Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 165)
Politics

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh looks on during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing September 4, 2018.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh looks on during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing September 4, 2018. (Photo: Reuters)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) completed its supplemental background investigation on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The White House reviewed the FD-302s, or interview reports filled out by the agent or agents conducting the interviews, and found nothing to corroborate allegations of sexual misconduct.

What is a 302?

FBI form FD-302 is used by agents to “report or summarize the interviews that they conduct.” It has space to list the name or names of the agent, the date of the interview, the name of the interviewee or witness, the location of the interview and so on. It also allows the agent to draft a memo—in paragraph form—of what the witness said. They typically range from one page long to twenty pages long, depending on the length of the interview.

The key part of a 302 is the memo section, a combination of what the agent was able to write down during the interview and their recollection afterward. It either will list the agents’ questions and answers or serve as a simple narrative of what the witness said. Regardless, it largely consists of information taken from the subject, interviewee or witness, rather than details about the subject, themselves.

The FBI was ordered by President Donald Trump last week to look into allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Judge Kavanaugh. Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., joined Senate Democrats in calling for the investigation after he and his initial accuser, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, testified before the Senate Judiciary last week.

Judge Kavanaugh, 53, serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Trump nominated the “Judge’s Judge” to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced a few weeks before that he would retire, effective July 31.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began holding hearings for the confirmation on September 4. Despite Democrats’ repeated attempts to obstruct, pay protestors and stage outbursts, they didn’t land a glove on him.

Then, Professor Ford, a liberal activist and Palo Alto University psychology professor, alleged Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at a high-school party in or about 1982, when he was 17 and she was 15. She can’t be certain of the year, how she got to and from the event, and has even given various versions of the story.

There is no contemporaneous evidence. The persons named in her accounts have changed, depending on the various versions told to the Washington Post, her therapist or to lawmakers in the U.S. Senate.

The allegation, which has been disputed by all parties mentioned in her account, including by her own friend, was made in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She withheld it for 6 weeks and it was only until after the committee held the confirmation hearings that the letter was leaked against Professor Ford’s wishes to remain anonymous.

Raj Shah, the principal deputy press secretary for the White House, said the FBI report is currently “being transmitted to the Senate.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Feinstein will be given the first chance to look at the report at 8:00 AM EST.

Sources told Fox News President Trump is “fully confident” Judge Kavanuagh will be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., already filed cloture late Wednesday night to set up a key procedural vote for Friday. A confirmation vote could come as early as Saturday.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawyers representing Professor Ford are withholding therapist notes and polygraph results they claim to have prepared for the FBI. Heather Sawyer and Michael R. Bromwich, who along with partner Debra Katz, are Democratic activist lawyers known for highly-partisan causes. The firm responded to the FBI wrapping up the report.

“An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford — nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony — cannot be called an investigation,” the statement read. “We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth.”

It is a common Democratic talking point to phrase the investigation as one that was restricted. While the White House did specify that allegations must be “current and credible,” it did not place restrictions on who the FBI could or could not interview. In truth, none of the accusations made against Judge Kavanaugh are credible allegations by legal standards.

A growing number of legal experts cite concern for Professor Ford regarding her representation, who appear more concerned about how the politics of the confirmation will impact Democrats than they do about their client. Given what we know now to be her penchant for inconsistencies and ever-changing key details, she risks serious legal jeopardy speaking with the FBI.

Any inconsistency, no matter how small, can be used to charge someone with a process crime, or knowingly making false statements to a federal agent. Over the last few days, with the FBI conducting their investigation, Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers have received greater media scrutiny, and it’s casting even more doubt on their credibility.

The Senate Judiciary Committee received a signed statement from a man claiming to be Professor Ford’s ex-boyfriend. He said he “found her truthful and maintain no animus” during their relationship from 1992-1998, but that he “witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam.”

“During that time, it was my understanding that [Ford’s roommate, Monica] McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and US Attorney’s Office,” he claimed under penalty of perjury. “I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam.”

Worth noting, a witness generally does not see the 302 or get a chance to correct recollection mistakes before it is finalized.

The FBI completed its investigation into U.S.

