entire electoral process is in jeopardy with this scandal.

I haven't the foggiest memory of what the stock markets did during the years of Watergate. We are doing now as good as can be expected considering the economy is only now just getting back on its feet. But how long will this last given the political pot which is just beginning to simmer of scandal—more than just a "cancer" on the presidency?

Classically, the way out for Trump may be pre-emptive war with North Korea. That will be more than a twitter. Apparently the relative restraint the North exercised for 74 days, broken only recently, was brokered by the Chinese to give the U.S. a chance to come to the table. But that did not happen and may be one reason why Trump is so mad at Tillerson these days, aside from criticizing the tweet stolen from "Britain First."

 

[Intl Professor]

Here's more grist for a lot that has already been discussed before on this thread.

Pressure North Korea, Antagonize China

 

[neroden]

I have some serious gut feeling concerns about the broader stock market right now.

About 10 years and 6 months ago, I remember driving my car home and listening to the news reports of the Dow and S&P500 at record highs, and rising consumer confidence. At the time, I had some inkling of the unsteady underpinnings of the economy. A substantial number of people in my community were moving into newer and bigger homes, with some taking out "interest only" loans, which were clearly more than they could afford. A year later, the US was embroiled in a financial crisis the likes of which hadn't been seen in decades.

Today, the situation is not exactly the same, but I see warning signs. Consumer confidence is up, yet wages are largely stagnant even as housing and health care costs continue to rise. A lot of people are not doing well in this economy, despite seemingly good overall macro #'s, and the GOP tax bill is likely to put more money into the hands of business and less into the hands of ordinary citizens.

Something just does not feel right to me.

I have been re-balancing my retirement accounts by moving money out of stock funds (which have gotten overweight as a target % of my portfolio as the market has run up) and into bond funds. This is not a drastic move. It is merely resetting back to what I want as my asset allocation, but I feel it is also a prudent move to defend my assets.

With regards to TSLA and any other shares, I am doing nothing. If a crash occurs, I will not sell. My holdings are currently too small to make much of difference to my life anyway.

I share your gut feelings.

My family has a *lot* invested in the stock market. While as a family we do have a large hedge with guaranteed annuities backed by rental real estate, most of the rest of our wealth is in stocks. (We don't do stock funds.)

However, at this point, I distrust the broader market situation so much that I'm down to seven stocks, of which nearly all the money is in three.

The biggest one is Tesla. One is a cash merger arb play -- it is supposed to turn into cash if the merger goes through, and I think I can get out with acceptable losses if it doesn't -- so within a year, it should have turned into cash one way or the other. One is Berkshire Hathaway, which I'm taking a critical look at at this point due to increased risks in the insurance business due to climate change.

I'm seriously looking at whether the other four (which jointly are only about 8% of our investable assets) will survive a major long-term downturn in consumer spending, and I think I'm going to get out of one of them. That'll bring me down to five stocks, but with almost all the money in two.

I can see why billionaires might want a reduction in taxes, but have they really calculated the loss of demand created by this monstrous bill, subsequent drop in GNP, and loss of income earned by their investments? If it passes it would seem that would trigger an even greater catastrophe than the one we went through beginning ten years ago.

If these considerations are not enough, there is an eerie similarity to the Watergate crisis brewing now with recent revelations by the Mueller investigation. It took over two years from the original break-in until Nixon's resignation. Now, in less time we are much further along the road to impeachment (as a trigger) than before and the mess given what the Russians have done, perhaps on their own through social media, there is more and more evidence our entire electoral process is in jeopardy with this scandal.

I haven't the foggiest memory of what the stock markets did during the years of Watergate.

I just looked it up. The Nixon administration was awful for the stock market, with essentially no gains before Watergate followed by a 20% drop during Watergate. The Ford administration, however, had a relief rally of 40% up.

Of course, the big difference is that Nixonomics was actually sane ("We are all Keynesians") and now we have completely demented federal economic "policy". So the drag from the disastrously pro-recessionary federal policies should make the stock market do worse than under Nixon.

However... on the other hand... we are living through the so-called "third industrial revolution". I spent a while studying the first one. US politics was monumentally corrupt, UK politics was just as bad, government economic policy was largely incompetent in both countries, consumer spending was relatively low because most people had no money... and they both had booming economies and stock markets, due to the technological transition. Due to the booming new industries. So *if you are positioned in the correct industries* and *are invested in companies which will survive* during the shakeout of startups, it is possible -- nay, likely -- that they will do very well despite the terrible policy background conditions. The main "market" risks there would be physical destruction of the business through war (as happened to most of Continental Europe in WWI & WWII), or nationalization, such as happened in Russia in 1918 or China somewhat later. But if the US can avoid *really* ticking off the population through autocratic incompetence in the government leading to domestic war and revolution, we can manage at worst a "soft landing" like Clement Atlee's market-price buyouts of the stockholders in the companies nationalized post-WWII in the UK.

