/news/ - News

News & Current Events + Happenings

Boards | Catalog | Bottom

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

News & Current Events + Happenings
/news/ deserves actual news. Declaring agendas are not news. Do not post trolling bait threads.
Post quality threads only, and it's voluntary to crosspost them to /pol/
Never mandatory.

Kentucky Judge Guilty Of Human Trafficking, Underage Rape Given Slap On The Wrist, A Complete Mockery Of Justice Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 18:22:37 Id: f41552 [Preview] No. 6381 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
A former judge and politician will serve as little as four years in prison after pleading guilty to 21 counts of human trafficking of minors, and giving heroin to minors, proving yet again there is one law for us, and another for them.

The former Campbell County judge used hard drugs, threats of arrest and threats of eviction to force women and girls under the age of 18 into sex acts, according to the charges read in court by Judge Kathleen Lape.

Under the plea agreement, Nolan will serve 20 years in prison and pay a $100,000 fine. He would be eligible for parole in four years, his attorney said. The judge will sentence him on March 29.

Cincinnati.com reports: The case has shocked the region. Nolan served as a district judge in the late 1970s and early 1980s and had become a well-known political figure. He campaigned locally for President Donald Trump, was vocal on many conservative/tea party issues, and was elected to the Campbell County School Board in 2016.

Nolan, 71, entered the courtroom in Newport in a gray suit with a calm expression as he surveyed the few people in the gallery, mostly media. No family from either side were in the courtroom.

After pleading guilty, Nolan thank his attorneys, the judge and a doctor who was involved in his case “who made me realize things.”

“Thank you, judge, for your tolerance in this case,” Nolan said.

For 10 minutes, Lape read the counts to Nolan, who pleaded guilty to each one.


Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Scientists Invent “Super Wood” That Can Replace Steel Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 12:08:09 Id: 873ee2 [Preview] No. 6245 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
Scientists have invented “super wood” devised to make the traditional wood 12 times stronger. With its strength, the new invention can potentially replace steel and serve as a lighter, cheaper and more renewable alternative.

The inventors say the “super wood” made of robust material can also stop bullets, and it can also be used in cars, airplanes, buildings and even serve as body armor.

Lead researcher Liangbing Hu and his University of Maryland team already had their creation tested in the lab. Their research was also recently published in Nature.

Scientists have been trying to enhance the strength of wood for a long time. This breakthrough is being welcomed with excitement since it can be truly beneficial to the world given that wood is abundant and relatively cheap.

The researchers ran an experiment that involved firing bullet-like projectiles at the material alongside regular wood. While the researchers ripped through the regular wood, the “super wood” managed to block them halfway through.

The breakthrough uses a treatment that can be applied to all types of wood (including softer wood) to make them denser. The said treatment follows a simple, two-step method that starts with boiling the wood in a solution of sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfite, a chemical treatment similar to the first step in creating the wood pulp used to make paper. Such is meant to remove in parts some of the elements that stiffen a plant’s cell wall, while still leaving intact the overall structure.

The second step is as easy as it involves compressing the treated wood until its cell walls collapse, then maintaining that compression as it is gently heated. The pressure then kick-starts a chemical bond between the forms of atoms that comprise the wood cellular structure, greatly strengthening the material in the process.

The treatment can be applied to huge amounts of wood at once and also allows them to bend and mold the material into the desired shape at the start.


Message too long. Click here to view full text.

5 posts omitted.

Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 00:02:19 Id: 6229c1 [Preview] No.6293 del
yes, some species even found ways to extract toxicity out of fibers, esp for treated cardbox. But what's most silly about the proposal is that from an ecological standpoint we would be cutting more wood, wasting chemicals to make it toxic enough, to reintroduce it to the environment, you know effectively polluting.
I can mitigate a nuclear power plant for heat to remold malleable steel as many times it needs repair or repurposing, unlike this decayed paper.

Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 00:23:02 Id: f74d7d [Preview] No.6296 del
The lumber industry routinely replants more and more trees unlike a lot of environmentalists tend to think. They use the old dying trees and keep planting new ones every single year. Kind of like a natural cycle, in with the new, out with the old selling it for lumber. So there won't be a shortage of trees anytime soon, not with the way those lumber companies do things. I've known people who work as lumberjacks, they'll cut down 400 to 500 big trees per year, and have other employees constantly planting others in nearby acres that the company also owns.

The toxic chemicals in that treated wood though, yah, I could see disposing that stuff having some negative impact.

Overall the invention is bad ass though. Think about being able to build weather-proof / bullet-proof homes! Homes so fortified that they could stand very strong storms / tornadoes near-by. You could fortify your doors cheaper without as much hassle, making them resistant to any intruder. Build sheds that won't weather or fall apart. Barns that could last for hundreds of years. New cheap body armor. The positives way outdo the negatives.

Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 01:02:57 Id: 6229c1 [Preview] No.6308 del
rate of consumption & pollutants reintroduction
>invention is badass
Sorry, spider web synthesis is badass. This just recycling paper tech.
Either way:
cement >>>>>> metals for housing and reinforce structures for cheapness

Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 02:06:25 Id: f74d7d [Preview] No.6321 del
Hey, whatever is cheap and available I use. I just think this would be one good option if sold on the market, I know a lot of people would buy this stuff up, so would I. I'd love to re-enforce my whole door (or just make a new one) out of this kind of super wood material (I have a re-enforced door but its not bullet proof). I've worked with steel before but that costs money. Cement yah, but I don't live in a cement home. I've mixed and poured plenty of cement for my porch and driveway before. Though cheap, its the time that it takes to do that kinda work that gets to you.

Anything newly available that can be put to use is what I call progress in the market place. If spider web armor/panels is the next big thing, then that's fine with me as long as us folks are able to purchase it.

Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 06:38:59 Id: 341a0b [Preview] No.6373 del
>Super Wood” That Can Replace Steel
does it hold against whiskey?

Former Official Confirms Steele's Fake Dossier Was Shared With Obama State Department Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 01:23:24 Id: 97a3a0 [Preview] No. 6311 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
(16) https://archive.fo/6A2Ef >>>/news/5604
(17) https://archive.fo/9DIA3 >>>/news/5680
(18) https://archive.fo/DbCIo >>>/news/5702
(19) https://archive.fo/h4QOv >>>/news/5704
(20) https://archive.fo/AeXkq >>>/news/5708
(21) https://archive.fo/hCfK6 >>>/news/5717
(22) https://archive.fo/6Qgd6 >>>/news/5806
(23) https://archive.fo/W28rd >>>/news/5889
(24) https://archive.fo/9L9GK >>>/news/5934
(25) https://archive.fo/lEIQa >>>/news/5979
(26) https://archive.fo/AaPhH >>>/news/6011
(27) https://archive.fo/7Y9p5 >>>/thestorm/37821

A former official in President Obama's State Department has confirmed a claim by the Senate Judiciary Committee, that former British spy Christopher Steele and Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal gave him intelligence reports claiming that President Trump had been compromised by the Russians.

Jonathan Winer, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, confirmed the Judiciary Committee's claims in an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "Devin Nunes is investigating me: Here's the Truth."

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Reader 02/10/2018 (Sat) 01:24:04 Id: 97a3a0 [Preview] No.6312 del
In Winer's op-ed, he says that he took Steele's information on Trump and shared it with former Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, who then notified former Secretary of State, john Kerry.

Winer then gave Steele various anti-Trump memos from Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal, which originated with Clinton "hatchet man" Cody Shearer. Winer claims he didn't think Steele would share the Clinton-sourced information with anyone else in the government.

“But I learned later that Steele did share them — with the FBI, after the FBI asked him to provide everything he had on allegations relating to Trump, his campaign and Russian interference in U.S. elections,” Winer writes.