Politics

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testifies before U.S. Senate Judiciary Commitee, alleging sexual assault allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on September 27, 2018.

Democratic lawyers representing Professor Christine Blasey Ford are withholding therapist notes and polygraph results they claim to have prepared for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote that the committee is requesting “material evidence relevant to allegations of sexual assault made by your client” against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and “I urge you to comply promptly with my requests.”

[su_document url=”https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Chairman-Chuck-Grassley-Letter-Ford-Lawyers.pdf” width=”720″ height=”860″]

Heather Sawyer and Michael R. Bromwich, who along with partner Debra Katz, are Democratic activist lawyers known for highly-politicized Democratic causes. The firm responded to Chairman Grassley Wednesday.

“Regarding the documents you have requested in your letter of October 2, 2018, Dr. Ford is prepared to provide those documents to the FBI when she is interviewed,” Sawyer and Bromwich said in the letter to Chairman Grassley. “We have not yet heard from the FBI about scheduling an intervew with her.[sic]”

The initial letter came Tuesday evening shortly after allegations Professor advised her friend on polygraph examinations, something she denied testified under oath.

“The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations,” the chairman from Iowa added.

The Senate Judiciary Committee received a signed statement from a man claiming to be Professor Ford’s ex-boyfriend. He said he “found her truthful and maintain no animus” during their relationship from 1992-1998, but that he “witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam.”

“During that time, it was my understanding that [Ford’s roommate, Monica] McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and US Attorney’s Office,” he claimed under penalty of perjury. “I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam.”

[su_document url=”https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Christine-Blasey-Ford-Boyfriend-Senate-Judiciary-Committee-Letter.pdf” width=”720″ height=”860″]

“Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam,” the letter continued. “Dr. Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology.”

The FBI is wrapping up its seventh background probe into Judge Kavanaugh. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., said the entire chamber will vote by the week’s end. The women who allege the nominee sexually assaulted them are facing greater scrutiny, and it’s casting further doubt on their credibility.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Julie Swetnick, a third accuser represented by Democrat activist lawyer Michael Avenatti.

Ms. Swetnick initially alleged to have witnessed Judge Kavanaugh at “gang rape” parties and claimed to have become a victim of one of the ten she attended while in college. But Mr. Ketterer claimed in the statement made under penalty of perjury that Ms. Swetnick “liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time.” Of the four corroborating witnesses she offered to media, one is dead, another disputes even knowing her and the other two haven’t been reached for comment.

Professor Ford, a liberal activist and Palo Alto University psychology professor, alleged Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at a high-school party in or about 1982, when he was 17 and she was 15. She can’t be certain of the year, how she got to and from the event, and has even given various versions of the story.

There is no contemporaneous evidence.

Nevertheless, the more Professor Ford’s story is told and scrutinized, the more it’s becoming clear there are myriad inconsistencies and untruths.

For instance, Professor Ford’s testimony conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and text message she sent to the Washington Post. The therapist’s notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. At that time, Judge Kavanaugh was already attending Yale University. In fact, Professor Ford initially told reporter Emma Brown she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s.

She also initially told the Washington Post the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Professor Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, she reversed course.

“I would describe [the house] as it’s somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture,” she responded.

Further, For instance, newly-obtained real estate and other records undercut a key part of Professor Ford’s reasoning for why she finally came forward after 36-odd years. Under oath, Professor Ford testified that details of the alleged attack were not revealed until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.

She testified the memories came back to her as they revisited a disagreement they’d had over her insistence on installing a “second front door” when they had remodeled their Palo Alto, Calif., home. She further testified that she needed to explain this to her husband, who “didn’t understand” she needed the door to treat the symptoms of “claustrophobia” and “panic attacks.”

The symptoms, she claims, stem from the attempted rape by Judge Kavanaugh in high school some time during the early 1980s.

“Is that the reason for the second door — front door — is claustrophobia?” Senator Feinstein asked.

“Correct,” Ford replied.

But the document reveal the door was installed more than 4 years before as part of an addition, and has been used by renters and even a marriage counseling business.