 

[ggr]

One is Berkshire Hathaway, which I'm taking a critical look at at this point due to increased risks in the insurance business due to climate change.

Interesting. I have almost the opposite viewpoint. I'm forgetting names and references at the moment, but there was a woman in the reinsurance industry who wrote a paper back some years before Hurricane Katrina, around the late '90's or early Oughts, pointing out that the industry needed to be thinking hard about the effects of climate change and increasing devastation events. She was widely dismissed for the first couple of years. But once the industry got kicked hard, the serious actuaries got onto the game, and to them spreading out a big risk just means bigger profits. The more total money that goes through their hands, the more of it they get to keep.

 

[Intl Professor]

Trump's Ultimate Defense at Impeachment Trial

Surely the credibility of the presidency has an impact on the macroeconomy of the United States, so we must seriously weigh the concerns some have expressed the President has provided direct evidence in a tweet of his effort to obstruct justice which, in any other circumstance would be considered an impeachable offense. Already Senator Diane Feinstein has publicly noted the Senate Judiciary Committee is laying the groundwork of a case for obstruction of justice. She's stretching the truth with the cooperation of the media, of course, when in actual fact she can speak only for herself and the staff assigned to the minority on the committee. But you know how Democrats and the fake media are! I'm sure the Committee's Chair will prove to be the snake in the grass, rescuing the Prez once again, if you will forgive the pun.

The story is more complicated yet in light of the President's lawyer now claiming he wrote the tweet and that conversation is now compounded by the lawyer who claims no knowledge of who actually pushed the button sending the tweet. I guess he's realizing his loyalty to his client may cause the client to consider he has a dolt as an attorney and so his tenure is subject to "termination with extreme prejudice." In the lawyer's defense, that fake media has already revealed he cannot prove it without violating attorney/client privilege. But who needs proof in the age of Trump? (It is faith über alles since we've changed our motto to "In God We Trust," or "In Gods We Trust.")

Should this imbroglio turn into the proverbial "smoking gun" Feinstein needs to turn this into an impeachment trial, physics first principles dictate what our Great Leader will use in protesting innocence of wrongdoing and naming the ultimate villain of the plot: The electron did it!

Normally I would insert a smiley to make clear my amusement, but there is so much confusion about reality these days, especially the lawyer's undermining the direct relationship between Trump and his idolators through Twitter, one never knows what is parody or fact or fiction—now even Trump supporters must be confused. From an artistic standpoint one cannot imagine any human author or director creative enough to develop a movie with such creative talent as we see in the political arena of this country. (Leaving aside Stephen Mnuchin or Steve Bannon.) I know what the first pass of a plot by a supreme artificial intelligence would look like and I can give you a preview now based on first physics principles, of course. Turn on your TV, disconnect the signal, and then look at the pattern, which it is said by the physics shamans is the cosmic background radiation picked up by the antenna.

Bearing in mind I'm aware of galloping to senility as I make these electrons lie. But is it I or the world?

Hint: Donald Trump knows he's a fake president. That's why he enables so many others to lie. That is what those around him are realizing. The rest of us are just slow, especially the media which keeps asking the silly question "why do Flynn and others lie when what they did was legal?" Idolatry is a requirement for keeping their jobs! Explains a lot about Republicans in Congress these days, too.

The Bible must say somewhere "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." There must be a corollary like: "those who live by fear shall die by it." The tragedy is so many other innocents are drowned or will be because of that evil, as they have in the past. What is that great line in FDRs first inaugural address?

 

[ggr]

The story is more complicated yet in light of the President's lawyer now claiming he wrote the tweet and that conversation is now compounded by the lawyer who claims no knowledge of who actually pushed the button sending the tweet. I guess he's realizing his loyalty to his client may cause the client to consider he has a dolt as an attorney and so his tenure is subject to "termination with extreme prejudice." In the lawyer's defense, that fake media has already revealed he cannot prove it without violating attorney/client privilege. But who needs proof in the age of Trump?

It's worth noting that the White House has asserted that presidential tweets are official statements. So it doesn't matter who tweeted it.

 

[Intl Professor]

Trump's Ultimate Defense at Impeachment Trial

Surely the credibility of the presidency has an impact on the macroeconomy of the United States, so we must seriously weigh the concerns some have expressed the President has provided direct evidence in a tweet of his effort to obstruct justice which, in any other circumstance would be considered an impeachable offense. Already Senator Diane Feinstein has publicly noted the Senate Judiciary Committee is laying the groundwork of a case for obstruction of justice. She's stretching the truth with the cooperation of the media, of course, when in actual fact she can speak only for herself and the staff assigned to the minority on the committee. But you know how Democrats and the fake media are! I'm sure the Committee's Chair will prove to be the snake in the grass, rescuing the Prez once again, if you will forgive the pun.

The story is more complicated yet in light of the President's lawyer now claiming he wrote the tweet and that conversation is now compounded by the lawyer who claims no knowledge of who actually pushed the button sending the tweet. I guess he's realizing his loyalty to his client may cause the client to consider he has a dolt as an attorney and so his tenure is subject to "termination with extreme prejudice." In the lawyer's defense, that fake media has already revealed he cannot prove it without violating attorney/client privilege. But who needs proof in the age of Trump? (It is faith über alles since we've changed our motto to "In God We Trust," or "In Gods We Trust.")

Should this imbroglio turn into the proverbial "smoking gun" Feinstein needs to turn this into an impeachment trial, physics first principles dictate what our Great Leader will use in protesting innocence of wrongdoing and naming the ultimate villain of the plot: The electron did it!

Normally I would insert a smiley to make clear my amusement, but there is so much confusion about reality these days, especially the lawyer's undermining the direct relationship between Trump and his idolators through Twitter, one never knows what is parody or fact or fiction—now even Trump supporters must be confused. From an artistic standpoint one cannot imagine any human author or director creative enough to develop a movie with such creative talent as we see in the political arena of this country. (Leaving aside Stephen Mnuchin or Steve Bannon.) I know what the first pass of a plot by a supreme artificial intelligence would look like and I can give you a preview now based on first physics principles, of course. Turn on your TV, disconnect the signal, and then look at the pattern, which it is said by the physics shamans is the cosmic background radiation picked up by the antenna.

Bearing in mind I'm aware of galloping to senility as I make these electrons lie. But is it I or the world?

Hint: Donald Trump knows he's a fake president. That's why he enables so many others to lie. That is what those around him are realizing. The rest of us are just slow, especially the media which keeps asking the silly question "why do Flynn and others lie when what they did was legal?" Idolatry is a requirement for keeping their jobs! Explains a lot about Republicans in Congress these days, too.

The Bible must say somewhere "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." There must be a corollary like: "those who live by fear shall die by it." The tragedy is so many other innocents are drowned or will be because of that evil, as they have in the past. What is that great line in FDRs first inaugural address?

Apparently Trump's lawyer's tweet already breaches the threshold of attorney client confidentially. This is really an idiot of an attorney or he was directed by client to post the tweet. Why tweet about a draft tweet thus blowing that protection for your client? The truth is belied by the twain of the tweets. Is this known as a triple tweet in the field, or a trickertweet for short?

Edit: Sorry for the puns but these two constitute a conspiracy by themselves. A public conspiracy if that is not an oxymoron. Speaking of clowns....

 

[Intl Professor]

Note from moderator: this post, and the following one, do not mention Tesla at all, nor anything about investing that would appear to affect Tesla, and basically they are pure politics. As such, I should move them to the "politics quarantine" thread. But for now, I'll leave with this warning: if the posting is not relevant to the thread, either don't say it or expect it to be moved. --ggr.

The Smoking Gun

Tonight Rachel Maddow set in broad context the news/fake news Mueller has subpoenaed documents from Deutsche Bank concerning Russia and Trump. The White House has denied the factual basis for the reports claiming they have checked with the bank. I suppose it is possible Mueller could put some kind of gag order on this as it signals the next steps which could be devastating for members of the Trump family if not the Orange himself. The original story began with a German publication.

The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC

A brief sketch: there have been rumors of suspicious connections to wealthy Russians who have invested in or purchased Trump properties. A California Congresswoman has been trying to pry open Deutsche Bank's connection, to no avail. Deutsche Bank has close connections to Russian bankers with close ties to Putin's government, especially the FSB or former FSB officers. (FSB=secret police.) Maddow describes how the Bank was successfully sued by New York State financial authorities and found guilty of money laundering ten billion dollars worth or rubles over a period of years. (So-called, "mirrored transactions.") Given the election outcome, the Federal investigation is now "dormant."

Takeaway: It is widely assumed the scandalous video referred to in the "Dossier," but never confirmed, of Trump at a Moscow hotel is an example of blackmail used by Putin to keep Trump in line. Looks like the real deal that Flynn, Pence, and others are lying about is the huge financial portion of Trump's wealth tied to Deutsche Bank and thus his business with Russia over a period of years. That may be the smoking gun for this administration. Not only has Putin influenced the election through espionage, social media, and perhaps collusion with the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, but over a period of years a spider web of financial ties among shady developers across two continents, mediated by Deutsche Bank, has ensured that Putin is truly a master of puppets.