The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported the advance estimate for third-quarter (Q3) 2019 gross domestic product (GDP) came in at 1.9%, slightly higher than the consensus forecast. Real GDP rose by 2.0% in Q2 2019.
Forecasts ranged from a low of 1.2% to a high of 2.0%. The consensus forecast was 1.7%.
The price index for gross domestic purchases rose 1.4% in the Q3 2019, compared with a gain of 2.2% in Q2. The PCE price index rose 1.5%, compared with an increase of 2.4%.
Excluding food and energy prices, the PCE price index gained 2.2%, compared with an increase of 1.9%.
Real consumer spending rose 2.9%, stronger than expected. Forecasts ranged from a low of 2.1% to a high of 2.8%. The consensus forecast was 2.6%.
Disposable personal income increased $181.7 billion, or 4.5% in Q3 2019, solid but slightly less than the gain of $192.6 billion, or 4.8% in Q2. Real disposable personal income rose 2.9%, compared with an increase of 2.4%.
Personal saving was $1.34 trillion in Q3 2019, slightly higher than the $1.32 trillion in Q2. The personal saving rate — defined as personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 8.1% in Q3 2019. That’s up slightly from 8.0% in Q2.
Total nonfarm private sector employment increased by 125,000 from September to October, according to the ADP National Employment Report. That hits the consensus forecast.
Forecasts ranged from a low of 40,000 to a high of 190,000. The consensus forecast was 125,000, exactly.
“While job growth continues to soften, there are certain segments of the labor market that remain strong,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute. “The goods producing sector showed weakness; however, the healthcare industry and midsized companies had solid gains.”
The goods-producing sector lost 14,000 jobs in October, including
Mueller Family Praised Trump, Special Forces for Death of al-Baghdadi
This image made from video posted on a militant website on Monday, April 29, 2019, purports to show the leader of the Islamic State group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, being interviewed by his group’s Al-Furqan media outlet. Al-Baghdadi acknowledged in his first video since June 2014 that IS lost the war in the eastern Syrian village of Baghouz that was captured last month by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. (Photo: Screenshot via Al-Furqan)
The family of Kayla Mueller praised President Donald Trump and the special forces who conducted the raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The mother of the aid worker delivered a stinging rebuke to Barack Obama’s handling of her daughter’s capture.
“He [President Trump] knows her story. He’s been briefed on it, and he knows, and that’s important to me,” Carl Mueller told The Arizona Republic. “I don’t think anything would have stopped him from getting this guy.”
The ISIS leader, who recently in April appeared in his first video since 2014, was killed in a rain on a compound near the Turkish border. Russia had claimed to have killed him in 2017.
Marsha Mueller, the mother of Kayla Mueller, gives a press conference in Arizona. (Photo: Video Screenshot)
Kayla Mueller, 26, was taken hostage by ISIS while leaving a hospital in Aleppo, Syria, in August 2013. She is believed to have been tortured to death 18 months later, though ISIS claimed it was the result of a Jordanian airstrikes.
The suffering of children in the early stages of Syria’s continuing civil war prompted Mueller to leave her home in Prescott, Ariz., in December, 2012, to work with the Danish Refugee Council and the humanitarian organization Support to Life to help refugees. According to a family spokesperson, Kayla found the work heartbreaking but compelling.
Kayla Mueller (AP/The Daily Courier)
Following the death of their daughter Kayla, the Mueller family became outspoken critics of the Obama Administration’s handling of U.S. citizens being held hostage.
The U.S. government under Barack Obama “encouraged” the family to keep her captivity secret. They also discouraged the family — who had been in contact with her captors — from attempting to free her on their own or from paying a ransom.
“I still say Kayla should be here, and if Obama had been as decisive as President Trump, maybe she would have been,” Marsha Mueller said. “For me what matters most I’m hoping now we will finally get the answers we have been asking for all along.”
“I think this administration truly might help us. I don’t think they are as closed about what happened.”
John H. Durham, left, the 52nd U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and William “Bill” Barr, right, who served as the 77th Attorney General of the United States and was nominated to serve as the nation’s top cop again by President Donald Trump on December 7, 2018. (Photo: Courtesy of the Justice Department)
Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham enjoyed bipartisan praise and impeccable reputations at the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). But that was before the two men — who are being smeared by Democrats and corporate media allies — threatened to expose wrongdoing at the genesis of and during the “Russian Collusion” probe.