“The door was not an escape route but an entrance route,” an attorney familiar with the ongoing congressional investigation told RealClearInvestigations. “It appears the real plan for the second front door was to rent out a separate room.”

Property records also show Professor Ford and her husband, Russell Ford, bought a beach house located on Seaside Street in Santa Cruz in 2007. There is no building permits since 2007 or application for the construction of a second front door. However, this July – the same month Professor Ford sent the letter to Senator Feinstein — the Fords applied for permits to build a front porch and new decks at the home.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does have subpoena power, made it clear it is the role of the committee to advise and consent.

“The Constitution tasks the Senate, not the media or the FBI, with providing advice and consent for Supreme Court nominees,” the Senate Judiciary tweeted.

Democratic lawyers representing Professor Christine Blasey Ford

Polls

Voting, elections and state polls concept: Ballot box with state flag in the background - Pennsylvania. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Voting, elections and state polls concept: Ballot box with state flag in the background – Pennsylvania. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Incumbent Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick leads Democratic challenger Scott Wallace in Pennsylvania’s newly-drawn 1st Congressional District. While the survey results would seem to indicate a good election for Democrats, the incumbent’s previous constituents hold a positive view of him.

Most voters in PA-01 disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President and a plurality indicated they would like to see Democrats take control of the U.S. Congress, according to the Monmouth Poll.

However, Rep. Fitzpatrick holds a 50% to 46% lead over Mr. Wallace among likely voters using Monmouth’s standard midterm turnout model. That’s a critical 50-percent threshold result, which if accurate would make it highly unlikely for the challenger to prevail.

“When you look at the underlying political environment in this district, you would expect the Democrat to be ahead,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute. “But Fitzpatrick has been able to overcome this with a solid reputation among his constituents, while many remain uncertain about Wallace.”

In the model that assumes a Democratic precinct surge, the race only narrows to 49% for Rep. Fitzpatrick and 48% for Mr. Wallace. A model projecting lower overall turnout shows Rep. Fitzpatrick with a much larger 52% to 45% edge over Mr. Wallace, surpassing that critical 50-percent threshold.

Worth noting, the Monmouth Poll released results depending on three different turnout models for the highly-contested special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District held on March 13, 2018. The model proved remarkably unreliable, indicating the complete reverse result would occur under various circumstances.

For instance, the model predicted the higher the turnout, the larger the lead would grow for Democratic candidate Conor Lamb, who ultimately won by a margin of less than 0.4%. In reality, the Democratic candidate in PA-18 and other special elections benefited from low turnout and, in fact, Republicans’ shares of the vote grew the higher the turnout.

Also worth noting, trends still matter. This race was much closer in the Monmouth Poll conducted in June, when Rep. Fitzpatrick was ahead by a single percentage point in the standard model (48%-47%), and Mr. Wallace was ahead by a single percentage point in the Democratic surge model (48%-47%).

The race was tied in the low turnout model (48%-48%) and in no scenario was the incumbent at the critical 50-percent threshold. Now, Rep. Fitzpatrick leads in all of the current likely voter models, and he is at or above the 50-mark in two of the three turnout models.

All are also within the margin of error for the poll.

“Republicans have been trying to paint the challenger as a carpetbagger,” Murray added. “They may be having limited success on this score, and in a tight race that difference in comfort level might prove to be the margin of victory.”

Rep. Fitzpatrick leads Mr. Wallace on the question of who is seen as being in touch with voters in the district. A majority, 56%, say the incumbent is in touch with his constituents, while just 33% say he is not. Just over 4-in-10 (43%) say the Democratic challenger is in touch and 32% say he is not. That compares to June’s results of 58% in touch and 30% out of touch for Fitzpatrick and 39% in touch and 28% out of touch for Mr. Wallace.

“Republicans have been trying to paint the challenger as a carpetbagger. They may be having limited success on this score, and in a tight race that difference in comfort level might prove to be the margin of victory,” said Murray.

Rep. Fitzpatrick leads among both men (51% to 46%) and women (50% to 47%). Interestingly, even though his lead with men is smaller than it was in June (57% to 38%), he has reversed a significant deficit among women (40% to 56% for Wallace) since the summer.

