EU's new oil price cap to hit Russia, but analyst says U.S. could be the real 'game-changer'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Obama's bruised ego was behind the corrupt plot to bring down Trump
The Donald Trump-Russia collusion scandal that first broke in December 2016 and roared on until April 2019 has no parallel in our history — it's not even close. As president-elect and later as sitting president, Trump was accused by the country's intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus of conspiring with a hostile power to subvert the 2016 election and sneak a crooked path to the White House. Along the way, a damning Intelligence Community Assessment was issued, a major FBI investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, targeted the president, and a special counsel, Robert Mueller, was granted a team of prosecutors and a budget of millions to bring the guilty to justice. Advertisement It was the most sensational news story in history. By one estimate, more than half a million articles were written about the collusion issue, the vast majority asserting or assuming criminality on Trump's part. A manic media competed fiercely to deliver the latest 'bombshell.' Advertisement For over two years, the first Trump administration was forced to conduct America's business while in the fetal position. How much truth, you ask, did the accusations of collusion with Russia contain? None. Zilch. Nada. The entire episode was concocted out of whole cloth by the Obama White House, with an assist from the Hilary Clinton campaign and the eager cooperation of the heads of the FBI (James Comey), the CIA (John Brennan), and NSA (James Clapper), plus various zealous underlings. Bam on a mission Advertisement Before asking the obvious questions, let's pause for a moment to absorb this astounding fact: There was zero evidence, classified or otherwise, to justify the fuss, distraction and cost of the whole clamorous affair. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents that show the intelligence agencies did not believe that 'Russian or criminal actors' impacted the 2016 presidential election. Eric Lee – Pool Via Cnp/CNP via ZUMA Press Wire Pro-Trump fake news, as independent studies have consistently shown, had no effect on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Mueller, in his final report, rather grumpily admitted that the two-year-plus investigation he led 'did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.' Advertisement In fact, as of Dec. 8, 2016, the intelligence agencies believed that 'Russian or criminal actors did not impact recent US election results,' according to documents recently declassified by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Yet on Dec. 9, President Obama, in essence, tasked the agencies to change their minds and come up with the opposite conclusion. They complied with a hastily-drafted ICA stating that 'Russian President Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election,' and 'Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.' On Jan. 17, three days before Trump's swearing-in ceremony, an unclassified version of the ICA was made available to the public. The lack of evidence was obscured with a tactic familiar to those who have worked in intelligence: The proof, the authors claimed, was super-secret and hyper-classified. Gabbard's declassification campaign has exposed the naked falsehood of that claim. The Obama administration, Gabbard now maintains, was guilty of a 'treasonous conspiracy' to undermine Trump's 2016 election victory. Advertisement Now, 'treasonous' is a strong word — although, to be fair, former CIA chief Brennan applied the same word to Trump at the height of the collusion uproar. One thing is certain: The corpse of the Trump-Russia scandal has risen like a zombie and is now shambling towards its originators in the hope of eating their brains. I'm content to leave the legal and constitutional implications of this tawdry episode to the experts who can best explain them. My interest is in finding the answer to a basic question: What, in the end, was the point of the exercise? Out to sully '16 win Advertisement Evidently, the Obama White House, in its waning days, aimed to 'subvert President Trump's 2016 victory,' as Gabbard has said. In that, it succeeded brilliantly. Leaks to The New York Times and The Washington Post began as early as Dec. 9, before the intelligence people even had time to concoct their story. The bombardment continued for the duration, leaving the Trump administration bruised and battered under the shadow of the scandal. A chart shared by the White House on the creation of the 'Russia Hoax.' LENIN NOLLY/SIPA/Shutterstock Advertisement To this day, 60% of Democrats believe that Trump climbed to high office with a helpful push from his friend Vladimir. But the case against Trump was based on nothing. For all the bureaucratic grinding, leaking and noise-making, the investigation was bound sooner or later to arrive at that point: nothing. Trump would be exonerated. The probability