On Monday, Steele skipped out on a UK court appearance following the "Grassley Memo" which notes that he lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media - leading the FBI to terminate their relationship with Steele, despite relying heavily on his work to apply for a FISA surveillance warrant on one-time Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

Steele was expected for a long-requested deposition in a multi-million dollar civil case brought against Buzzfeed, which published a salacious and unverified "Trump-Russia" dossier.

The Grassley memo outlines Steele's involvement with the two dossiers now confirmed by Winer's op-ed.

"There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility," reads the unredacted document that refers Steele for criminal prosecution in the US.

Steele was paid $168,000 by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was funded in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, who used law firm Perkins Coie as an intermediary.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Good! Illinois Supreme Court Voids Firearm Exclusion Zone Around Public Parks Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 23:33:53 Id: 6f7da4 [Preview] No. 6289 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
On Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a state prohibition on firearm possession within 1,000 feet of a public park violates the Second Amendment. The case is People v. Chairez.

Chairez pleaded guilty in 2013 to possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of Virgil Gilman Trail, a public park in Aurora, IL. He later sought to void the conviction, arguing that the state’s 1,000 foot exclusion zones around various public places essentially amounted to a ban on carrying firearms in public, a right that has been expressly recognized by Illinois’ high court.

In resolving the case, the justices limited their consideration to the exclusion zone around public parks, as that was the only such zone implicated by Chairez’s own conviction.

The court noted that whether or not the exclusion zone itself – rather than the actual park – could be considered a “sensitive place,” it still had to conduct a Second Amendment analysis. In other words, the court found that language in District of Columbia of Columbia v. Heller deeming restrictions on certain “sensitive places” to be “presumptively lawful” did not conclusively exempt restrictions in those places from some sort of scrutiny under the Second Amendment.

The court applied what it called a “sliding scale of intermediate scrutiny” standard of review, taking into account how closely and pervasively the restriction affects the core right of self-defense and whose rights are implicated.

It answered the first question by noting that the contested restriction covers “vast number of public areas across the state,” particularly in urban locales. Within those areas, moreover, the restriction amounts to an outright ban on carrying usable firearms for self-defense.

Answering the second question, the court found the prohibition provided no exception for law-abiding individuals.

It, therefore, characterized the restriction’s burden on Second Amendment rights as “severe” and subject to “elevated intermediate scrutiny analysis.” This requires the state to show a very strong public-interest justification and a close fit between the government’s means and its end, as well as proving that the “public’s interests are strong enough to justify so substantial an encumbrance on individual Second Amendment rights.”

The court found that the state failed to offer any “useful statistics or empirically supported conclusions” to justify its asserted public safety rational for the contested gun ban. “Without specific data or other meaningful evidence,” Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote, “we see no direct correlation between the information the State provides and its assertion that a 1000-foot firearm ban around a public park protects children, as well as other vulnerable persons, from firearm violence.”

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Federal Reserve Calls Cryptocurrencies 'Dystopian' For Users' Lack of Trust In Govt, Central Banks Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 19:57:30 Id: 4b6f80 [Preview] No. 6273 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
Amid a relentless barrage of doom and gloom - and then some more doom for good measure - establishment forecasts about the future of cryptocurrencies, including everyone from Goldman, to the BIS, to the World Bank, all of which have been some iteration on how cryptos have no future, this morning an unexpectedly objective and somber view on the future of bitcoin came from none other than the organization that prints (out of thin air) the nemesis to bitcoin: the Federal Reserve.

While the emphasis of the Q&A with New York Fed economists Michael Lee and Antoine Martin, which we have republished below, is the issue of "trust" and how it defines monetary exchange, there are several things that attracted our attention.

The first is the Fed's take on what we have been saying since 2015, and the reason behind bitcoin's original surge in 2015/2016, namely its use for illicit purposes:

The Drug Enforcement Administration reports a sharp decline in bulk cash smuggling in 2016, which is the traditional payment method for drug shipments and suggests that payments may have shifted toward cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are more convenient than cash for many illegal activities that now take place online.