White voters without a college degree back Fitzpatrick by a 53% to 44% margin, which is smaller than the 58% to 37% lead he held in June.

Incumbent Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick leads Democratic

Video

President Donald Trump’s changes to the U.S. economy will have profound effects for years to come — if he can complete the job. We discuss the changes of Obama’s government economy to Trump’s private capital economy on today’s show.

*Kavanaugh Follow Up
*Trump’s Market
*The Shift from Trade
*Promises, Promises
*NY and Taxes

Today’s Bumpers:

Word Up- Cameo
Straight Up- Paul Abdul
Coming Up- Paul McCartney
Hang it Up- The Ting Tings
Money Changes Everything- Cyndi Lauper

Closing Music
http://www.hulkshare.com/praktikos/dark-nights-rise

The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.

To help our show out, please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/LibertyNeverSleeps

All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are either under Creative Commons Attribution Licensing, is for commentary and educational purposes, of de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.

No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.

President Donald Trump's changes to the U.S.

Economy

A waitress serves a steak and fried shrimp combo plate to a customer at Norms Diner on La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles, California May 20, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

A waitress serves a steak and fried shrimp combo plate to a customer at Norms Diner on La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles, California May 20, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Non-Manufacturing Index (NMI) for the U.S. service sector hit an all-time high of 61.6% in September, easily beating the consensus forecast. Economists had come to a consensus for the reading at 58.0%.

This is the strongest reading ever for the composite index, which was established in 2008. The survey itself was established in 1997.

“The Non-Manufacturing Business Activity Index rose 4.5% to 65.2% in September, reflecting growth for the 110th consecutive month, at a faster rate in September. The New Orders Index came in at 61.6%, a gain of 1.2% from the reading of 60.4% in August.

The Employment Index hit a new all-time high in September, rising 5.7% to 62.4% from the August reading of 56.7%. The Prices Index increased 1.4% from the August reading of 62.8% to 64.2%, indicating that prices increased in September for the 31st consecutive month.

“According to the NMI, 17 non-manufacturing industries reported growth,” said Anthony Nieves, Chair of the ISM Non-Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. “The non-manufacturing sector has had two consecutive months of strong growth since the ‘cooling off’ in July.”

“Overall, respondents remain positive about business conditions and the current and future economy,” Mr. Nieves added. “Concerns remain about capacity, logistics and the uncertainty with global trade.”

The White House just announced the successful renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which will be replaced with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). The U.S. Congress must have a say, but the survey was taken before the announcement, which expectedly will ease some fears.

What Respondents Told the ISM NMI Survey Committee

  • “[Additional] logistics costs, both inbound and distribution, caused by increased governmental regulation, and a shortage of class-A drivers is leading to a significant increase in [the] cost of goods [sold].” (Accommodation & Food Services)
  • “New residential construction market is still strong, with a good backlog of orders. Labor shortages and tariffs on materials continue to negatively weigh on earnings.” (Construction)
  • “Economy continues to exhibit strength. New construction, both residential and commercial, abounds. Harvest [is] about over. Overall, results appear promising. Every day is a bit better than the last.” (Finance & Insurance)
  • “Business activity has been slightly higher than normal, though pharmaceutical costs continue to put pressure on profitability.” (Health Care & Social Assistance)
  • “Starting peak holiday season ramp-up, [with] heavy importing. Building inventories of finished goods, replacement parts and supplies. Outlook very positive for [the] holidays and 2019.” (Information)
  • “Business generally remains strong, with new services being implemented.” (Management of Companies & Support Services)
  • “Prices and supply have flattened, and tariff concerns have subsided for our business [at least for the duration of 2018]. Things seems to be stabilizing.” (Mining)
  • “Overall positive outlook in the economy continues, but we are cautious due to limitations in available manpower.” (Professional, Scientific & Technical Services)
  • “Business activity is up sharply due to the rush of purchase requests received prior to fiscal year 2018 funds expiring on September 30.” (Public Administration)
  • “Our general state of business is strong, but there is a lot of uncertainty [about] the pending tariffs. This may cause a shift [in] production sites.” (Retail Trade)
  • “Import tariffs on steel, plywood, and [other] lumber are inflating prices, which are difficult to pass along to the end user due to competitive pressures. Labor and trucking shortages are affecting the industry. Low finished goods inventory is inflating home prices and causing buyers to delay purchases.” (Wholesale Trade)

