Morning Report: Blowout jobs report

Vital Statistics:

 

Last Change
S&P futures 3148 22.25
Oil (WTI) 57.99 -0.44
10 year government bond yield 1.85%
30 year fixed rate mortgage 3.94%

 

Stocks are higher after a blowout jobs report. Bonds and MBS are down.

 

Jobs report data dump:

  • Nonfarm payrolls up 266,000
  • Unemployment rate 3.5%
  • average hourly earnings up 0.2% MOM / 3.1% YOY
  • Employment-population ratio 61%
  • Labor force participation rate 63.2%

Huge surprise in payrolls given the ADP report only had 67,000. The unemployment rate of 3.5% is the lowest in 50 years. About the only blemish was the small downtick in the labor force participation rate. Note that manufacturing payrolls increased smartly.

 

What does this mean for the bond markets? Nothing since the Fed is on hold, probably through the 2020 election. It also might mean that the rate cuts of earlier this year are beginning to take effect and the drag from the 2018 tightening cycle is behind us.

 

Note that the makeup of the 2020 FOMC voting members will be more dovish than 2019. Eric Rosengren and Esther George – two hawks that dissented against rate cuts – rotate off the board next year. In their place, we will be getting Neel Kahskari and Robert Kaplan. Neel Kashkari is considered one of the most dovish members of the FOMC. Will it make much of a difference? Probably not, although the bar for increasing interest rates will be adjusted upward accordingly.

 

Interesting chart: the median age of US homebuyers since 1980. It has increased from 32 to 47 over that period. Half of that increase came from the Great Recession. Much of this is explained by the muted presence of the first time homebuyer, who has been about 30% of sales as opposed to their historical 40%.

 

median age of us homebuyer

71 Responses

    • The only bigger waste of time the house could be engaging in other than the current impeachment would be the impeachment of a former president.

      Like

      • If we are going to start impeaching former presidents, we can start with FDR, for his immoral, racist and unconstitutional internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

        We can also impeach Lyndon Johnson, for using the FBI and CIA to spy on Barry Goldwater’s campaign. (Perhaps that’s where Obama came up with the idea!)

        Liked by 1 person

  1. So, if I understand it, Obama structures the economy to only succeed when he left office.

    https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1903385

    Liked by 1 person

    • Coincidentally, for the exact duration of a subsequent Republican presidency. Then Trump will have messed up the economy just long enough to last for the duration of the next Democrat presidency. It’s amazing!

      Like

  2. Game 5th graders play on line at my granddaughters’ elementary school:

    http://www.hoodamath.com/games/hoodaescapetrumptower.html

    Like

  3. No rational person believes this.

    Now, we all know that what the NYT means is if you think the diversity policy doesn’t go far enough then it’s ok to criticize it. But if you think it’s bogus for other, non-approved reasons you can kiss your ass goodbye.

    Everybody, and I mean everybody, on the right and left know this.

    Would anyone here or even on The PL disagree with my interpretation?

    Like

    • James Damore

      Like

    • Correct. That being said, when I’ve hired for positions it’s literally impossible to find a qualified white person, much less a qualified white man, so I have no problem keeping my department diverse!

      I have a problem hiring as many people as I need, but of all the many hiring problems I have, diversity mandates aren’t one.

      Ultimately, our policy is we don’t discriminate. That’s all that’s necessary because our labor pool is such that it would be impossible to have a non-diverse staff.

      This has to be the case is most large, diverse urban areas. So the complaint had to be primarily populations where the population is overwhelmingly white. Where the most qualified person applying would statistically be a white person most of the time.

      Not that it matters. Lack of or too much diversity usually seems to be the least of the problems in large corporate bureaucracies.

      Also, affirmative action or an overemphasis on diversity is often blamed for unqualified employees but it’s typically not the only factor. Below-market salaries, poor interview or resume review processes, lack of training and numerous other structural problems can play a role, so that an unqualified white male is just as likely to have a job there as an unqualified African American woman.