... cryptocurrencies are ideal for circumventing legal or regulatory authorities, because they aren’t governed by any. China, which actively controls capital flow, banned banks from dealing with bitcoin in 2013 (this was relaxed later), because it was thought to be used for money laundering. North Korea is reportedly responsible for state-sponsored hacks to steal cryptocurrencies, which help bypass economic sanctions that are enforced through the cooperation of financial institutions and countries.

This - the ability to hide and store dramatic amount of wealth in a tiny space - is also the reason why according to Goldman cryptocurrencies are really cryptocommodities, as they are not backed by a monetary authority like the Fed. This what Goldman said earlier this week: "Unlike other storage commodities like oil, gold, platinum, diamonds, and even cash, there is no need to hold much physical material to own bitcoin; even a technology as obsolete as the 3½ inch floppy disk can hold almost 30,000 private keys. There is no theoretical upper limit to the value of bitcoins in a wallet, but if we assume each wallet secured by this disk contains as much as the largest wallet today (180,000 BTC), this single disk could “hold” all bitcoins in existence and remain less than 0.5% full. Assuming a bitcoin market cap of roughly $190bn (as of late January), this disk would be the equivalent to either: 95% of the 4,583 tons of gold in Fort Knox, or 1,344 Very Large Crude Carrier supertankers of oil."

Next follows an exchange that many opponents of bitcoin have been leery to engage in, namely why does cryptos have value if they aren't backed by anything. The Fed's response - the admission that the dollar is in the same boat thanks to Nixon - is needless to say , surprising.

Q. If virtual currencies aren't backed by anything real, gold or some other physical commodity, does that mean they all eventually will be worthless?

A. You're right that they are not backed by a physical commodity, but then neither is the dollar and most other modern currencies. It’s long been known that currencies that are intrinsically worthless, mere pieces of paper, are recognized as valuable because payments with money are so much easier than the alternative, barter. The problem with barter, when everyone trades goods and services directly, is the dreaded “double coincidence of wants.” If I want to have dinner at my favorite restaurant but the cook is not interested in trading a meal for a bitcoin lecture, I have to keeping searching until I find a restaurant that I like where, coincidentally, the cook can’t hear enough about bitcoin.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 19:58:30 Id: 4b6f80 [Preview] No.6274 del
Money, even intrinsically worthless paper money, cuts the “double coincidence” problem in half. I just need to find someone willing to pay me some of that paper for my lecture, then use that paper to pay for dinner. As long as I trust that someone will accept the paper, I’m willing to accept it in exchange for my lecture. It’s trust that the “worthless” piece of paper is actually worth something to other people that makes it an acceptable medium of exchange.

As a result, the price of bitcoin fluctuates with news that vendors or firms accept or decline bitcoin as a mode of payment. Late last year, bitcoin prices jumped after Square, a payments firm, was reported to be testing bitcoin. Wider adoption and acceptance of cryptocurrencies as a payment option naturally increases what they are worth.

All those points are rather spot on, and usually are remiss from the defense arsenal of some of the even staunchest bitcoin advocates.

What was most interesting, however, was the Fed's observation under what conditions cryptos could not only match, but supplant fiat as the dominant currency. The answer: bitcoin would dominate payment methods in a dystopian world, in other words a "decentralized" world, in which there is no more faith - or trust - in central banks.

Which, of course, is the whole point behind cryptocurrencies in the first place: to replace the dollar, and other fiat currencies, once the entire fractional-reserve lending platform, and last 100 years of monetary philosophy are exposed to be a fraud.

"Lunacy" you say? Well, it's a conversation worth having after the next market crash, one which most likely will wipe out what little faith remains in central banks, in fractional reserve lending, in conventional economics and in fiat.

Incidentally, this is precisely what Deutsche Bank's chief credit strategist, Jim Reid, predicted would be the ultimate endgame: the extinction of fiat, and the return to hard, or alternative, currency.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 19:58:51 Id: 4b6f80 [Preview] No.6275 del
Here is the Fed:

Q: So are cryptocurrencies the future of money?

Martin: It will ultimately depend on how well they compete with other, already established payment methods—cash, checks, debit and credit cards, PayPal, and others. Cryptocurrencies arguably solve the problem of making payments in a trustless environment, but it is not obvious that this is a problem that needs solving, at least in the United States and other advanced economies. And solving that problem creates others. One is scalability; the process of picking random validators takes time, is expensive, and consumes tremendous amounts of energy.

Another issue lately is extreme volatility in the value of cryptocurrencies which makes them less useful as currencies. This volatility is an inherent feature by design. Since there is no central bank that adjusts the supply of bitcoin to accommodate changes in demand, bitcoin's value can swing sharply with demand. In a world where all things were priced in bitcoin, this would likely translate into massive swings in inflation and economic activity. In contrast, providing an “elastic” currency to promote financial and price stability is a goal shared by the Federal Reserve System, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and many other central banks.

The trust-proofing provided by cryptocurrencies also comes at the expense of another key feature of a payment method: convenience. If we lived in a dystopian world without trust, bitcoin might dominate existing payment methods. But in this world, where people do tend to trust financial institutions to handle payments and central banks to maintain the value of money it seems unlikely that bitcoin could ever be as convenient as existing payment means.

That said, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are trying to improve scalability and convenience so perhaps in the future one of these cryptocurrencies could realistically compete with current payment methods. But, fundamentally, we wonder whether a payment method designed to function where trust in institutions is completely absent can ever be as convenient as one where trust is required, but also already exists.

The punchline, again:

If we lived in a dystopian world without trust, bitcoin might dominate existing payment methods. But in this world, where people do tend to trust financial institutions to handle payments and central banks to maintain the value of money it seems unlikely that bitcoin could ever be as convenient as existing payment means.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 22:38:12 Id: 0bbcbe [Preview] No.6285 del
you know that you are winning when the governmental rulecucks start shitting their pants about cryptos going to the moon and they can't do jack about it
t. guy who has 200+ BTC from 7 years ago

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 22:45:03 Id: 9d7671 [Preview] No.6286 del
>for NOT trusting big brother
>for NOT trusting ponzi schemes

Hahahaha! Their upside-down logic really reminds me of "war is peace" and "freedom is slavery" mentality of that Orwell book (I know its over-referenced but still their hypocrisy describes it down to a key).

Pastor Begley: Melania Trump Hired Exorcist To Cleanse White House Of Obama's Demons Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 03:13:25 Id: d81f26 [Preview] No. 6224 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
First Lady Melania Trump demanded the White House undergo a complete exorcism, with “pagan idols and demonic artifacts” from “the Clinton and Obama years” removed from the premises before she would set foot in the building, according to White House pastor Paul Begley.

“I’m not going to go into that White House unless it has been completely exorcised,” Melania Trump told Pastor Begley.

“They cleansed the White House,” the pastor said. “They had people in there anointing it with oil and praying everywhere.”

After the First Lady had finished removing pagan and demonic items, only one thing was left – a cross on the wall. The White House is now free of all pagan gods and idols, and contains only Christian iconography.

“Because apparently during the eight years when Obama was there, and maybe even some of the presidents before him, there were all kinds of idol gods and images and all kinds of artifacts in there that were demonic, even some of the stuff from the Clinton era,” Begley said.

The White House pastor then related that the First Lady said, “‘You’ve got to get all of that out of there and send in some preachers and priests‘” – she wanted respected Christian leaders — to go in and cleanse the White House or, ‘I will not spend one night in it.’”

“I have to say, when the president allowed 40 pastors to come in to the White House and anoint him with oil and lay their hands and pray on him—seven times he’s done this—that is unheard of,” Begley said. “We haven’t ever – the guy’s got flaws, we all do. But at least he is humble enough and recognizing that he needs God enough that he keeps bringing them in for the prayer.”

Pastor Begley made his remarks during the Feb. 2 edition of Weekend Vigilante, hosted by Sheila Zilinsky.

In his book, My Life, former president Bill Clinton confessed that he and Hillary hosted a voodoo ceremony where an alleged “spirit arrived,” possessed participants walked on hot coals and burnt their flesh with fire, and at one point, a person bit the head off a living chicken.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 05:27:35 Id: 85f897 [Preview] No.6231 del
(97.82 KB 770x840 Minni.jpg)
>this isn't the Onion
>this is real
First let me say, I hate Obama and the shit he put us through due to ObamaCare which is why millennials are crying falsely over "all older generations fucked us to work two jobs". It was corporate fear reducing full time of hourly wage slaves.
But this is almost as ridiculous as letting your daughter marry and convert to the insane religion of a bunch of sidebraids and tiny hats wearing wall rapists.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 09:33:28 Id: d90d9f [Preview] No.6241 del
Now this is fucking hilarious! I'm trying to find the video, and I do know this Pastor Begley guy has been on Sheila Zilinsky's show before. Can't seem to find the most recent one but it must be worth the listen.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 21:33:38 Id: a98f0b [Preview] No.6283 del
Good for Melania and good for Trump.

Third World: 50,000 American Bridges Are "Structurally Deficient" Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 12:22:52 Id: bfff99 [Preview] No. 6250 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
Last week, President Trump announced his proposal for a $1.5 trillion infrastructure program in his State of The Union address to the American people. He failed to mention that over the next decade, the federal government would provide very little money whatsoever for America’s crumbling bridges, rails, roads, and waterways.

In fact, Trump’s plan counts on state and local governments working in tandem with private investors to fork up the cash for projects.

In overhauling the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, the federal government is only willing to pledge $200 billion in federal money over the next decade, leaving the remainder of $1.3 trillion for cities, states, and private companies.

Precisely how Trump’s infrastructure program would work remains somewhat of a mystery after his Tuesday night speech, as state transportation officials warned that significant hikes to taxes, fees, and tolls would be required by local governments to fund such projects.

To get an understanding of the severity of America’s crumbling infrastructure. The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) has recently published a shocking report specifying more than 50,000 bridges across the country are rated “structurally deficient.

If the “structurally deficient” bridges were placed end-to-end, they would stretch 1,216 miles or nearly the distance between Miami and New York City, said ARTBA. Cars, trucks, and school buses cross these 54,259 compromised structures more than 175 million times per day, which it is only a matter of time before another Mississippi River Bridge collapse occurs.

Here are the highlights from the report:

54,259 of the nation’s 612,677 bridges are rated “structurally deficient.”

Americans cross these deficient bridges 174 million times daily.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 19:12:25 Id: ef5891 [Preview] No.6270 del
Our government spends over a Trillion $$$ a year... taxes the middle class to oblivion... and yet won't even spend a few billion dollars to fix our crumbling infrastructure across the country and keep Americans safe.

Beyond sad. Beyond pathetic. Beyond rotten. The only way to describe it: third world corruption!

Netanyahu Faces Huge Criminal Scandle, Israeli Police Hint At Indictments Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 13:01:43 Id: 2a08ad [Preview] No. 6252 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
Israeli police have recommended that state prosecutors indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over corruption and misuse of public funds.

The police are to formally announce its recommendation in Cases 1000 and 2000 next week.

Jpost.com reports: The investigating team, led by the head of the Lahav 433 anti-corruption unit Dep.-Ch. Koresh Bar-Nur, plans to meet with Police Commissioner Insp.-Gen. Roni Alsheich on Wednesday, ahead of the decision. The team will present its conclusions, as well as a document that summarizes both cases – which entails its recommendation on whether or not to indict Netanyahu.

Various media reports suggested that police are leaning toward recommending to the state prosecution that it should indict the prime minister in both Cases 1000 and 2000.

Channel 2 News highlighted the importance of the meeting on Wednesday and said that it will be held until a unanimous decision is made.