In May, Attorney General Barr assigned the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to investigate the origins of and potential wrongdoings in the counterintelligence investigation that morphed into a special counsel.
Last week, People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) reported Mr. Durham uncovered evidence of criminal abuses to safeguards required in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
In response, he expanded his investigation and timeline. The probe starts from the genesis of the disproven “Russian Collusion” narrative through the election and now includes a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017. That’s right up to when Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel by then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
This week, multiple outlets have reported and PPD independently confirmed it is now a criminal investigation. The New York Times — which won a Pulitzer for reporting on what turned out to be a misinformation-driven conspiracy theory — characterized the Barr-Durham effort as political payback.
But nothing in their pasts would indicate either men would allow the Justice Department to be used as a political machine.
William “Bill” Barr
In August 1991, Mr. Barr took over the Justice Department (DOJ) as Acting Attorney General after Richard Thornburgh resigned to campaign for the U.S. Senate.
Only 3 days later, 121 Cuban inmates awaiting deportation to Cuba seized 9 hostages at Talladega federal prison. He directed the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team to assault the prison and end the hostage crisis.
The result was a best-case scenario, with agents rescuing all hostages without loss of life. Mr. Barr cites this decision as his greatest accomplishment at DOJ, and it earned him bipartisan praise.
President H.W. Bush was impressed with his management of the hostage crisis and, a few weeks later, nominated him to be the nation’s top cop.
The LA Times called his two-day nomination “unusually placid” because he was supported by both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The committee, which is now led by Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., approved his nomination unanimously by a vote of 14 to 0.
Joe Biden, who chaired the committee at the time, said Mr. Barr showed a “commitment to the public interest above all else.”
“You’re going to be a good Attorney General,” then-Chairman Biden said at the hearing. “You’re sharp, you’re smart.”
He was confirmed by voice vote by the full U.S. Senate just 36 days after the nomination was announced, and was sworn in as Attorney General on November 26, 1991.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., then-chairman of the House Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee, also praised the man his members now want to back into a corner.
“Mr. Barr has proven to be a capable deputy attorney general. He did a good job of helping run the department in troubled times.”
Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., still a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not only praised Mr. Barr but said he would be “an independent voice for all Americans – not just the President.”
John Durham
U.S. Attorney Durham, the 52nd U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, has a long bipartisan history of serving as the special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoings of national security officials.
That includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the DOJ and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
From 1998 to 2008, he served as a Special Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and Head of the Justice Task Force. Then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno — a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton and supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016 — appointed Mr. Durham to review alleged criminal conduct by FBI personnel and law enforcement corruption in Boston.
He led the prosecution of former FBI Supervisory Special Agent John J. Connolly Jr. and a former Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant, both of whom were tied to James “Whitey” Bulger.
In 2008, Mr. Durham was appointed by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations by CIA. In 2009, then-Attorney General Eric Holder — a highly-partisan Democrat appointed by Barack Obama — entrusted Mr. Durham to investigate the CIA’s use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
From 2008 to 2012, Mr. Durham also served as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Partisan Smears
At no point in their careers at the Justice Department has anyone questioned the reputation and integrity of these men. Neither professionally nor politically have either men come under attack.
They have a decades-long history of bipartisan praise and have earned bipartisan trust. It is only now when their findings threaten to expose how a dangerous and false conspiracy theory came to hold the nation hostage for more than two years, that they are maligned as partisan operatives.
The Survey of Consumers final reading on consumer sentiment remained “quite favorable” and down “insignificantly” from the prelim, though below the consensus forecast. The 0.5 decline from the mid-month reading reflects a small loss spread over a number of components.
Preliminary forecasts ranged from a low of 90.0 to a high of 93.7. The consensus forecast was only 92.0. Final forecasts ranged from a low of 94.6 to a high of 96.6. The consensus forecast was 96.0.
“The overall level of consumer confidence has remained quite favorable and largely unchanged during the past few years,” Richard Curtain, the chief economist at the Survey of Consumers. “The October level was nearly identical to the 2019 average (95.6) and only a few Index-points below the average since the start of 2017 (97.0).”
“The focus of consumers has been on income and job growth, while largely ignoring other news.”
The Current Economic Conditions rose significantly from 108.5 in September to 113.2 in October, while the Index of Consumer Expectations rose marginally from 83.4 to 84.2.
Spontaneous references to the negative impact of tariffs fell to 27% in October from 36% in September. The impeachment inquiry totaled just 2% in October, less than the 5% who mentioned a negative impact from the GM strike.
New Residential Sales Report Surprisingly Solid and Stable
The new residential sales report showed single-family new home were a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 701,000 in September, beating the consensus forecast.
The report is jointly released by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Durable Goods Orders Revised Higher to $251 Billion for August
New manufactured durable goods orders fell $2.8 billion or 1.1% to $248.2 in September, a largely expected decline partially the result of the strike. However, the decrease for September follows three consecutive increases.
Forecasts ranged from a low of -3.3% to a high of 2.0%. The consensus forecast was -0.7%.
Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 0.3%. Excluding defense, new orders fell 1.2%. Transportation equipment, also down after three consecutive monthly increases, led the decline falling $2.3 billion or 2.7% to $84.5 billion.
Initial jobless claims fell more than expected to a seasonally adjusted 212,000 for the week ending October 19, beating the consensus forecast. The 4-week moving average fell 750 to 215,000.
Forecasts ranged from a low 200,000 to a high of 218,000. The consensus forecast was 214,000.
In lagging data, the advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was unchanged at a very low 1.2% for the week ending October 12. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment fell 1,000 during the week ending October 12 to 1,682,000.
The 4-week moving average was 1,677,250, an increase of 6,500 from the upwardly revised figure of 1,670,750.
No state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending October 5.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending October 5 were in Puerto Rico (2.0), New Jersey (1.8), Alaska (1.7), California (1.5), Connecticut (1.5), Pennsylvania (1.4), the Virgin Islands (1.3), and West Virginia (1.3).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending October 12 were in California (+6,856), New York (+3,147), Oklahoma (+982), Pennsylvania (+596), and Michigan (+464), while the largest decreases were in Illinois (-922), North Carolina (-544), Arkansas (-385), Ohio (-255), and South Carolina (-202).
HPI Saw Largest Dip in East South Central, New England Led Gains
The FHFA House Price Index (HPI) reported a 0.2% gain in U.S. house prices in August, an increase that missed the consensus forecast. However, from August 2018 to August 2019, U.S. house prices were up 4.6%.
Forecasts ranged from a low of 0.3% to a high of 0.4%. The consensus forecast was 0.4%.
For the nine census divisions, seasonally adjusted monthly price changes from July 2019 to August 2019 ranged from -0.8% in the East South Central division to a 0.9% gain in the New England division.
The 12-month changes were all positive, ranging from a gain of 3.9% in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions to a 6.5% gain in the Mountain division.
Representative Adam Schiff, D-Calif., speaks with reporters about the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s Russia investigation on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 30, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)
House Democrats on Monday blocked a resolution to censure Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for fabricating the context of the conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The resolution sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., was tabled in a vote along party lines, 218 to 185.
Rep. Schiff, Chairman of the House Intel Committee, spearheads the impeachment probe that was sparked surrounding the content of the call from July 25th, 2019. The unprecedented, now secret impeachment effort began with Rep. Schiff fabricating a quid pro quo that didn’t exist in the transcript, which the White House released.
“I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues failed to uphold the integrity of the House of Representatives by condemning the actions of Chairman Adam Schiff,” Rep. Biggs said in a statement after the vote.
“An impeachment proceeding to remove a duly elected president is one of the most solemn decisions a member of Congress may be forced to make in their tenure. Instead of operating with integrity, Adam Schiff misled the American people about the content of the transcript being used to drive the most recent impeachment narrative against President Donald Trump.”
Rep. Schiff tweeted about the censure vote, trashing Republicans as unethical and against the tide of history, to which Rep. Biggs responded.
It will be said about House Democrats,
When they realize they don’t have the votes to win a presidential election,
There’s no principle they won’t sacrifice to attack the one who does. https://t.co/CUqgRMLuL1
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