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Non-Manufacturing

Policy

A doctor puts his hand over his chest during a "House call" rally against proposed healthcare reform legislation at the Capitol in Washington November 5, 2009. (Photo: Reuters)

A doctor puts his hand over his chest during a “House call” rally against proposed healthcare reform legislation at the Capitol in Washington November 5, 2009. (Photo: Reuters)

Back in 2012, I shared a chart showing that workplace deaths declined substantially after the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But I then shared a second chart showing that workplace deaths declined just as much before OSHA was created.

The moral of my story was quite simple. Deaths primarily fell because America become much more prosperous. And there’s a lot of evidence that wealthier is healthier.

Today, let’s look at a similar example.

A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research looks at the impact of public health measures in the early 1900s. They start by sharing some good news.

Since the mid-19th century, mortality rates in the Western world have plummeted and life expectancy has risen dramatically. Sometimes referred to as the mortality transition, this development is widely recognized as one of the most significant in the history of human welfare (Fogel 2004). Two features characterize the mortality transition. First, it was driven by reductions in infectious diseases and diseases of infancy and childhood (Omran 2005; Costa 2015). Second, it was concentrated in urban areas.

Do government policies deserve the credit?

There’s some evidence for that hypothesis.

…recent reviews of the literature emphasize the role of public health efforts, especially those aimed at purifying the water supply. For instance, Cutler et al. (2006) argue that public health efforts drove the dramatic reductions in food- and water-borne diseases at the turn of the 20th century. Similarly, Costa (2015) argues that clean-water technologies such as filtration and chlorination were “the biggest contributor[s] to the decline in infant mortality”

To be sure, there were huge public projects in the first several decades of last century. Here’s the data on sewage treatment facilities.

And here’s some data on milk purification efforts.

And the study has data on other aspects of public health as well.

The key question is whether all these efforts were successful. The three authors decided to investigate.

Using data on 25 major American cities for the years 1900-1940, the current study revisits the causes of the urban mortality decline at the turn of the 20th century. Specifically, we conduct a statistical horse race that attempts to distinguish the effects of ambitious, often extraordinarily expensive (Costa 2015, p. 554), public health interventions aimed at controlling mortality from food-and-water-borne diseases. Following previous researchers (Troesken 2004; Cutler and Miller 2005; Beach et al. 2016; Knutsson 2018), we explore the extent to which filtering and chlorinating drinking water contributed to the decline in typhoid mortality observed during the period under study and, more generally, to the observed declines in total and infant mortality. In addition, we explore the effects several other municipal-level efforts that were, at the time, viewed as critical in the fight against typhoid and other food- and water-borne diseases (Meckel 1990; Levitt et al. 2007; Melosi 2008) but have not received nearly as much attention from modern-day researchers. These interventions include: the treatment of sewage before its discharge into lakes, rivers and streams; projects designed to deliver clean water from further afield such as aqueducts and water cribs; requirements that milk sold within city limits meet strict bacteriological standards; and requirements that milk come from tuberculin-tested cows. Because the urban mortality transition was characterized by substantial reductions in infant and childhood mortality (Omran 2005) and because exclusive breastfeeding was not the norm during the period under study (Wolf 2001, 2003), improvements in milk quality seem a particularly promising avenue to explore.

But here’s the surprising result.

They did not find much evidence that public health efforts made a difference.

…our results suggest that the building of a water filtration plant cut the typhoid mortality rate by nearly 40 percent. More generally, however, our results are not consistent with the argument that public health interventions drove the extraordinary reductions in infant and total mortality observed between 1900 and 1940. Specifically, we find that efforts to purify milk had no appreciable effect on infant mortality and no effect on mortality from non-pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), which was often transmitted through infected milk. Likewise, neither chlorinating the water supply nor constructing sewage treatment plants appears to have been effective. …Our results point to other factors such as better living conditions and improved nutrition as being responsible for the sharp decline in urban mortality at the turn of the 20th century.