was much higher than zero that he, or some future Republican president, would demand an accounting for the fraud. The Obama and Clinton people would then trade places with the Trumpists. Advertisement The prosecutors would be prosecuted. That, of course, is precisely what has happened. Again: What political advantage was worth taking that risk? One grateful beneficiary of the collusion story was Clinton, who could now answer, to everyone's satisfaction, the question that had been tormenting her since Election Day: 'How on earth could you possibly lose to that guy?' The election that ended with her defeat, Clinton happily proclaimed, 'was not on the level.' The scandal, however, was a wholly owned Obama operation. His tasking of the intel community, a month after the election had passed, fixated the government on the collusion question. The Dec. 9 meeting to which he abruptly invited the agency heads to reach a foregone conclusion included White House enforcers like Ben Rhodes. The rushed schedule ensured the ICA was completed on his watch and under his watchful eyes. Did Dems believe it? Barack Obama was deeply invested in discrediting Donald Trump, even before the latter assumed the presidency. No doubt there were partisan and personal reasons for the rancor. We may take it for granted that Obama loathed the sight of Trump. But by that point, he was the lamest of lame ducks. Only weeks remained of his time in office. Obama was already ascending majestically to the Olympus reserved for retired two-term presidents. The extraordinary activity of those last days requires an explanation. One possibility is that Obama and his people believed their own lies. They really thought Trump was a Russian operative, inserted into the Oval Office so he could destroy the country following the script of the 1962 movie, 'The Manchurian Candidate.' That's unlikely, for a couple of reasons. If President Obama truly imagined Trump to be a foreign agent, he had every incentive to raise the alarm — not in an obscure intelligence report, but in public, before a national audience. More to the point, when it came to American politics, Obama was a cold and calculating realist. He knew perfectly well when he was shading the truth to obtain a political advantage. As the bizarre drafting process of the ICA demonstrates, the same was true of top bureaucrats like Brennan and Comey. Everyone in this affair knew exactly what they were doing. My take is that the attempted smearing of Trump was literally a vanity project for Obama, a man with an exalted view of himself, his personal achievements and his place in history. His followers — a set that included pretty much all institutional elites — worshipped him. From the idealist perspective, he was seen as the embodiment of hope and change, humane policymaking and smart diplomacy. From a political angle, he was thought to be, like Franklin Roosevelt, a 'transformational' figure, as the coalition he assembled of college-educated, minority, and young voters would provide a permanent Democratic Party majority for decades, if not forever. That was the realistic position as the 2016 elections approached. It would take a man with a prodigious capacity for self-criticism not to believe such a flattering appraisal — and Obama, to put it mildly, was not that man. Trump's victory in 2016 shattered all of these illusions. Suddenly, Obama was no longer a political messiah ushering in a liberal golden age. He was a helpless failure and an object of repudiation. New level of deranged He understood, as a realist, that he had been the cause of which Trump was the effect. His vanity and self-image, I'm guessing, must have suffered a tremendous shock. Trump was a fluke, a hoax, an impossibility. He had to be exposed as both a monstrous aberration and a depraved departure from his predecessor's enlightened ways. President Obama wanted his mojo back. With the collusion scandal, he got it. On the day he left office, he was more popular with the public than he ever had been, while Trump's popularity plummeted. Was the elaborate charade worth it? Maybe so — only the former president is privy to his own internal states. But on July 23, Gabbard referred his case to the Department of Justice for potential criminal investigation. Call it tit for tat, with terrible repercussions all around — for himself, the country, even his antagonists. A Trump administration prosecution of Obama, I believe, would be a moral and political horror show. In these days of rage and riots, it would inaugurate a whole new level of derangement. At a time when we need forward progress, it would swivel our heads backwards the better to inspect minutely the sins of the past. There's a saner way to proceed. Find Robert Mueller's evil twin, appoint him special counsel, and let him loose for years to hound the paper trail of Barack Obama and the rest of the Trump-Russia crowd. That, in my humble opinion, would really be tit for tat . . .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Did the U.S. or the EU emerge as the winner in Trump trade deal?
