Hillary Clinton’s campaign is refocusing on Donald Trump and turning away from the latest investigation of her emails, reminding voters of all the reasons why she believes Trump is unqualified to be president. At three Florida rallies Tuesday, CBS News’ Nancy Cordes reports that Clinton ticked through her opponent’s most notorious comments about the opposite sex. “I want all the girls in America to know: you are valuable,” Clinton said at a rally in Fort Lauderdale. “Don’t let somebody like this bully tell you otherwise!” To another crowd in Dade City, Florida, she added: “He calls women ugly, disgusting, nasty, all the time... He doesn’t see us as full human beings.” For proof of her closing argument, Clinton turned to former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, who Trump publicly shamed in 1997 for gaining a little weight. “He said to me, Miss Piggy, Miss Housekeeping, Miss Eating Machine,” Machado said, joining Clinton in Dade City. It’s a closing argument aimed not just at female voters but also the men who love them. The Clinton campaign released a series of ads Tuesday -- all of them with the same message. “I wouldn’t feel good as a father voting for somebody like that,” one man says in an ad. In Columbus, Ohio, President Obama warned that Trump is unlikely to change. “If you disrespected women before you were elected, you will disrespect women once you’re president,” he said. But in Fort Lauderdale, a protester interrupted Clinton with a sign that said her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is a rapist -- a common sight at Clinton rallies that set her off last night. “I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous divisions and behaviors of people who support Donald Trump,” Clinton said. Aides to the Democratic nominee insist the race is not as tight as new polls suggest. And yet they’ve begun airing ads in four states that supposedly tilt their way: Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico. The campaign says that is not a sign of nervousness -- it’s a sign that they still have a startling $150 million in the bank so why not put it to good use, especially if it helps Democrats down the ballot. But that doesn’t explain why Clinton has added a stop in one of those states -- Michigan -- to an already packed schedule. Answer: vary
As seen on Justice With Judge Jeanine Issa: Comey Reopening FBI Clinton Email Probe 'Matter of His Integrity' In her Opening Statement last night, Judge Jeanine Pirro said FBI Director James Comey owes it to the American people to reveal what new information made him decide to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation. "He's got to tell us what was discovered what was so big that he violated Justice Department and FBI guidelines and alerted the nation. He cannot hide behind protocol," Judge Jeanine said. She also called for a "thorough, unbiased investigation," with search warrants, empaneling a grand jury and a deal with Huma Abedin to get the top Clinton aide to talk. "Jim, go back to your roots," Judge Jeanine said. "You were once a great prosecutor. Don’t let Washington ruin you, too. You need to send these Clintons back to where they came from." Read the full transcript below, and let us know what you think in the comments. Liberals Bash FBI Director Comey Over Clinton Probe After Praising Him in July Mother of Jailed Sailor: 'Hold Hillary to Same Standards' as My Son on Classified Info The FBI’s ability to get Huma Abedin- Hillary Clinton's closest advisor, confidante and State Department deputy chief of staff - to sing will make or break this election. Right now, reports are the FBI is negotiating with Huma's lawyers, stemming from her joint computer with pervert husband, disgraced ex -congressman Anthony Weiner. Here we go again: We are nine days from an election that will redefine this nation. And as I said last night, we're on the precipice of yet another constitutional crisis because of the Clintons. This time, involving an alleged pedophile, our nation's top secrets and a couple of grifters from Arkansas. You already know how I feel about all this from my open last night. The American people are entitled to know before we go to the voting booth what it was that caused FBI Director Comey to reopen the case. He's got to tell us what was discovered what was so big that he violated Justice Department and FBI guidelines and alerted the nation. He cannot hide behind protocol. The Justice guidelines 'don't let me talk' rule doesn't work anymore. The 'we don't comment on pending cases' doesn't work anymore. There are no ethical prohibitions. You have been invited by the target and her surrogates to release the information that caused you to reopen a closed case. If there is an indictment, Hillary is now foreclosed from objecting to such disclosure. My bet is, she knows you wont - but thinks that she’s calling your bluff. If she really wanted to know, all she has to do is sit down with Huma and ask her. The investigation is then not compromised, since documentary evidence - here emails - do not change. So it's time to do what you didn't do last year- a thorough unbiased investigation, using all the tools available search warrants and empaneling a grand jury. No more mother may I routine. You’re the one who got yourself in this mess. And now the American people are in a bigger mess. In 2013 Huma signed a document under penalty of perjury when she left the state department that she had turned over all classified materials and that she was not retaining copies. It seems that metadata on 650 thousand emails suggest otherwise. Huma swore under oath that she searched thru all her devices for anything state related. She had a chance to turn things over and she didn’t. Start your negotiation there, Mr. Director. You've got her in a corner. It's time to throw some punches. Make your deal with Huma now. If you don't and Hillary gets elected, no one will care. Hillary will do what she’s always done. She'll be appalled at Huma. She’ll say she didn't know. She didn't remember. She short-circuited. She had a brain clot. She had no idea. Look, the American people are already traumatized by the Clinton scandals and we just can’t take 4 more years of them. Word is that although Justice told your FBI guys to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation, it’s still ongoing. The justice dept. is dirty and you know it. Our attorney general actually pleaded the fifth on the Iran ransom probe. Loretta Lynch meeting with the spouse of a target and then the target herself days later saying I will keep Loretta Lynch as my attorney general is bribery pure and simple. Jim, go back to your roots. You were once a great prosecutor. Don’t let Washington ruin you too. You need to send these Clintons back to where they came from. It’s time for you to buck up put on your big boy pants and make a deal with Huma for the sake of this nation. You've got till Tuesday. Answer: vary
Days after Steven Bannon’s blustery, accusatory interview on “60 Minutes,” in which he warned the apostates blocking President Trump’s agenda that he’s coming after them, Trump confirmed it -- there is no such thing as Trumpism. In recent weeks he’s assured Democrats he backs legalizing the Dreamers, affirmed a commitment to foreign aid in front of the United Nations, and said he’s adding troops in Afghanistan. Will Trump now accept “better” terms he wants in the Paris climate accord? Too bad for Bannon, because none of this is remotely the fault of his favorite punching bags, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, just Trump himself. Bannon’s new self-described role as “wingman” growling from outside instead of inside the White House -- where as chief strategist he fought openly against the “globalist” forces he believed included Trump’s family members -- isn’t going very well. Trump keeps screwing things up for the Breitbart News commander. After getting fired last month he lamented to the Weekly Standard that “the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over.” But upon reflection, Bannon realized that lame duck talk diminishes his own power, so he’s in overdrive fighting for scraps of a policy vision the president embraces spasmodically. Bannon says he’s enjoying having “my hands back on my weapons,” but he’s outside looking in at a West Wing filled with elites from Goldman Sachs -- the very definition of “the swamp” that Bannon is always frothing about. There, a president is spending political donations on legal fees while his staffers go deep in debt with mounting lawyer bills, visitor logs are kept secret so voters have no idea who is permitted into the Oval Office to influence the president, and a kleptocracy thrives where Trump and his children continue to be enriched by business connected to foreign governments, including the Chinese. Cabinet secretaries are using government planes for private use and private planes for government work -- violations that would have sparked endless Breitbart bonfires under President Obama. In reality, however, there was little left of Trumpism to trumpet even before Bannon was fired. He’s got the travel ban (or at least a modified version of it), and maybe the promised withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement; Bannon will claim credit if Trump pulls out of the Iran nuclear deal -- but that’s about it. On trade and immigration, the president has retreated from Bannon’s barricade-crashing proposals and has not withdrawn from NAFTA, not imposed tariffs on Chinese steel imports, has three times backed off threats over funding for a border wall and now come out in favor of what Bannon calls “amnesty.” Yet Bannon has declared war, promising to take out incumbent Republican senators who aren’t sufficiently loyal to the president. Targets are guilty of insufficient fealty to Trump himself, not to an agenda once thought of as Trumpism. With the backing of loyal mega-donor Robert Mercer, the Bannon forces are targeting Sen. Jeff Flake, and potentially Sens. Bob Corker and Roger Wicker as well. GOP leaders are incensed over the millions more they will spend protecting those lawmakers, money that could be spent trying to knock off Democrats. Currently Bannon is working to elect Roy Moore to replace sitting Sen. Luther Strange in the Alabama Senate race. Trump has endorsed Strange, also backed by McConnell. Bannon is backing the more Trumpian candidate and, well, Trump is not. Bannon, ironically, purports to be interested in protecting GOP majorities in Congress. Before he could imagine Trump giving away the store on DACA to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, Bannon declared in his “60 Minutes” interview that preserving President Obama’s executive order would cause a GOP civil war. He expects Dreamers to run out their permits and “self-deport,” because “amnesty is non-negotiable.” He also said, “I’m worried about losing the House now because of this,” adding that his fear is “in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party.” But if civil war in the GOP isn’t Bannon’s aim, it's hard to know what is. He blames everything on Ryan and McConnell. “They do not want Donald Trump’s populist economic agenda to be implemented. It’s very obvious. It’s obvious as night follows day,” he told Charlie Rose. In the name of Trumpism, Bannon swallows heavy doses of denial. After all, when Trump threatened to withdraw from NAFTA, the president’s kids and other aides made calls to the Canadian government and arranged for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call Trump and talk him off the ledge. It wasn’t Ryan or McConnell. Trump’s approval ratings remain low, Bannon said, “because he hasn’t -- we haven’t gotten the wall built.” Earth to Steve: Trump has signaled to Congress the wall is a joke. In the wake of the DACA debacle, Breitbart called the president “Amnesty Don,” yet Bannon himself has stayed sheepishly silent. Ann Coulter, author of “In Trump We Trust,” tweeted: “Looks like Bannon got it wrong. That shadowy force trying to nullify the 2016 election ... is @realDonaldTrump.” Rep. Steve King told the Associated Press the president was destroying his support by betraying his campaign promise, and that his base is “irreparable, disillusioned beyond repair.” King added, “No promise is credible.” Sam Nunberg, a close Bannonite, conceded: “The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency.” But Bannon isn’t just breaking plates at Breitbart, he’s building his own brand. Last week, like any other dime-a-dozen elitist, Bannon attended an investor conference in Hong Kong. He told the exclusive gathering he speaks to Trump every two-to-three days, despite White House denials that the president has spoken more than once with Bannon since he left. Before Trump disappointed him on DACA, Nunberg had hailed Bannon’s increased influence with Trump. “I think Steve leaves and a week later he [Trump] pardons Arpaio and they suspend DACA. I don’t think there was any coincidence there,” Nunberg told BuzzFeed. Bannon remains fixated on the threat China poses to the United States, has grimly predicted we will be at war with that nation within five-to-10 years over its buildup of military installations in the South China Sea, and said we’re already “at economic war” with China. Yet his domestic bark in this regard doesn’t seem to be the same as his overseas-investor-conference bite. Once there, the New York Times described Bannon as “more subdued about the purported Chinese threat.” The Wall Street Journal reported he described Trump’s great respect for President Xi and prospects for trade, but that “the U.S. needs to play a stronger role in changing the system in China, an attendee recalled.” It’s a far cry from a trade war on steel. Perhaps over time, Bannonism will go the way of Trumpism. A.B. Stoddard is associate editor of RealClearPolitics and a columnist. She is also host of "No Labels Radio" on Sirius XM's POTUS Channel. Answer: vary
Former Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek is joining Terry Crews in admitting he has experienced sexual harassment as a man in Hollywood. Van Der Beek added his voice to the chorus of men and women condemning disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, in the wake of numerous sexual misconduct allegations. “What Weinstein is being accused of is criminal. What he’s admitted to is unacceptable — in any industry. I applaud everybody speaking out,” Van Der Beek wrote on Twitter before revealing his own experience with sexual harassment. “I’ve had my ass grabbed by older, powerful men, I’ve had them corner me in inappropriate sexual conversations when I was much younger,” he wrote. “I understand the unwarranted shame, powerlessness &amp; inability to blow the whistle. There’s a power dynamic that feels impossible to overcome.” See his tweets below. This week, in the wake of the Weinstein scandal, Crews also revealed via Twitter that he was groped in the past by an unnamed Hollywood executive. “This whole thing with Harvey Weinstein is giving me PTSD,” Crews wrote before explaining he was targeted last year by a “high-level Hollywood executive” who “groped my privates.” “I understand and empathize with those who have remained silent. But Harvey Weinstein is not the only perpetrator,” Crews wrote. “Hollywood is not the only business [where] this happens, and to the casualties of this behavior — you are not alone. Hopefully, me coming forward with my story will deter a predator and encourage someone who feels hopeless.” Weinstein has been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous women, including Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Rosanna Arquette, Cara Delevingne, and more. In a statement to The New Yorker, which detailed numerous allegations — including claims made by actress and filmmaker Asia Argento that Weinstein raped her by forcibly performing oral sex on her — the producer “unequivocally denied” allegations of non-consensual sex. The statement, released by his representative, continued, “Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.” Answer: scheduling
Jesus Campos, the Mandalay Bay security guard who alerted police to the Las Vegas shooter, is speaking out for the first time about the violent encounter that left him with gunshot wounds. Jesus opened up to Ellen DeGeneres ... detailing the harrowing moments leading up to him discovering Stephen Paddock on the 32nd floor, just as he was starting to open fire on the crowd of concertgoers below. He thinks a loud slamming door during his routine check of the floor is what tipped off his location to Paddock, who then started shooting into the hallway -- and hit Campos in the leg. Miraculously, Campos says he was still able to somehow get on his radio and tell his team shots had been fired. You can hear his full story on Wednesday's episode of 'Ellen.' Answer: scheduling
Please sign in with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment. Oldest First I think WRAL should be ashamed! How can you just assume this person is a man? What if that is not the pronoun they choose for themselves and here you are all over your story just, "Man", "his", "he".I mean what you've basically done is committed a terroristic act on trans-non-binary people everywhere. You should post a public apology because I'm literally autistic and this makes me want to cry. I'm not even joking right now! I cannot believe how insensitive this story is!If this were California, you'd be in jail right now!! Just when I have a sliver of faith in humanity, I go and read WRAL story comments. Good job being horrible people. That is one creepy looking "guy." So Democrats want their daughters to be okay with going to the restroom with this guy? Where does the story say anything about anyone using a female restroom? So...is it possible for them to assault each other and never trigger an "assault on a female" charge that often coincides with domestic disputes? Oldest First Answer: scheduling
US President Donald Trump on Thursday dismissed an upcoming book on his campaign and administration as "full of lies" and invented sources, after unsuccessfully attempting to block its release. “I authorised Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book! I never spoke to him for book. Full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don't exist,” Mr. Trump tweeted in reference to Michael Wolff's “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.” “Look at this guy's past and watch what happens to him and Sloppy Steve!” Mr. Trump wrote. It was unclear to whom Mr. Trump was referring, with possibilities including Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist, and Steve Rubin, the president of Henry Holt and Company, which is publishing Wolff's book. The book quotes key Mr. Trump aides, including Mr. Bannon, expressing serious doubt about his fitness for office. Mr. Trump has been enraged by the betrayal by Mr. Bannon — a man who engineered the New York real estate mogul's link to the nationalist far right and helped create a pro-Trump media ecosystem. After Mr. Trump instructed his lawyers to try to block the release of the book, the publishers responded by moving the release date up by four days to Friday. Answer: scheduling
Briefly: In our opinion, full (150% of the regular full position) speculative short positions in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective at the moment of publishing this alert. Gold moved back and forth on Friday and the accompanying volume was high, but that’s not the only important thing that we can discuss today. The week is over and we have weekly changes and weekly volume levels to analyze and we saw major moves in the important ratios. Additionally, we discovered a self-similar pattern in gold that has critical and volatile implications going forward. Let’s start with Friday’s session and the changes in the gold market (chart courtesy of http://stockcharts.com). Gold moved sharply back and forth as both positive and negative data was released and ultimately it ended the session a few dollars higher (based on kitco’s prices, the closing price was $1,279.60). Why was the reaction so significant? The reason could be technical – the apex of the triangle was likely to be accompanied by a turnaround and since we just saw a more visible top a couple of days ago and apparently gold doesn’t want to form a bottom here, then the only remaining outcome is a local daily top that doesn’t change much – which is what we saw. Why do we think that gold doesn’t want to bottom here? Because if it did, it would have ended Friday’s session much higher. If gold doesn’t want to move higher, then silver must really hate that “thought”. The white metal declined once again and even though gold closed a bit higher, it managed to close lower. The move lower by itself is already bearish as it took place on visible volume, but it’s very bearish once we take into account Thursday’s breakdown. We previously commented on it in the following way: Silver declined and it reversed before the end of the session, which appears to be a reversal. But does this reversal really have bullish implications? It doesn’t seem to be the case. The volume wasn’t huge enough to confirm the reversal and it was not low enough to invalidate the bearish implications of the decline either. The key thing to the proper analysis of the silver price swing is the awareness of what the USD and S&amp;P 500 did. The former declined a bit, while stocks truly soared, which created perfect circumstances for a silver rally. Yet, instead of a rally, we saw a decline and a move below the rising support line based on the August and October lows. Consequently, silver’s action was very bearish as it showed great weakness in this market. Moreover, the mentioned support line could be viewed as a neck level of a head and shoulders pattern (with a rather long right shoulder, similar to the one that we saw in the euro), which serves as an additional bearish indication (it’s only a small addition to the bearish implications of the breakdown as such, as its implications are bearish regardless of the H&amp;S formation being in place or not). On Friday, the general stock market declined significantly but almost the entire decline was reversed before the end of the session. If we consider Thursday and Friday together, the S&amp;P 500 index still rallied considerably, but silver declined and was unable to invalidate its breakdown. The implications are strongly bearish. Let’s move back to gold for a few minutes. In terms of the euro, the bearish signals are much more profound. Gold has just broken below the rising, medium-term support line and the most recent local top was formed approximately at the apex of the triangle pattern (in terms of time). The latter makes it considerably more likely that an important top was just formed and thus that the breakdown that we just saw will be confirmed. As far as the apex of the triangle is concerned, it’s actually a combination of two such patterns – they are based on the same tops and bottoms, but in one case (red lines) they are based on the intraday extremes and in the other case (black lines) they are based on the daily closing prices. The most recent top took place right between the apexes created based on both patterns. The mentioned breakdown is almost confirmed. Almost, because we would prefer to see three consecutive closing prices below the support line to see it as strong resistance, but we have already seen two of them, a weekly close and also a failed attempt to move back above the line. The breakdown is very close to being fully confirmed and the bearishness of the implications increased significantly based on Friday’s session. Speaking of breakdowns, we saw one in the gold to S&amp;P 500 ratio, which… is nothing new, but still quite exciting and important. Why? Because due to several failed attempts to break below this level, we had to be skeptical toward the breakdown this time. The question was: ”Would this time be any different?” It turned out that this time was different as the ratio moved back to the previously broken level, verified it as support and then continued to move lower on huge volume (precisely, the ratio itself doesn’t have volume, so what we mean is the ratio of volumes). Why would the above be a big deal? Because this ratio moves in tune with gold when it comes to major price moves and – more importantly – there was only one similar case in the past 15 years when we saw a similar breakdown and it was in the early stages of the 2012 – 2013 decline. Back then, it was a warning sign that practically nobody noticed. You’ll probably not see it anywhere (except for this publication) this time either. Naturally, the implications are strongly bearish as the breakdown now appears believable. From the weekly point of view, we see that mining stocks declined and broke below the rising support lines based on the 2016 and 2017 lows and that the breakdown took place on big volume. All that happened after two weeks of low-volume upswings that we commented on in last Monday’s alert: Finally, the weekly volume levels in the GDX ETF paint a very bearish picture for the following weeks. The GDX ETF is after 2 small, weekly rallies that were accompanied by very low volume when compared with the previous weeks. The last week had less trading days, but that doesn’t explain the previous week’s low volume reading. Moreover, we didn’t see similarly low volume readings in the past Novembers, which suggests that we are correct to view the low volume levels as something important and meaningful. The only comparable situation from the recent past took place in mid-2014 (marked with a black arrow). In the following weeks, the GDX price was cut by a third. The bearish implications of the above just became more bearish as back in 2014, the first big-volume weekly decline meant that the big slide had just begun. The breakdown can also be seen in the case of the HUI to S&amp;P 500 index ratio. In other words, by looking at gold stocks’ performance relative to other stocks. The breakdown is clear and confirmed by both weekly and monthly closing prices. The implications are bearish. All in all, the medium-term outlook is clearly bearish based on the above and based on the factors that we discussed previously and it seems that we’ve been correct to be holding the short positions in metals and miners (especially in silver and miners). Still, it seems that the vast majority of the potential that these positions have is still to be realized. This is particularly the case given the similarities between what we’re seeing now and what we saw before the previous slides. We already discussed some of those similarities above, but there’s also something else that is likely in play right now. In early October, we described the analogy in performance between 2008 and the current period (at the moment) in gold stocks. It was almost two months ago, so even if you read it at that time, it might be worth reading it once again today (by the way, we are making that alert available publicly, so if you know someone who’s interested in precious metals, but has doubts about using technical analysis to analyze it, please send them the link to that alert – they might change their minds - https://www.sunshineprofits.com/gold-silver/gold-trading/the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/) – it’s truly amazing how the similarity continued almost to the letter even though the two cases are almost a decade apart. Even the initial retracement of the HUI Index (38.2%) was identical. However, today we are not going to repeat the October analysis – we are going to discuss something alike… in gold. That’s right, the gold market features similarities to its performance back in 2008. Before moving to details, let’s state that the analogy is far from perfect. That’s probably why we didn’t discover it earlier. However, it’s not the point to be picky about a technique, but rather to see if there is anything that it can give us and make us particularly aware of things that could come. With regard to the latter goal in mind, it seems that we have something very valuable. In both cases, we have a sharp rally that preceded a top, then we saw some kind of consolidation and another attempt to move higher, which failed (mid-2008 and second half of 2012) and started a decline. The decline was more or less twice the size of the decline from the key (March 2008 and late 2011) top. In 2008, we saw a corrective upswing that was followed by a move to almost the final bottom and from mid-2013 to early 2015 we saw several such corrective upswings. After the initial bottom (September 2008 and the final part of 2015) gold soared sharply. The sizes of the upswings differ on a relative basis, but it’s understandable as back in 2008 the moves took place in a very short time, so the levels of emotionality among market participants were much higher. After the sharp rally, gold consolidated a bit (late September 2008 and mid-2016), then declined and moved close to the previous highs once again (October 2008 and September 2017). The decline that started thereafter in 2008 was the biggest and sharpest decline in many years. Naturally, this does not bode well for the near-term gold outlook. Conversely, it seems that we can expect the most important part of the decline to be just around the corner. The above implication is not the only interesting thing about the analogy, though. The detail that could be important going forward is the moment when the decline took a breather. At this time, the moves take more time, so the pauses could be longer and more visible as well and if we get enough bullish confirmations once gold moves to certain price levels, we might even adjust the trading position temporarily. In 2008, the first interim pause was at the most recent important low and the second pause was approximately the level from which the sharpest part of the previous huge rally started, which was strengthened by another support level (the previous low). We don’t have price levels that would be 100% analogous, but we can see which levels are most similar. In our view, the most recent important lows would be close to the $1,200 level (March, May, and July 2017 bottoms) and the next strong support will be provided by the $1,120 - $1,130 area. That’s approximately from where gold soared most sharply in early 2016 and this level is strengthened by the December 2016 low. These levels are most likely to generate support strong enough to trigger at least corrective rallies based on the analogy to what we saw in 2008 and based on their own strength as support. Naturally, that’s what appears likely based on the data that we have today and the likely scenario could change as new developments unfold. There’s one more thing that we left for the analytical dessert. Namely, back in 2008 the previous key low (September 2008 low, which is analogous to the late 2015 bottom) didn’t trigger even a small rally. Consequently, even though a bottom or at least a correction will be widely expected once gold moves below $1,100, gold may continue to move lower and slide through $1,050 like a hot knife through butter. Finally, there’s one more thing that makes the current situation in gold similar to 2008 – the overall increase in the volume levels. We already discussed, why the yearly volume levels at record highs should not be viewed as bullish (final part of the November 14 alert that we’re linking to) and today we would like to add the observation that back in 2008 the volume levels also broke to new highs and stayed there for a long time. Yes, the volume has been growing almost constantly, but the 2008 and 2017 buildups in volume still stand out. The growth is much sharper than in other years and no other period is comparable to those years. Since the 2008 volume buildup was followed by a sharp decline in the precious metals sector, it seems that we might see something similar also this and/or the next year. Summing up, there are multiple bearish signals in the gold market and in the rest of the precious metals sector and the analogies to previous major declines further support the bearish outlook. The big decline in PMs appears to be underway as the previously discussed long-term signals remain in place: gold’s huge monthly volume, the analogy in the HUI Index, the analogy between the two most recent series of interest rate hikes, and the RSI signal from gold priced in the Japanese yen. To summarize: Trading capital (supplementary part of the portfolio; our opinion): Short positions (150% of the full position) in gold, silver and mining stocks are justified from the risk/reward perspective with the following stop-loss orders and exit price levels / profit-take orders: In case one wants to bet on junior mining stocks' prices (we do not suggest doing so – we think senior mining stocks are more predictable in the case of short-term trades – if one wants to do it anyway, we provide the details), here are the stop-loss details and exit prices: Long-term capital (core part of the portfolio; our opinion): No positions (in other words: cash) Insurance capital (core part of the portfolio; our opinion): Full position Whether you already subscribed or not, we encourage you to find out how to make the most of our alerts and read our replies to the most common alert-and-gold-trading-related-questions. Please note that the in the trading section we describe the situation for the day that the alert is posted. In other words, it we are writing about a speculative position, it means that it is up-to-date on the day it was posted. We are also featuring the initial target prices, so that you can decide whether keeping a position on a given day is something that is in tune with your approach (some moves are too small for medium-term traders and some might appear too big for day-traders). Plus, you might want to read why our stop-loss orders are usually relatively far from the current price. Please note that a full position doesn’t mean using all of the capital for a given trade. You will find details on our thoughts on gold portfolio structuring in the Key Insights section on our website. As a reminder – “initial target price” means exactly that – an “initial” one, it’s not a price level at which we suggest closing positions. If this becomes the case (like it did in the previous trade) we will refer to these levels as levels of exit orders (exactly as we’ve done previously). Stop-loss levels, however, are naturally not “initial”, but something that, in our opinion, might be entered as an order. Since it is impossible to synchronize target prices and stop-loss levels for all the ETFs and ETNs with the main markets that we provide these levels for (gold, silver and mining stocks – the GDX ETF), the stop-loss levels and target prices for other ETNs and ETF (among other: UGLD, DGLD, USLV, DSLV, NUGT, DUST, JNUG, JDST) are provided as supplementary, and not as “final”. This means that if a stop-loss or a target level is reached for any of the “additional instruments” (DGLD for instance), but not for the “main instrument” (gold in this case), we will view positions in both gold and DGLD as still open and the stop-loss for DGLD would have to be moved lower. On the other hand, if gold moves to a stop-loss level but DGLD doesn’t, then we will view both positions (in gold and DGLD) as closed. In other words, since it’s not possible to be 100% certain that each related instrument moves to a given level when the underlying instrument does, we can’t provide levels that would be binding. The levels that we do provide are our best estimate of the levels that will correspond to the levels in the underlying assets, but it will be the underlying assets that one will need to focus on regarding the signs pointing to closing a given position or keeping it open. We might adjust the levels in the “additional instruments” without adjusting the levels in the “main instruments”, which will simply mean that we have improved our estimation of these levels, not that we changed our outlook on the markets. We are already working on a tool that would update these levels on a daily basis for the most popular ETFs, ETNs and individual mining stocks. Our preferred ways to invest in and to trade gold along with the reasoning can be found in the how to buy gold section. Additionally, our preferred ETFs and ETNs can be found in our Gold &amp; Silver ETF Ranking. As a reminder, Gold &amp; Silver Trading Alerts are posted before or on each trading day (we usually post them before the opening bell, but we don't promise doing that each day). If there's anything urgent, we will send you an additional small alert before posting the main one. ===== Latest Free Trading Alerts: On Wednesday, Trump nominated Goodfriend to the Fed’s Board of Governors. What does it mean for the gold market? S&amp;P 500 index lost 0.2% on Friday, following volatile trading session and a bounce off support level at 2,600 mark. Is this a topping pattern or just another consolidation within medium-term uptrend? ===== Hand-picked precious-metals-related links: ===== In other news: ===== Thank you. Answer: vary
Hillary Clinton's "What Happened" Book is an upcoming memoir written by Hillary Clinton discussing the contentious 2016 United States presidential election. The book title was widely mocked on Twitter following its announcement in late July 2017. On July 27th, 2017, Hillary Clinton unveiled the title of her upcoming book What Happened, a memoir discussing experiences during her 2016 presidential run against Donald Trump (shown below). [1] That day, Twitter user @Kno tweeted a photoshopped version of the book cover edited to read "What in the Entire Fuck Happened?" (shown below, left). Meanwhile, Twitter user @ColeLedford11 posted a photoshopped picture of the inside of a book with a passage about Clinton getting "3 million more votes than Trump even with his collusion with the Russian government" (shown below, right). Also on July 27th, several Twitter users posted joke names for the book along with the hashtag "#BetterNamesForHillarysBook" [2] (shown below). Meanwhile, The Daily Dot [3] published an article about the online reaction to the book titled "Hillary Clinton’s new book title is getting laughed off of Twitter." Answer:
scheduling