Here’s the chart showing that infant mortality consistently declined, largely independent of public health efforts.

I’m not suggesting, by the way, that public health spending is bad. Nor am I asserting that it’s a waste of money.

Notwithstanding some of the jokes that target libertarians, the goal isn’t to abolish every regulation or program governing safety and health. Maybe I’m a bad libertarian, but I’d pick a city with sewage treatment over one without.

But my main point is that I don’t need to make that choice. Nobody does.

The data strongly suggests that economic growth and rising levels of prosperity are the real drivers of improved health outcomes. Market-driven prosperity is what generates the wealth needed to improve public health, whether the actual delivery takes place via public or private action.

Workplace deaths in the U.S. primarily fell

Markets

Dow Jones Industrial Average American (.DJI) graphic concept. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Dow Jones Industrial Average American (.DJI) graphic concept. (Photo: AdobeStock)

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) rallied slightly less than +0.5%, closing at a fresh All Time High at 26,774. This is the second new high for the Blue Chip average since late January, surpassing its prior high from September by merely 40 points.

The DJIA has gained +1.2%, the first 2 days of the fourth quarter (Q4) following a +9% gain in Q3, as Industrials, Heavy Equipment, Aerospace, and Big Pharma applaud the successfully renegotiated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, hence the moniker, the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).

While investors appetite for US Dollar sensitive Multinationals has been strong the last 2 days, this has not been part of a broad based rally. The DJIA was the only Major Market average with gains Tuesday, with the rest finishing with losses ranging from fractional to ~-1%.

The S&P 500 (.INX) lost less than a couple points, amidst mixed performance from the Banks, moderate gains the energy sector, and some obvious digestion in the high flying tech space with a few exceptions. Keep a close watch on the energy names the next 2 weeks, as they’ve had a big run as crude oil has moved to its highest level in 4 years, and a bearish headline or 2 for oil prices could spark a quick reaction to the downside.

NASDAQ Composite (.IXIC) declined ~0.5% and most notably, closed fractionally below the benchmark 8000 level. Social Media stocks remain jittery as they struggle to escape recurring account privacy concerns. Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), at -1.5%, was a leading weight on NASDAQ, as their plan to raise minimum pay to $15/hour received favorable reviews from nearly everyone but shareholders as it will definitely impact their margins.

A major outlier in the tech space was Intel Corporation (INTC), +4%, which also contributed to the outperformance of the DJIA,  and boosted other names in the chip space.

The DJ Transportation Average lost just over -1%, and was decidedly in negative territory all day.  The 11,250 – 11,300 level could be a critical near term support level.   The DJTA rallied off this level numerous times in August and early September before posting new highs on September 14.

Also, the Tuesday close of  11,281 is right at the 50 day moving average, although comfortably above the 200 day MA of 10,800.

Adding to the concern of Tuesday’s rally being narrowly focused on  Mega Cap Blue Chips,  the Advance/Decline stats were decidedly negative. On the NYSE, decliners led advancing issues 3 to 2. In the NASD market, it was a bit more negative with declining issues outpacing gainers by slightly more than 2 to 1.

We’re not going to push the panic button yet, being only 2 days into a new Quarter there’s typically plenty of portfolio shuffling, particularly as we head into the last Quarter of the year.    That being said, there are plenty of things than demand close attention….Oil prices…..10 year yield above 3%……September jobs report this Friday….follow through on trade talks……Midterm elections in 5 weeks…..And of course the Big Kahuna…..Q3 earnings starting a week from Friday.

Investors had a great Q3! I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Big Guys take some profits in advance of the Q3 earnings season.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) rallied to

Economy

Job seekers wait to meet with employers at a career fair in New York City, October 24, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)

Job seekers wait to meet with employers at a career fair in New York City, October 24, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)

The ADP National Employment Report finds the U.S. private sector added 230,000 jobs in September, an extremely solid report that crushed the consensus forecast. Economists had expected 179,000 jobs and less “across-the-board” gains.