The new trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union will lift tariffs on imports of goods from EU countries to their highest level in decades and hurt the trading bloc's economic growth, according to some experts. "It is an asymmetric and unbalanced deal," economists with investment bank Société Générale said in a report. The EU decided neither to retaliate nor to increase its tariffs, and is even expected to reduce them. The EU agreed to a bad deal rather than risk trade war escalation." The average tariff on U.S. imports from the EU will surge from 1.2% in 2024 to 17.5%, according to investor advisory firm Capital Economics. That will reduce the EU's annual gross domestic product by 0.2%, the investment advisory firm forecast. EU countries annually ship more than $300 billion in goods to the U.S., accounting for more than 20% of total U.S. imports. Mexico ranks second among America's trade partners at roughly 15% of U.S. imports, while Canada accounts for 11% (see chart at bottom.) The deal, announced Sunday by President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, imposes a 15% U.S. tariff on most EU imports, while American goods exported to the union's 27 member countries will face no tariffs. Previously, U.S. exports to the EU faced an average tariff of roughly 1%, according to Goldman Sachs analysts. The EU also pledged to buy $750 billion worth of energy from the U.S., up from about $80 billion a year, and to invest $600 billion by 2028. The trade agreement will boost Americans by increasing access to the EU's vast market and supporting the U.S. manufacturing sector, according to the Trump administration. "This colossal deal will enable U.S. farmers, ranchers, fishermen and manufacturers to increase U.S. exports, expand business opportunities and help reduce the goods trade deficit with the European Union," the White House said Monday in a fact sheet about the pact. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for additional comment. Reducing uncertainty Although the agreement sharply raises U.S. tariffs, economists said the deal will also help ease some of the uncertainty around trade relations with a key trading partner. Perhaps most important, it is better than the alternative given that Mr. Trump had threatened to slap a 30% tariff on EU imports. More broadly, the EU deal and the Trump administration's framework agreement with Japan last week — both of which set 15% as a baseline tariff — also could help pave the way for trade agreements with Canada, Korea, Mexico and other countries, including on key sectors like autos, experts said. "[C]ompared to expectations we had a few weeks before, in particular when pharmaceuticals and semiconductors could have been subject to higher tariffs, it looks like this deal is better than feared," Michel Martinez, head Europe economist at Société Générale, told CBS MoneyWatch. European auto exports would face a 15% levy, down from 25%, according to Goldman Sachs. Von der Leyen also said the U.S. would eliminate tariffs on some products, including aircraft and parts, semiconductor manufacturing gear, natural resources, some farm products, and certain chemicals and generic drugs. Likewise, the EU would abolish tariffs on those products. Neither the U.S. nor the EU has released details of the pact, and lobbying by some industries is expected to continue. For example, Unione Italiana Vini, an Italian trade group representing winemakers, said in a statement on Monday that a 15% tariff on EU imports will result in a a $371 million hit for exporters. "We are now calling on the Italian government and the EU to consider appropriate measures to safeguard a sector that has grown significantly thanks to U.S. buyers," the group's president, Lamberto Frescobaldi, said in a statement, while acknowledging that the deal "at least resolved the uncertainty that was stalling the market." According to the group's analysis, a bottle of Italian wine that previously retailed for $11.50 in the U.S. will now cost nearly $15 under the new tariff agreement. The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), which represents German automakers, also said a 15% U.S. tariff on the country's automotive products will hurt its car manufacturers, while noting that the new tariff rate amounts to a reprieve from the 25% automobile levies EU nations have faced since April. Despite the Trump administration's recent trade deals with the EU, Japan, U.K. and several other Asian countries, the U.S. still faces a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline to reach agreements with Canada, Mexico, Korean other key trading partners. "The Wizard of Oz" as you've never seen it before John Oliver: The 60 Minutes Interview Finding the plane used for Argentina's dictatorship-era "death flights" | 60 Minutes Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
August: Time to Unplug from Markets?