In Case 1000, the “expensive gifts affair,” police suspect that Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, received presents worth hundreds of thousands of shekels from various businessmen, and in return the prime minister used his influence to benefit them.

One of these businessmen is international movie producer Arnon Milchan. In a recent Channel 10 News report, it was revealed that during a meeting to discuss how Netanyahu could help him in extending his US visa, the latter asked him: “Where are my cigars?”

In Case 2000, the “Yediot Aharonot affair,” it is suspected that Netanyahu negotiated with Yediot Aharonotnewspaper publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes for favorable coverage, in exchange for support of a bill to weaken Israel Hayom, the largest circulation Hebrew-language paper and Yediot’s biggest competitor.

In August, a court document revealed that the prime minister was suspected of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 17:51:42 Id: 4931ca [Preview] No.6262 del
(3.88 MB 1024x576 gas gas gas.webm)
give em the gas

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 18:53:09 Id: 029d4a [Preview] No.6266 del
(84.68 KB 310x165 275.png)
>implying simple insecticide pellets were dropped through solid concrete columns to gas thousands at a time and it didn't escape through the flimsy wooden door

Stock Market Crashes, Total Bloodbath! ALL Gains From Last Year Lost! Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 01:43:05 Id: 9aad83 [Preview] No. 6223 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
VERY LIKELY RELATED! Hundreds of CEOs In America Resigning En Mass: https://archive.fo/Vxsub


Confirming JPMorgan's "worst case scenario" that forced de-levering in vol-based strategies would lead to retail ETF outflows and create a vicious cycle downwards, Morgan Stanley's Christopher Metli warns that today’s moves lower are likely not being driven by systematic supply – this appears to be more discretionary selling.

Risk-Parity funds are seeing some of the biggest losses in history...

But, as we previously detailed, JPMorgan offered hope that this vicious circle of de-leveraging could be stalled - and had been in the past - by dip-buyers from greater-fool retail inflows.

In the past, just as we have seen this year, these risk-parity-correlation tantrums have been cushioned by equity market inflows, and we note that, in particular, YTD equity ETF flows have surpassed the $100bn mark, a record high pace.

If these equity ETF flows, which JPMorgan believes are largely driven by retail investors, start reversing, not only would the equity market retrench, but the resultant rise in bond-equity correlation would likely induce de-risking by risk parity funds and balanced mutual funds, magnifying the eventual equity market sell-off.

Which could be a problem... As ETF outflows are surging...

And as Morgan Stanley's Christopher Metli - who previously explained what happens when VIX goes bananas - notes, today’s moves lower are likely not being driven by systematic supply – this appears to be more discretionary selling.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

3 posts omitted.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 12:43:25 Id: 1e8c06 [Preview] No.6251 del
Actually I was wrong, not ALL profits from last year were lost, ALL from this year were lost, and some from last year too but not all.

Regardless, correction was likely needed because we were blowing up big bubbles and that is not real economic growth. Why Trump suddenly claimed it was when a couple years ago he admitted the stock market was rigged, who knows? Mostly politicized I assume.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 15:54:15 Id: cff01f [Preview] No.6257 del

Obviously, yes. They got greedy and saw mega growth since the last crash in 2015 and never saw it coming, would not listen.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 15:54:39 Id: cff01f [Preview] No.6258 del

Well, that too.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 15:55:44 Id: cff01f [Preview] No.6259 del

Yes, the stock market is rigged.

The left is trying to ruin the markets for Trump also.

And the Fed private banking scam thugs and criminals are raising interest rated, to try to ruin things for Trump also.

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 17:24:49 Id: 9d996f [Preview] No.6260 del
I think Peter Schiff was right when he said Trump made a big mistake by promoting the stock market as a real economy. Trump should have stuck to his guns and kept saying "look folks, like it or not the stock market is rigged and we are going to have some tough times ahead to fix all this mess." If Trump would have just set the record straight, instead of trying to wave signal for an ego-boost people would not blame Trump for this mess. Now they likely will because he co-operated with these deep state cocksuckers just like Obama did. And he can't ease his way out of this PR disaster unless he just tells the truth and admits "yah, I made a mistake, I should have told ya'll about the mess I've inherited. Sorry." At least then people will have some hope he's not trying to con us.

Obama's EPA Colluded With Monsanto To Allow Cancerous Herbicide Roundup Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 12:20:22 Id: ea468a [Preview] No. 6248 [Reply] [Last 50 Posts]
RELATED: https://archive.fo/dis4i

A new release of emails between Monsanto and senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reveal deep collusion and a forceful effort by Monsanto to halt a safety review for their top-selling herbicide, Roundup.


The email communications, uncovered by a Freedom of Information Act request, revealed Monsanto’s forceful influence over the EPA and showed just how far they will go to control the science. In the communications, EPA officials worked with Monsanto to delay a toxicology review on glyphosate that was supposed to be conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The collusion began in early 2015, back when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had declared Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, a “probable human carcinogen.” The IARC findings infuriated Monsanto; the corporation stands by their claims of glyphosate safety. With lawsuits coming down on them, Monsanto senior officials knew that something had to be done to make glyphosate appear safe again in the public’s eye. Monsanto feared that ATSDR might have similar concerns about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, so Monsanto officials used their connections at the EPA to put a stop on the toxicological review.

The emails reveal that EPA officials kept in contact with Monsanto and even updated them on their progress for halting the ATSDR toxicological review. The emails detail how Monsanto tries to cover up scientific review of their agrichemicals, vindicating lawsuits that allege Monsanto tried to cover up glyphosate’s evidence of harm in cancer cases.

Since glyphosate plays such a large role U.S. agriculture and lawn care, and with IARC classifying the herbicide a “probable carcinogen,” it was absolutely essential for ATSDR to publish a review on the widely used herbicide. In February 2015, the agency promised a toxicology review on glyphosate by October 2015, but it was halted and no toxicological profile has been published to date. We now know why this happened, with emails revealing Monsanto’s pressure to stop it.

Jess Rowland, former deputy division director within the health effects division of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), retired in 2016 after communicating to Monsanto her desire to kill the ATSDR review. According to the email dump, Rowland is not the only high level EPA official working with Monsanto to stop the toxicology review. At the behest of Monsanto, a consortium of EPA officials aggressively pressured the ATSDR and HHS, claiming that a toxicology review on glyphosate is unnecessarily “duplicative” because the EPA was putting their own review together. Not surprising, the EPA’s assessment in 2016 refuted IARC’s scientific proof that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.

One of the Monsanto collaborators is Michael Dykes, long time vice president of government affairs for Monsanto. He was in direct communication with Jim Jones, the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, which had oversight on the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). In the beginning, Monsanto’s Dykes questioned the EPA’s Jones on the ATSDR review: “You were not aware of their review. Did you learn anything more about their efforts?”

Reader 02/09/2018 (Fri) 12:20:39 Id: ea468a [Preview] No.6249 del
OPP Director Jack Housenger kowtowed to Monsanto repeatedly through the email communications, bending over and doing as Monsanto wished. Trying to suppress the ATSDR review, Housenger pressed “whether this is a good use of government resources.” At first, officials with the ATSDR review didn’t bend. ATSDR division director James Stephens wrote back saying their review overlaps the EPA’s review “but isn’t totally duplicative…”

Monsanto’s chief scientist William Heydens was very forceful in the matter, convincing EPA officials to bury any ATSDR review. ATSDR officials said their review was distinguishable and not duplicative but agreed with Housenger not to make a call on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. When Housenger confirmed to Monsanto that the ATSDR was backing off the review, Monsanto’s William Heydens menacingly replied, “Distinguishable and not duplicative’? Seriously? And I will believe the not ‘making a call on cancer’ part when I see it. Anyway, at least they know they are being watched, and hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid…”