“The labor market continues to impress,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute. “Both the goods and services sectors soared. The professional and business services industry and construction served as key engines of growth. They added almost half of all new jobs this month.”

The goods-producing sector added a total 46,000 jobs, including 5,000 in natural resources and mining, 34,000 in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing. The service-providing sector added 184,000 jobs, with only information (-3,000) posting a loss on the month.

“The job market continues to power forward. Employment gains are broad-based across industries and company sizes,” Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said, “At the current pace of job creation, unemployment will fall into the low 3%’s by this time next year.”

Small businesses with 1-49 employees added 56,000 jobs in September, while mid-sized businesses with 50-499 employees added 99,000. Large businesses, with 500 or more employees, added 75,000 in September.

The ADP National Employment Report finds the

Politics

Julie Swetnick

Julie Swetnick

As the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) continues its seventh background probe into U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the women who allege he sexually assaulted them are facing greater scrutiny, and it’s casting further doubt on their credibility.

First, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Julie Swetnick, a woman represented by Democrat activist lawyer Michael Avenatti.

Ms. Swetnick initially alleged to have witnessed Judge Kavanaugh at “gang rape” parties and claimed to have become a victim of one of the ten she attended while in college. Judge Kavanaugh would’ve been in high school at the time. She backpedaled during an interview with MSNBC that aired this week, leaving nothing but insinuations and vague claims.

Mr. Ketterer claimed in the statement made under penalty of perjury that Ms. Swetnick “liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time.”

“During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time,” the signed statement reads. “In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.”

Further, Mr. Ketterer claimed under penalty of perjury, she never mentioned the alleged incident with the judge or the gang rapes.

“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will,” it read. “She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity,” he continued.”

[su_document url=”https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-02-Signed-Ketterer-Statement-Swetnick-Allegations.pdf” width=”720″ height=”800″]

Judge Kavanaugh, 53, serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Donald Trump moved quickly on his nomination to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced a few weeks before that he would retire, effective July 31.

The Senate Judiciary Committee began holding hearings for the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh on September 4. Despite Democrats attempting to obstruct, pay protestors and stage outbursts, they didn’t land a glove on him.

Then, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, a liberal activist and Palo Alto University psychology professor, alleged Judge Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at a high-school party in or about 1982, when he was 17 and she was 15. She can’t be certain of the year, how she got to and from the event, and has even given various versions of the story.

There is no contemporaneous evidence.

The allegation, which has been disputed by all parties mentioned in her account, including by her own friend, was made in a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She withheld it for 6 weeks until after the committee held confirmation hearings.

Senator Feinstein denied she or any member of her staff leaked the letter. Professor Ford herself testified that only she, her lawyer, a Democrat representative and Senator Feinstein had access to the letter. She further testified that neither she nor her lawyer leaked it.

Nevertheless, the more Professor Ford’s story is told, the more it’s becoming clear that her story isn’t clear.

For instance, newly-obtained real estate and other records undercut a key part of Professor Ford’s reasoning for why she finally came forward after 36-odd years. Under oath, Professor Ford testified that details of the alleged attack were not revealed until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.

She testified the memories came back to her as they revisited a disagreement they’d had over her insistence on installing a “second front door” when they had remodeled their Palo Alto, Calif., home. She further testified that she needed to explain this to her husband, who “didn’t understand” she needed the door to treat the symptoms of “claustrophobia” and “panic attacks.”

The symptoms, she claims, stem from the attempted rape by Judge Kavanaugh in high school some time during the early 1980s.

“Is that the reason for the second door — front door — is claustrophobia?” Senator Feinstein asked.

“Correct,” Ford replied.

But the document reveal the door was installed more than 4 years before as part of an addition, and has been used by renters and even a marriage counseling business.

“The door was not an escape route but an entrance route,” an attorney familiar with the ongoing congressional investigation told RealClearInvestigations. “It appears the real plan for the second front door was to rent out a separate room.”

Property records also show Professor Ford and her husband, Russell Ford, bought a beach house located on Seaside Street in Santa Cruz in 2007. There is no building permits since 2007 or application for the construction of a second front door. However, this July – the same month Professor Ford sent the letter to Senator Feinstein — the Fords applied for permits to build a front porch and new decks at the home.

