They did not know what was going wrong in the repo market. They were taken by surprise. Does that sound familiar? It should sound familiar to anyone who listened to Ben Bernanke talk about 2007-08, when neither recession nor any mortgage credit issues were anywhere on the horizon (he said).

So who are they bailing out? Some say it is J.P. Morgan forcing this by rebalancing and shifting their assets and liabilities. Some say it is hedge funds. Whatever, the key point is the Fed didn’t expect this and had to reverse strategies 180 degrees. They are in a trap entirely of their own making and everyone in America is going to pay something toward the eventual horrorshow results of their doings.

JMO….. : )

Here’s the Fed’s own chart for you. I didn’t make it up, LOL.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL

Use the 5-Yr option to see this clearly. I tried to put it up that way but it reverted back to the full series.

Shows the current rebound. Add $415 billion for New Year’s. Add several hundred billion more as they’ve already announced for the next several months. Puts them above the high point on that chart.

I don’t really know what your point is other than quibbling. Seems a time-waster, but I’m replying. The Fed is QEing like mad again but calling it NOT-QE. I would call it FAKE NOT-QE. Fakery abounds; it is going to be one of the most outstanding features of these times when the histories get written, IMO.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/12/chris_wallace_trump_engaged_in_most_direct_sustained_assault_on_freedom_of_press_in_our_history.html

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/12/13/unsung-hero-admiral-mike-rogers-obama%E2%80%99s-nsa-chief-discovered-administration%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98702%E2%80%99-illegal-spying-operation-briefed-trump-surveillance-trump-tower/

I once posted about an Obama administration official who actually had integrity, a man who noticed that something was amiss and acted. It was this man who traveled to Trump Tower on November 17, 2016, to brief then-President-elect Donald Trump that communications from the building were being tapped. He did not notify his superior, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, beforehand. This man’s name is Mike Rogers. He served as the head of the National Security Agency (NSA).

But Rogers’ role went beyond informing Trump about the surveillance being conducted at Trump Tower.
A couple of years earlier, Rogers discovered that American citizens were being spied upon and drew attention to the abuse of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the Obama administration. According to former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, Section 702 allows the government to essentially weaponize the NSA’s ability to collect data and surveil private U.S. citizens. In light of IG Horowitz’s report, this man’s story becomes even more relevant.
…
Clearly, the potential for abuse under the 702 program is great.

Dating back to 2012, the 702 program was used to spy on Americans, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Epoch Times’ Jeff Carlson wrote a detailed article about this entitled “An American Hero and the Death of a FISA Narrative” in January 2018. (He also provides a precise account of the Obama administration’s violations of the 702 program.)
Carlson, in the above-mentioned article, speculates that Obama administration officials didn’t obtain the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page for the purpose of collecting information, but rather, because they had already spied on the campaign, they needed it to “explain” the information they had previously collected.

I wonder if Durham and Barr will reach the same conclusion.

The Mueller report eviscerated the dossier. And now the DOJ IG report has delivered the final kill shot into this garbage document that the liberal media peddled as factual and accurate. This is the foundation of this Russian collusion manufactured lie that engulfed news cycles for the past two years that in the end, turned out to be pure fiction. This dossier has no more value than a roll of Charmin toilet paper. And Sean Davis, The Federalist co-founder, not only took a victory lap but found old tweets from past reporters and commentators, especially those from CNN, who defended the dossier as credible. Other reporters, including some from non-conservative outlets, have been calling out the liberal media establishment for their Trump dossier shilling as well. It’s very satisfying.

[lots of detail comparing the two memos and the Horowitx report]
…
These are a series of corrupt acts that go to the heart of whether Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a corrupt investigation. That is precisely the issue about which Nunes warned in his memo, and the Horowitz report corroborates each of the factual claims Nunes made in that warning.

It certainly looks as though Nunes can claim a very large amount of vindication. The media, on the other hand, should be asking itself why it found Schiff so credible in his defense of secret surveillance of a US citizen by counterintelligence operations on the basis of a discredited oppo research file. Is it that they just preferred Schiff’s anti-Trump narrative above all other considerations?

This shows some of the subtlety with which they do it, in order to lull the casual reader into accepting their assertions without question.
I think we have seen the same process at work many times on different topics, but especially with regard to President Trump & the various conspiracies against him (it really is not too strong a word now, is it?), but also in just regular reports about, well, almost anything.
This is how they get to the 90% negative coverage stat.

https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/how-the-boston-globe-creates-fake-news/
By: Allen Nitschelm on December 8, 2019

How is “fake news” created by the media and published by the Boston Globe? Today’s example shows us how.

Bank of America does a quarterly survey on small business trends. Last May, the media covered the results and Yahoo News reported them this way: “59% of small business owners say tariffs won’t affect them.” (see photo three). The May Yahoo News story is here: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-of-america-small-business-survey-tariffs-134105906.html.

Bank of America just released its most recent survey and the Globe covered an AP account of the results. But unlike May’s news, this is reported as a negative story about Donald Trump.

The headline is “Survey finds small businesses hurt by Trump tariffs.” Wow, what a turnaround. If the survey found such results, the numbers must have taken an incredible dive. What percentage of these small businesses were “hurt” by the “Trump” tariffs? Get ready, because the answer is stunning. The percent hurt by the tariffs is “nearly a fifth.” In other words, 18 or 19%.

The May story didn’t even mention this, so I went back to the Bank of America results directly and the percent who were worried over tariffs essentially hadn’t changed. It was 18%. (See https://about.bankofamerica.com/assets/pdf/Spring_2019_SBOR.pdf).

The AP story that the Globe based its short piece on is here: https://apnews.com/a565abf3785743a59cee37fd3a5a759c The AP story did not include “Trump” in its headline, but its copy was just as bad. It conflates tariff “effects” as bad effects, when half are mixed. And of the respondents who reported an increase in harm, the number went from “18% in the spring” to “nearly a fifth” now. As I have already explained, that is again the same result. No increase.

So the May article emphasized that most small business owners were unaffected while the December story reported this small number who were negatively affected, even though it wasn’t the majority of the responses. So it begs the question, how many in the most recent survey reported being unaffected? The number was 56%. That is almost the same as in May. Sounds like a number close to the margin of error.

So in the latest survey, 56% of the survey respondents did not think the tariffs would be harmful, yet the Boston Globe’s headline is that the survey found the opposite. That is classic Fake News, meant to cast President Trump in a negative light.

“Begs the question” is misused where is should say “raises the question,” as is now usual; my biggest complaint against journalists (after the malicious spinning) is their illiteracy.