US Inks Tariff Deals with EU, Japan: Sell the News? If history is any teacher, markets are the master manipulator and Wall Street is 'bent on fooling the masses.' 2025 is a perfect example of how market psychology works. Following President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' blanket reciprocal tariffs on April 1st, US stocks plunged into a bear market. As trade negotiations looked bleak, investors and some of Wall Street's top minds began to predict the worst. For instance, Ray Dalio, manager of Bridgewater Associates (the world's largest hedge fund) predicted a recession. CNBC's Jim Cramer boldly predicted another 'Black Monday' (when the S&P 500 Index crashed 20% in a single session). As is usually the case, the market sniffed out the future better than the crowd. Just as fear hit a fever pitch, US stocks began rallying and climbing the proverbial 'Wall of Worry.' Fast forward to today, the major US equity indexes are each at new highs, and the US has inked trade deals with its biggest trading partners, including China, Japan, and the European Union. Image Source: TradingView It's tough to argue with the Trump administration's trade wins. For example, Trump critic and left-leaning political commentator and comedian Bill Maher has admitted he was wrong about Trump's tariff policy. Nevertheless, savvy investors understand that August may be a time when the 'sell the news' phenomenon takes hold. Often, when a highly anticipated event or news announcement occurs, investors take profits, realizing that the news' impact has already been factored into stock prices. With the major indices essentially flat after the EU deal, a sell-the-news event may be underway. August Post-Election Seasonality is Poor Jeffrey Hirsch, author of 'The Stock Trader's Almanac,' does the best work on seasonal patterns on Wall Street. According Hirsch, Image Source: ( In addition to troubling seasonality patterns, many of Wall Street's top institutional investors take off on vacation, leading to illiquid and tricky markets during 'the summer doldrums.' 'The Warren Buffett Indicator' Flashes a Warning Sign 'The Warren Buffett Indicator' looks at the stock market's valuation versus gross domestic product (GDP). The indicator is calculated by comparing the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index to GDP. At a current ratio of 212% publicly traded stock valuations to GDP, the indicator is flashing its most 'expensive levels in history.' Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Though such a reading should raise a yellow flag, there are two critical caveats investors must understand: 1. Valuations are a Poor Timing Device: While valuations can warn investors of a frothy market environment, they are a poor timing device. For instance, Buffett himself did not take advantage of historic gains during the Internet bubble due to his valuation metrics. Although stocks ultimately declined, the gains on the way up were monumental. 2. Denominator Can Increase: A bloated valuation does not necessarily mean that a market top is imminent. For example, suppose stocks correct or move sideways and the denominator (GDP) increases significantly (which is a distinct possibility with the current AI boom). In that case, the lopsided valuation can return to equilibrium. Earnings Reports will Dictate the Short-term Market Action Despite the short-term caution signals, earnings will likely dictate the short-term market action as Wall Street investors brace for the busiest part of earnings season. Big tech earnings from Meta Platforms (META), Microsoft (MSFT), Apple (AAPL), Arm Holdings (ARM), and Amazon (AMZN) are looming. Investors will focus on these tech juggernauts and will listen closely to gauge whether AI growth and CAPEX spending can continue to drive the market higher. Bottom Line While stocks continue to print fresh all-time highs, the 'sell the news' phenomenon, August post-election seasonality, and 'The Warren Buffett Indicator,' suggest that August may be a good time for active investors to take the foot off the gas pedal. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Inc. (AMZN) : Free Stock Analysis Report Apple Inc. (AAPL) : Free Stock Analysis Report Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) : Free Stock Analysis Report ARM Holdings PLC Sponsored ADR (ARM) : Free Stock Analysis Report Meta Platforms, Inc. (META) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Sign in to access your portfolio