For congressional investigators, the latest inconsistency in Professor Ford’s story casts further doubt on her credibility. The professor cited a fear of flying as the reason for not being able to sit for an interview with congressional investigators, yet they uncovered numerous flights just this summer and previous trips to Hawaii, Costa Rica, French Polynesia and other South Pacific islands.

Meanwhile, the sex-crimes prosecutor with more than two decades of experience, told Senate Republicans she would not prosecute the case. Republicans hired Rachel Mitchell on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Professor Ford.

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Ms. Mitchell wrote. “But this case is even weaker than that,” adding the witnesses she cites not only won’t corroborate her story but flatly refute it.

In her memo, Ms. Mitchell conceded “there is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process,” but because she is a prosecutor, she was providing her legal assessment on whether the allegations could be prosecuted in court.

Ms. Mitchell also wrote that “the activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account,” providing a timeline of when Dr. Ford spoke with Senator Feinstein and Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo of California before the allegations were public.

“We have already reviewed your client’s allegations,” Mike Davis, the Chief Counsel for Nominations on the committee wrote. “We focus on credible allegations. Please stop emailing me.”

Two women who allege Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Markets

Markets concept depicting the American flag draped over the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) at Wall Street. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Markets concept depicting the American flag draped over the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) at Wall Street. (Photo: AdobeStock)

No sooner do we close the books on the third quarter (Q3), than we are starting Q4 and the month of October with a bang. Traders and investors applauded the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The White House announced the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the U.S. finally settled terms shortly before the 12:00 AM EST deadline late Sunday evening.

With many moving parts, and some detail yet to be finalized, the agreement resolves difficult points of contention with the Great White North that appeared too difficult to bridge merely a week ago. Yes, there are still a few points of uncertainty, but It’s an understatement to say the framework agreed to is vastly preferred by markets than the proverbial “Nothing Done”.

The Mega Cap Multinationals and Industrials are cheering the loudest. Less than half way into trading on Tuesday the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDEXDJX: .DJI) is in All Time High territory, after having led the charge Monday with a +0.75% gain.

Clearly the DJIA is stacked with names highly sensitive to Global Trade. Before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s take a recap of how stocks closed out Q3. It was an impressive metric by any measure.

Impressive Third Quarter Results for Major Stock Market Averages

The DJIA gained +9% to close Q3 at 26,458, just over 1% from their September 21 All Time High. Clearly progress on renegotiating legacy Global Trade deals and the US Dollar trending slightly lower the 2nd half of Q3 helped the performance of the multinational makeup of the DJIA.

The DJ Transportation Average gained +10%, slightly outperformed the DJIA in Q3. A vibrant economy, with ever improving Macro Data fueled strong gains in shipping and transportation stocks. It’s very intriguing that 9 years into an economic expansion, albeit the first 7 years of which were quite feeble, the Transportation sector that is typically viewed as an Early Cyclical Barometer, led stock market performance.

The S&P 500 (INDEXCBOE: .INX) gained +7.2% in Q3, with energy stocks, joined by select technology and retail names performing very well. Energy most notably was aided by Crude Oil trading to its highest level in four years, hitting $80 on Brent Crude the last couple weeks of the Quarter.

NASDAQ Composite (INDEXNASDAQ: .IXIC) +7.1% nearly matched the S&P 500, while weathering a few rounds of heightened volatility in the high beta technology names, and particularly the FANG Family. Semiconductors also saw some wild price swings, as trade issues between US and the Pacific Rim appear more stubborn to resolve than elsewhere and industry leader INTC was hit with multiple downgrades throughout the quarter.

A Late Breaking Observation is that INTC is having a spectacular day, Tuesday, with gains better than +4%, and in hindsight, it’s likely the mid September plunge in INTC may have been a capitulation low.

We’ll be watching the action the rest of this week closely. We’re already seeing a few newsprint stories on what may give investors angst in October. Not that we’re against cautious optimism, but we saw numerous similar articles at the beginning of September, and they couldn’t have been more off base.

Traders and investors applauded the renegotiation of

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe