I was kind of surprised too, because except the "he is willing to throw the boss under the bus" part, there was not much new. My guess is that the market has been so over stretched that pretty much anything can blow it away... I also think a possible impeachment is already built in and expected by the market, so I don't see why would they run towards the exit if it comes to pass...
Alrighty, the Flynn dip is officially now actually fake news. ABC has just released this: ""We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process," ABC said in a statement. "As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online."" http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/02/media/abc-news-brian-ross/index.html "telling viewers that the source who had provided the initial information for his story later told him that it was as president-elect, not as a candidate, that Trump asked Flynn to contact Russians."
interesting interview with the author of "Collusion" [President Trump would/could have been a KGB agent]. "LUKE HARDING: Well, the KGB really forever has been interested in cultivating people, actually, who might be useful contacts for them, identifying targets for possible recruitments possibly to be agents. That's not saying that Donald Trump is an agent, but the point is that he would have been on their radar certainly by 1977 when he married Ivana, who came from Czechoslovakia, a kind of communist Eastern bloc country. And we know from Czechoslovak spy records de-classified last year that the spy agencies were in contact with Ivana's father, that they kept an eye on the Trumps in Manhattan throughout the 1980s. And we also know, from defectors and other sources, that whatever Prague learned, communist Prague, would have been funneled to the big guys in Moscow, to the KGB. So there would have been a file on Donald Trump."
This was a great event to be trading. I happened to be in a small long position when it happened, flipped it and watched it drop on Dow and nasdaq. Then bought it from the bottoms. Then 1 day later it’s officially fake. Did anyone notice on Thursday at 1pmGMT the ft.com ran a piece stating the opec cuts were officially extended? For the next 3 hrs of the daytime wen t back and forth- it was announced by oil ministers in the meeting that nothing had been agreed. Finally official announcement was around 3/4pm. Pretty surprised the ft even run crap. Everyone’s full of shit, so you really have to just trade what you see on the screen.
100% The influence of news on trading is like relying on a good luck charm. When it goes in your favour you believe in the news, when it doesn't you blame yourself for putting on a bad trade. If you switch off all news feeds this blocks out the distractions, then you trade entirely via skill alone, much better.
If you were trading OPEC off news last week you were hosed and done by Wednesday. I was saying that once the announcement came out officially the cut was extended that Brent would sell off and some fellow traders were saying “what? An extension- bull news etc” however it was waaaayyyyy prices in by that point. It was almost a 2month old story by Wednesday. Sure enough- it came off about 50cent on the official release
And if you're wondering what was up with today's 11am dip, "Trump, again!" https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/president-donald-trump-cannot-obstruct-justice-lawyer-says.html Good lord, I have despised the 'man' for decades, but with his ability to generate heart attacks, he is keeping the mortgage paid. ("Y'know, for a shit sandwich, this one's got some mighty fine bread!")
This is correct. It is not possible for a president to obstruct justice. A president IS justice. They have the power to pardon anyone and fire any special counsel or investigator at any time and for any reason they like.
He's probably got a point that the case would fall apart on proving motive. Presumably you have to know what constitutes 'justice' to be able to act on the motive to obstruct it. Well, that really does undercut the central tenant of separation of powers. Nixon and Charles I provide good examples of overstepping restraints of executive authority.