      I tend to feel it’s healthy for the demographics of an organization to represent the demographics of the community as much as possible. But as a priority—well, don’t think increased diversity is going to help your organization accomplish any of its goals, make a better mousetrap, or improve efficiencies. Diversity is nice to have, like a pleasingly decorated office or Macs instead of PCs—but those things have minimal real impact on goal attainment.

      Like

      • I think diversity policies are insidious. They actually require discrimination. Diversity policies and non-discrimination policies cannot co-exist. Everyone knows this, even as they pretend not to. It is possible that “diversity” will occur naturally if one has implemented a non-discrimination policy. But if “diversity” is the value one is consciously pursuing, then active discrimination is necessary, and a non-discrimination policy cannot be followed.

        I’ve made this point to our HR department here in London on two separate occasions, of course to no effect at all. Indeed, every single corporate message to employees about the values/goals of my firm include the incredibly grating and plainly dishonest proclamation that the firm is “dedicated to diversity in all its forms”. When I asked HR for the percentages of high school drop outs vs college educated employees we had, to see how we were doing on the “diversity” front in this particular “form”, I was met with bewildered stares.

        The diversity craze is definitely an HR racket, providing employment for all kinds of people who otherwise don’t/can’t do anything useful. But I think it is also much more (and more dangerous) than just that. It rests upon, and therefore necessarily promotes, precisely the notion that we have spent so much time, effort, and blood trying to destroy: that characteristics like race, ethnicity, and sex are inherent to a given person’s worth and value.

        Like

        • That the actual nature of diversity policies bewilder people bewilders me. I can see having to do it because it’s the dominant culture, but that most people can’t see the flaws in the “diversity is always good”—-or the fact diversity is almost exclusively about progressive shibboleths—is bewildering. Certainly there’s no demand for ideological or educational diversity. Height diversity is also not a thing. There’s no effort made to insure weight diversity—and in most cases no interest in age diversity.

          Like

        • KW:

          Certainly there’s no demand for ideological or educational diversity. Height diversity is also not a thing. There’s no effort made to insure weight diversity—and in most cases no interest in age diversity.

          Precisely. Because everyone knows that in most work places, such things have literally no value whatsoever. Which is also why I think my firm’s absurd claim that it seeks “diversity in all its forms” grates on me even more than the whole “diversity” agenda in general.

          Like

        • Your office clearly needs to hire more toddlers to honor their diversity commitment.

          Like

    • In the 90s I had a client whose janitorial staff had no Anglos. Whenever a custodian was fired it was for a good reason but invariably it seemed they would complain to the EEOC. I always defended the racial animus claim with the assertion that my client did not have enough Anglo maintenance staff and that despite trying to achieve balance it was difficult, because current staff always recommended reliable friends and family members for vacancies. So that was who showed up for interviews when they were posted internally and publicly. This would tie EEOC compliance folks in knots, but always resulted in dismissal of the civil rights complaint.

      I have probably told the story of the Persian immigrant who actually sued his boss on the basis of discrimination based on national origin. His boss was an Iranian born American who tried to help out new Persian immigrants by giving them jobs. I videotaped the terminated employee’s video deposition which, when played back during pretrial motions, left the judge in stitches and resulted in plaintiff’s counsel just giving up.

      On the other hand, in the early seventies, I represented an IRS employee in a Title VI action against IRS because he was passed over for less qualified white employees again and again. It became clear on depositions that his supervisor really did not think black people should be in authority. He could not hide his prejudice and really did not want to. He even refused to acknowledge for my client the credit on merit hiring he had earned as an Air Force Sgt.

      Affirmative action in hiring was Nixon’s clever attempt to break the unions by destroying their seniority systems from within. Reap what you sow, I guess.

      Like

      • Nixon sucked all the way around. Shit, the EPA started under him for goodness sake.

        Like

        • And OSHA. But his admin also imposed wage and price controls like a frickin’ communist. So Nixon was, um, a very non-traditional conservative. 😉

          Like

        • That’s why I’ve always been fascinated at the lefts hatred of him. He was one of them!

          Like

        • “I have probably told the story of the Persian immigrant who actually sued his boss on the basis of discrimination based on national origin. His boss was an Iranian born American who tried to help out new Persian immigrants by giving them jobs. I videotaped the terminated employee’s video deposition which, when played back during pretrial motions, left the judge in stitches and resulted in plaintiff’s counsel just giving up.”

          I missed that story.

          Like

    • American support for Russia is at 28% (which is way too high). Why do Republicans hate America?

      This is just amazing. Why–when it’s not a current favored European or Scandinavian state (or Cuba)–does liking or being favorably disposed to another nation translate to “hating America”. And why does it always about the leaders? Can’t folks feel favorably disposed towards the Russian people without wanting to give the keys to the store to Putin? Why–when it’s Russia–is having a good relationship with another superpower suddenly bad? They complain when Trump is adversarial with China, when China’s leadership would make Putin look like a piker when it comes to authoritarianism and murdering their own people.

      Smartest people in the room. Facts have a progressive bias. Uh-huh.

      Like

    • Anybody recall what the word was amongst the far left progressives when Putin first took over? Was it particularly negative? I’m just wondering if at some point he might be seen as a stepping stone to re-establishing the Soviet utopia?

      Like

      • I don’t recall any joy about the rise of Putin, but I don’t read far lefty stuff. What I do think is that Putin might favor Sanders over DJT, were Sanders to become the D nominee [not happening]. Sanders wants to strip the military budget, and he wants to outlaw fracking, I think. Both of those decisions would be music to Putin.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Mark:

          I don’t recall any joy about the rise of Putin…

          Not exactly joy, but surely you remember Obama during his debate with Romney, when Romeny called Russia our primary foe: The 1980’s called and want their foreign policy back. Funny how things change.

          Like

        • Don’t all the Democrats want to do that?

          Like

        • Don’t all the Democrats want to do that?
          From Military Times:
          Senator Klobuchar is committed to maintaining and extending our military superiority over any adversary and ensuring that our troops are the best-trained and best-equipped in the world.
          Senator Sanders: The United States can and should make prudent reductions to its military budget in order to support the needs of young, working, and elderly Americans.
          Mayor Buttigieg: America’s security challenges demand a military budget that provides both the overall capacity and specific capabilities to deter conflict across the globe and fight and win if necessary. I’ve been clear that we need to maintain absolute military superiority.
          Biden: our superiority is being challenged in ways not seen since the Cold War. With the return to great power competition posed by the rise of China and a revanchist Russia…
          Warren: refused interview.

          Klobuchar was a McCain ally on military spending. It is fair to say Biden was as well, for the most part. Buttigieg was a USN officer and reservist and really gave MIlTimes a comfortable interview, I thought.

          On the other issue only Sanders and Warren of the leaders are fracking banners, according to the WaPo. Booker, Steyer, crystal lady and Hawaii chick are too.

          So yes, a sharp distinction there again from Bernie and Warren, who both must lose.

          Like

        • So, the only Democratic candidate who does not want to go to war with Russia is Tulsi Gabbard? Seriously? Doesn’t say much for any Democrat running, does it?

          as far as So yes, a sharp distinction there again from Bernie and Warren, who both must lose.

          What, in your opinion must be done to prevent this?

          If Trump slashed the military budget I’d be forced to vote for him.

          Like

        • What, in your opinion must be done to prevent this?

          I don’t want to prevent them from losing.

          I gave Bullock money for five months and then he dropped out. I will probably support Klobuchar unless she drops out. Then Buttigieg. But if EW or Bernie are nominated I will be assessing the Libertarian candidate again. I am the essence of a never-Trumper. But also a never Warren and never Bernie, but for different reasons. I had reasons to be a never Trumper and a never HRC last time.

          Like

        • I think you were a never-Romneyer too, no?

          Like

        • I think you were a never-Romneyer too, no?

          No. I knew I was going to support BHO but I never thought Romney was either unfit or incapable or dishonest in any meaningful way. It was actually a close choice for me, but it was a choice, and I probably joined in the negative rhetoric defending my choice. That happens. If Romney had run against HRC, Romney would have been a no-brainer for me.

          I never thought I would support anyone but McCain in 2008 until weeks after he added Palin to the ticket. At first I was all for her and I even touted her to George at The Fix. Then I heard her speak twice and she scared the hell out of me as totally unready to assume the presidency if McCain died. So I was the peculiar person who gave McCain more than $500, gave BHO zero, and voted for BHO. I am also the peculiar person who voted for GWB for Gov in 1998 and against him for POTUS in 2000 even though I thought he was a pretty good Gov.

          To be clear, I am a never-Trumper because I think he is a professional con artist. I was a never-HRC because of her legal work enabling bank fraud as exposed by Front Line.

          It is more difficult for me when I don’t have a problem with either nominee then when I have a problem with both. In the first instance I have to vote for one of them. In the second, I don’t.

          Like

        • Mark:

          No. I knew I was going to support BHO…

          I thought you voted for Johnson in 2012?

          During one of the budget disputes of 2013, you said to jnc:

          We voted for Gary Johnson. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE.

          Like

        • You’re right! I was getting down on BHO for Libya, especially. I forgot.

          Like

        • Mark:

          I was getting down on BHO for Libya, especially.

          Indeed, and even more down on Romney, so much so as to throw away your vote on a never-going-to-win LINO instead of Romney. Which is why I assume you were a never-Romneyer, too.

          Like

        • I was not a fan of Romney. I also voted for Johnson, but Tennessee went for Romney which was inevitable.

          Like

        • And Libya has apparently turned out terrible. Even worse than Iraq, if one can imagine. I don’t want to say I want us to be completely isolationist. But I pretty much would prefer us to be completely isolationist.

          I feel like in many ways America is a force for good in the world, and I think that can and sometimes does include foreign policy. However, our military adventurism does not seem to be a particular force for good in the world. I mean, Grenada, right? That was pretty good, I think. Keeping North Korea from taking over South Korea was a positive. WWII I think goes without saying.

          Beyond that . . . eh, we should mostly stay out of it and do a lot of trading with everybody, then slap tariffs or sanctions on people who make us upset.

          Like

        • I voted for McCain specifically because of Palin. Although she turned around and resigned the governership and started working on her TV deals so it turns out you were right.

          Turns out you may have been right about GWB (although I expect wrong about Gore–shudder). I voted for Dubya both times–and frankly, I think he was a very good president except for No Child Behind (I give every president a pass on signing off on some bad legislation) and getting us mired in a couple of endless wars that apparently accomplished nothing but making a huge frickin’ mess. And going after Iraq while buddying up with Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Etc. Oh, and the creation of Homeland Security. And nationalizing the TSA. I think I would have rather had Gore or Kerry as president with a rock solid Republican majority in the house and senate than what we got. But oh well! 20/20 hindsight.

          I figured HRC was going to win, and would not have voted for her because of ClintonCare and how enthusiastic she was about having a secret cabal craft a plan to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy, tell the participants in an entire profession where to work and live and what speciality they could go into and . . . that’s my biggest gripe about HRC. And she deserved to lose in the end because she didn’t want to campaign in flyover country and that whole pointless “deplorables” comment–I was not and am not offended by the comment, but the fact she could have possibly thought that was good campaigning . . . I mean, OMG.

          I would almost certainly support one of the lower-tier Democrats in 2020 over Trump, and because one might actually win I would go ahead and cast my vote for them (despite Trump definitely winning Tennessee–if it weren’t for downticket races, having an election in November would be pointless here). Definitely Tulsi Gabbard.

          But I’m not gonna vote for Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Bloomberg or Yang. Honestly not familiar enough with Steyer. And Gabbard is unlikely to win the Democratic nomination. And I don’t believe Biden will be able to survive a year long presidential campaign.

          Like

        • Tennessee will go for Trump, so how I vote doesn’t particularly matter. Is there a libertarian candidate this time? I could always do a write-in. Yay, protest votes!

          Regarding down ticket, with few exceptions, I’d just vote to throw all the bums out. I’m also typically an Affirmative Action for Republicans guy, and if it’s a primary contest I vote for the minority Republican or libertarian if there is one. Not that it makes a difference. I used to be in Steve Cohen’s district–which is majority African-American–and he consistently trounces Charlotte Bergman (who I voted for), who is African-American. Which just goes to show that when it comes to identity politics, partisanship and ideology trumps race and ethnic identity–and by a whole, whole lot.

          Most discussion about racism and “reverse-racism” in this country is nonsensical. There’s some of it, yes, and there is a lot of invoking of it as a shibboleth–but you put Ben Carson up against Bernie Sanders and all the folks who are supposed to be racist against black people will vote for Carson. All the folks who are supposed to prefer African Americans to white people are going to vote for the old white guy. The tribal solidarity of ideology wins out over racism pretty much every time.

          You give the left a chance to elect the first Mexican-American, ethnically Arabic person, woman, or even gay president, and that person is running as even a quasi-conservative Republican . . . they ain’t gonna vote for that person. Because all those identity groups are shibboleths to be invoked when convenient for rhetoric–but irrelevant when it comes to a competition between parties/ideologies.

          And I think you’d get a whole lot of Evangelical Republicans making their peace with a homosexual as president. If the choice was between, say, a gay Marco Rubio and Elizabeth Warren.

          Like

        • Obama during his debate with Romney, when Romeny called Russia our primary foe

          So Romney was already in the pocket of the “deep state” while Obama had to be recruited once he got elected? 😉

          Like

        • KW:

          Obama had to be recruited once he got elected?

          No reason to think Obama’s jab about Russia was any more intellectually sincere than anything else he said on the campaign trail. Remember, he was also opposed to SSM and said that if you like your plan, you can keep it.

          Like

        • So yes, a sharp distinction there again from Bernie and Warren, who both must lose.

          At present, the only Democrat I’d vote for in the campaign is Tulsi Gabbard.

          And there were a couple of others who sounded Bill Clinton-esque in their campaigning moderation, so I wouldn’t have written most of them off but I think they’ve mostly dropped out.

          In regards to Sander’s curtailing of the military budget . . . I don’t think he’s likely to be president, but if it happens, I get the feeling he’d find that a lot harder than he thinks. To really make it happen, I feel like a president would have to be willing to focus on that almost exclusively and spend all their political capital on it. And be very careful about where they draw their cabinet from. And be prepared to fire a lot of folks.

          Like

        • I get the feeling he’d find that a lot harder than he thinks.

          In presidential campaigns that are contested the candidates often sound like they are running for a legislative seat. They say what they will “do” in 90 days or even on “day one.” So, yeah, the worst ideas of all sides don’t easily come to fruition. But some people still have worse ideas than others.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Consistent policy through three administrations?

    https://tinyurl.com/LyingAboutAfghanistan

    Like

    • I think yes–but also I think this is also an example of what is currently referred to amongst the enthusiastic politifans as “The Deep State”. When it’s discussed (and poo-pooed) amongst the press, but also right-wingers, it’s often about the bureaucracy trying to sabotage Trump. But the more pernicious aspect of “the deep state” would likely be the “military/industrial complex” hat Eisenhower warned about.

      The DoD is about as “deep state” as you can get. And the axis between Homeland Security, the CIA, and FBI + the DoD . . . I dunno, “deep state” seems like as good a description as any, to me.

      I think the largest objection to Trump, as far as “the deep state” is concerned would be his lack of malleability when it comes to letting the bureaucrats set foreign policy carte blanche. I think it explains why once reviled rabid right winger Bill Kristol (and others like him) have suddenly become such a devoted progressives–they have goals and interests that are entirely about globalism and “regime changing” and otherwise trying to reshape the world in their preferred image through FP. And because Trump represents any kind of potential obstacle to that at all, it would be preferably to these “Republicans” to have Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, or potentially even Bernie Sanders as president.

      The one candidate on the Democratic side firmly opposed to our military adventurism–Tulsi Gabbard–has had both barrels unloaded against her, and just like Trump has been accused of being a Russian asset. I don’t feel like that’s just a coincidence.

      Like

      • KW:

        I think it explains why once reviled rabid right winger Bill Kristol (and others like him) have suddenly become such a devoted progressives–they have goals and interests that are entirely about globalism and “regime changing” and otherwise trying to reshape the world in their preferred image through FP.

        It’s not really sudden. Kristol has always been a true neo-con, in the original understanding of the term (as opposed to the mere epithet the left turned it into during W). And remember that the original/real meaning of neo-con was essentially an ideological liberal who rejected the Democrat’s more pacifist foreign policy thinking and wanted to, exactly as you have said, reshape the the world in their preferred image.

        Like

        • Well, not a sudden turn to neo-conservatism, but in terms of partisan politics he swung a hard left towards the far spectrum of the Democrats (while still continuing to characterize him and his fellow neo-cons as the last bulwark of conservatism). He used to be on Fox, made lots of arguments for non-FP Republican policies and positions–meaning I get the impression he’ll be ultra-Republican, just so long as the Republicans have bought into the neo-con positions and the New American Century. Apparently he’s decided the Democrats are actually a better fit, and everything has flipped–except, of course, his position of the US as the world’s policeman.

          Like

    • Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev said the ban was part of “chronic anti-Russian hysteria”.

      Maybe. Or hysteria, period.

      If Russia wants to win some medals, they just need their best male athletes to transition to women and compete in the women’s category. Because growing up and even becoming an adult with male hormones is not considered doping, apparently. 🙂

      Like

  5. counterintuitive:

    https://tinyurl.com/GreenlandRising

    Like

    • I don’t know if it’s counterintuitive–just something (amongst the many of millions of things) we don’t actually know, or didn’t know previously, regarding earth’s climate.

      If the issue is the earth’s mantle becoming a hotter, I’m wondering how human beings are going to be blamed for raising the temperature of the earth’s core. Probably fracking. 😉

      Like

    • And intuition is an interesting thing. It’s intuitive, to me, that we don’t know nearly enough about climate–and do not have the ability or technology to accurate model such a complex multifactor systems–to make any of the predictions or models that we do. But apparently other people do not share that intuition.

      It’s also intuitive to me that many of the technologies advocated for combatting climate change are inherent goods: the more we can control our carbon output, the better. Worth pursuing in its own right. Solar and wind energy are worth developing, as is tidal energy. And nuclear energy, but that’s not as often associated as a climate change combatting technology.

      Less pollution is an inherent positive. So it’s intuitive to me to advocate for that in and of itself, and focus on the smaller and more immediate threats it can pose without moving immediately to “we are going to go extinct”. But, again, that intuition doesn’t seem to be a common one.

      It’s also intuitive to me that we would have macroseasons, and their is plenty of geological evidence for this. That is, we have yearly seasons, and likely have seasons that operate on larger timescales–there’s evidence of 36 year cycles, 500 year cycles, and potentially 10,000 year cycles. It also makes sense that a macroseasonal winter or summer might be worse during one cycle than another because there are so many factors. But I never hear that discussed so I’m assuming that intuition is unique to me. Or so rare as to be statistically irrelevant.

      It’s also intuitive to me to believe that we don’t understand climate or weather well-enough to argue that increasing temperature of a few points of degrees will lead for more severe weather, or that when severe weather occurs there is any way to conclude it would not have happened without climate change.

      It is intuitive to me to expect that rather than apocalypse, even definitive global warming would be like most things in life: it would bring positives and negatives, and would definitely not end with the earth becoming Kevin Costner’s Waterworld.

      Like

      • it isn’t about climate. it is about control.

        Like

        • No doubt. And money–there’s a lot of extorting and laundering of money involved in most of the major climate initiatives. Or electioneering–“I’m going to prevent the apocalypse” appeals to a certain type of voter.

          But I really was just making a pedantic point over what is intuitive and counterintuitive in certain areas. I think people’s intuitions can often vary wildly.

          Including what people recognize as intuition. Lord knows, most of the deference to “the science” (so-called) and believe in climate change and climate models and that the ocean is rising and that we only have 10 years of whatever to save the planet–that’s all “intuitive”, and what data they are aware of remains specifically to buttress their intuition.

          Like

  6. @brentnyitray: ” About the only blemish was the small downtick in the labor force participation rate.”

    Any chance that a lot of that can be attributed to retirement? It seems to me that, with the stock market doing well and the economy being relatively robust (meaning the children you might otherwise be helping out in your senior years can now provide for themselves), it’s not a bad time to retire if you’re the right age.

    Like

    • or more people without jobs entering the workforce. Could mean that the long-term unemployed are getting interest from employers.

      remember, if you aren’t actively looking for a job, you don’t count as far as BLS is concerned. So, it could be an uptick in the number of people actively looking for a job.

      Liked by 1 person

      • So ultimately, in the current market, a downtick in the labor force participation rate can actually be a good indicator potentially?

        Like

        • as a general rule, the fed prefers the employment-population ratio. This strips out the noise from the unemployed being counted sometimes and not counted other times, but it adds demographic noise. so pick your poison.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. Sound like the Horowitz report is much like Comey’s infamous press conference on the Hillary investigation where he explained all the ways in which she had broken the law, and then inexplicably declared that she wasn’t guilty of breaking the law.

    Liked by 1 person

    • horowitz is an obama retread. of course he isn’t going to throw the dude that nominated him under the bus.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Which is completely above-board and totally accurate and clearly everybody has been completely exonerated on this crazy conspiracy theory, so let’s get back to how Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to make things up about completely innocent Hunter and Joe Biden in order to get re-elected, just like he made a deal with Putin to cheat Hillary Clinton of her entitlement to be the first woman president with a massive $100k Facebook spend, and someone guessing that John Podesta’s email password was “password”.

        Maybe nothing untoward happened here. Maybe it was all legit. Sure. Fine. But the double-standard with such things are regarded by the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) continues to ring hollow.

        Like

        • If you haven’t seen Biden’s Axios interview from last night, it’s something. He said he never asked what his son was doing re Burisma and Ukraine becuase he “trusts his son.”

          Really.

          Does Biden not know why he was kicked out of the Navy? Since Hunter denied paternity of the stripped baby I’m assuming he told dad it wasn’t his, and Biden gave the interview after the DNA test came back proving his (Hunter’s) paternity, but he still trusts him?

          Like

        • I haven’t seen it. But what you describe at least sounds coherent. There are times when Biden is speaking that he sounds like he’s had a stroke–and, I mean, even moreso than Trump can.

          Like

    • I think he threaded the needle finer than that by saying that no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, ergo he wasn’t recommending it. Of course, he had his marching orders.

      Like

      • McWing:

        I think he threaded the needle finer than that by saying that no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, ergo he wasn’t recommending it.

        Sure, but given that the reason he claimed that no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case was the absence of intent, I don’t think he really did thread the needle. He just ignored the relevant law, which is defined by the absence of intent.

        Like

  8. How ludicrous is the Dem impeachment process? Today Nadler had his main counsel appear before the committee as a witness, and then proceeded to have him take a seat next to Nadler and start questioning other witnesses.

    https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/12/09/wtf-is-happening-if-anybody-needed-more-proof-nadlers-impeachment-hearing-is-a-total-circus-this-should-do-it/

    Like

    • Um–very ludicrous? Extremely ludicrous? Excessively ludicrous? In-a-bubble-so-out-of-touch-they-have-no-idea-how-ridiculous-they-look ludicrous?

      Another question is, how boring is it and how much of a huge waste of time and taxpayer money does it seem? Because it seems like a lot.

      Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: