The ultimate shrewdness is found not in the balance sheet, but in the qualitative excellence of the business.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
Last Friday, I noticed my oils were up, quite a bit. Then Trump staged his "special military operation" on Saturday. My oils were up a lot Monday.
Then the oils fell off Tuesday and Wednesday. I added some XOM, figuring we are headed for the same scenario we saw under the Bush junta.
Today, my oils are all up, a lot.
The Pirate King likes to stage events on weekends.
Think I'll top up the gas tank in my car today. Gas is already up 30 cents, since last weekend's "special military operation". No telling where the price might be Monday.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 5
Think I'll top up the gas tank in my car today. Gas is already up 30 cents, since last weekend's "special military operation". Is it? Where do you live? Per GasBuddy, the national average is still only $2.80 per gallon - lower than it's been since the pandemic, other than the five-year-low it hit shortly after Christmas:
https://www.gasbuddy.com/chartsIf anything, oil and gas prices remain
super low relative to the last decade or so:
In May, when oil was trading at around the same levels it is today, Travis Stice, executive chair of Diamondback Energy (FANG), an independent exploration and production firm, said the industry was already looking over the edge of a cliff.
"There have only been two quarters since 2004 where [oil prices] have been as cheap as they are today," excluding 2020's anomaly, Stice wrote in a letter to shareholders. "Therefore, we believe we are at a tipping point for U.S. oil production at current commodity prices."https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-oil-pri...Which, BTW, is another internal contradiction in Trump's policy towards Venezuela, and apparently towards oil in general. As noted in the above article, he wants to keep oil prices low - around $50 per barrel. But he also wants massive U.S. private investment in Venezuela's oil fields. But that investment isn't
close to economically feasible at such lower prices. This seems to be more about the U.S. gaining
control over oil resources and having them at our disposal, rather than getting oil prices higher. But that's not going to happen if it's not economically viable:
New supplies from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’ cartel, combined with fears of an economic slowdown stemming from Trump’s tariffs, depressed oil prices throughout 2025. Drillers, who have for years embraced Wall Street’s demands for capital discipline, kept their spending in check despite Trump’s exhortations and a plethora of deregulatory actions meant to spur drilling.
“Investors don’t care about energy dominance. They care about energy dividends,” said Clay Seigle, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://archive.ph/8KukL#selection-1455.0-1459.170The only likely answer is for the U.S. government to backstop private investment in Venezuela with
massive economic guarantees. Investing in Venezuela with a government that doesn't have real laws and a history of nationalizing assets is a super high-risk prospect. They'll need iron-clad protections:
Amos Hochstein, managing partner at investment group TWG Global and a former adviser to former president Joe Biden, said investing in Venezuela was fraught with legal, financial and political risk. American oil companies needed to know whether they would be shielded beyond Trump’s term in office, he said.
“US companies need to know who their counterparties are. Are they signing deals with the Venezuelan government? Is the Venezuelan government legitimate?”
Hochstein added: “For the next three years these companies will have to put money in and no revenue will come out until much later. And at that point Donald Trump will no longer be the president.” https://archive.ph/B4kQX#selection-2077.0-2085.198But that creates another internal contradiction for Trump's policy. He probably can't create anything that will outlast his term without getting Congress involved. But his entire approach to Venezuela (and most of his policy) has been to use solely Executive power. He can make the Navy cause massive pain for Venezuela, he can get Rubio to coerce/cajole the government into doing things in the short-term....but he probably can't give the oil majors what they would need in order to rebuild Venezuela's oil infrastructure. Which would be a brand new government in Venezuela
and an act of Congress for some type of investment guarantee.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Is it? Where do you live? The Mobil station I pass frequently was at $2.69 last week. Earlier this week, it was charging $2.99. Today, as I drove past, it had dropped to $2.79. I pressed on, and topped up at an Exxon, at $2.74. Then I passed another Mobil station at $2.69 Doh!
As noted in the above article, he wants to keep oil prices low - around $50 per barrel. He could be lying, for the benefit of his base. Prices like that would hurt his donors.
I have been proposing an air strike on Kharg Island. That would be easier and quicker than trying to hijack every tanker that is carrying Iranian oil, with the added bonus of the shock value.
His nibs has already been laying the ground work to "justify" such a strike.
January 2, 2025
Trump says U.S. will intervene if Iran kills peaceful protesters as economic unrest spreads
"We are locked and loaded and ready to go," the president said on Truth Social early Friday, after economic protests in the Islamic Republic took a sharply violent turn.https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/trump-us-interv...Does God and Savior Trump give a rat's a$$ about demonstrators?
May 2022
Former Pentagon chief Esper says Trump asked about shooting protesters
"The president was enraged," Esper recalled. "He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak and 'us' meant him. And he wanted to do something about it.
"We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, 'Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' https://www.npr.org/2022/05/09/1097517470/trump-es...I propose his "concern" for the well being of demonstrators in Iran is entirely fake. He is using it as nothing but an excuse to attack Iran.
He doesn't care any more than Bush 43 did, about the price Proles pay for gas. Higher prices are good for him and his donors, and that is all that matters.
The only likely answer is for the U.S. government to backstop private investment in Venezuela with massive economic guarantees. Investing in Venezuela with a government that doesn't have real laws and a history of nationalizing assets is a super high-risk prospect. They'll need iron-clad protections:On that I agree. USian "JCs" have learned that they can sit on their hands, and the government will pay their costs, and take their risks, so their profits are guaranteed.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
But his entire approach to Venezuela (and most of his policy) has been to use solely Executive power.
You've commented about this a lot, but you haven't mentioned if this was even legal. Or, specifically, a legal use of Executive power. I believe Congress already rescinded the 2002 special powers act (forget the exact title), so such actions should require the consent of Congress. No?
There is a further move in Congress, so I read, to further restrict his powers after this raid, including some Reps (in the Senate). Plus talk of impeachment because Congress didn't consent, and it was -in principle- illegal.
I'm a little behind on my Legal Eagle analysis, but I suspect he (and ScowlOwl) will deem these actions illegal.
No. of Recommendations: 2
There is a further move in Congress, so I read, to further restrict his powers after this raid, including some Reps (in the Senate). Plus talk of impeachment because Congress didn't consent, and it was -in principle- illegal.And, as far as his nibs is concerned, those five GOP Senators are politically dead.
Trump rages about Republicans backing war powers resolution: ‘Should never be elected to office again’https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/08/c...It's all just an exercise anyway, because God and Savior Trump can veto the law, or just ignore it.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 8
You've commented about this a lot, but you haven't mentioned if this was even legal. Or, specifically, a legal use of Executive power. I believe Congress already rescinded the 2002 special powers act (forget the exact title), so such actions should require the consent of Congress. No?
The boundary between the Executive's power to direct the military for national security purposes, and the Legislature's power to declare war and pass laws governing the use of said military, has been contested and disputed for many decades. Suffice it to say that Presidents usually say they have complete power under the Constitution to use the military for nearly any purpose that isn't an actual declared "war," and Congress tends to say that they can (and in some cases have) put whatever chains they want on such use.
And the SCOTUS (and the lower courts) has tended to stay completely out of it, basically saying that the there's no resolvable legal issues there and the other two branches have to work it out.
So I think that any time someone tries to figure out whether (much less to baldly assert that) some exercise of military power is illegal, at least on the question of what the President can do with his own Article I authority without Congress blessing it, they're going to be entirely guessing. And I don't have much to add to that.
A ton of the other stuff that they're talking about is very dubious indeed. For example, if Venezuela were to "give" the U.S. 50 million barrels a day, and the U.S. were to sell it on the open market, the President doesn't get to just decide what to do with that money. That's the country's money, not the President's personal money. That money has to be appropriated by Congress if it gets spent anywhere. The President has vast powers over the Navy, but he can't just cut a deal with Venezuela for divvying up a few billion dollars in oil revenue however he likes.
But for the military operations themselves? That's what we in the legal profession refer to by the technical term, "A Damn Good Question."
No. of Recommendations: 2
For example, if Venezuela were to "give" the U.S. 50 million barrels a day, and the U.S. were to sell it on the open market, the President doesn't get to just decide what to do with that money.
As others have suggested, especially since the Maduro snatch, the regime is "high on it's own supply", and sees no boundaries to it's power. You have probably seen that the Pirate King has announced that the proceeds from sale of Venezuelan oil will not go to the Treasury, but to private banks, and his own crypto scheme has registered to be a bank.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
American oil companies needed to know whether they would be shielded beyond Trump’s term in office, he said.
They probably want to know they’re shielded during his term as well. I’m sure they know Trump is an unreliable business partner. So even for the short term they should want an act of Congress backing Trump’s promises.
-Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's what we in the legal profession refer to by the technical term, "A Damn Good Question."
I do try to ask "damn good questions". :-)
So, assuming Congress doing its job properly, would there be a legal basis for conviction of impeachment? I know you can impeach a POTUS for just about anything, but the Senate has to have an actual trial presided over by a SCOTUS justice. I'm assuming that there has to be actual law, in that case, and not just politics. Yes?
No. of Recommendations: 2
So, assuming Congress doing its job properly, would there be a legal basis for conviction of impeachment? I know you can impeach a POTUS for just about anything, but the Senate has to have an actual trial presided over by a SCOTUS justice. I'm assuming that there has to be actual law, in that case, and not just politics. Yes?
On this one, I would say "no."
I mean, there's a certain argument that there's never any "legal basis" for impeachment, in the sense that it's essentially a political - not a judicial - act. It is available for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but there is no body of law that defines what those things are, no required legal process for any of it (Congress can do what it wants, and need not adhere to any rules of procedure or due process at all), and if they were to convict a President of something wholly unsupported by the Constitution there would be no way (and no one) to gain say it.
Leaving that aside, I don't think that your original question poses a "high crime or misdemeanor." Violating the Constitution is not a criminal act. It is not a criminal code. Presidents constantly violate the Constitution - I don't think there's been a President in recent history that has never lost a Constitutional case in court. If the President ends up doing something that's later found to have violated the Constitution, he hasn't committed a crime (unless it's also a violation of some provision of a penal code).
So violating separation of powers (ie. infringing on Congress' authority to declare war) or going beyond one's enumerated power (ie. using military force in contexts that go beyond the Commander in Chief role) might be unconstitutional, but they are not criminal. And I believe that the term of art, "high crimes and misdemeanors" was intended to cover cases that are exactly that - actual crimes - and not intended to encompass non-criminal disputes between the branches over their respective spheres of power or allegations of maladministration.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is available for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but there is no body of law that defines what those things are,
You would think all the corruption, grifting, self-dealing would be cause, but I guess not.
Emoluments clause?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Posted earlier.
the regime is "high on it's own supply", and sees no boundaries to it's power. As reported on the ABC evening news, tonight:
‘I don’t need international law’: Trump says power constrained only by ‘my own morality’
In a new interview with the New York Times, Trump said the only constraint to his power as president of the US is “my own morality, my own mind”.
“It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump said, adding: “I’m not looking to hurt people.” He went on to concede “I do” in regards to whether his administration needed to adhere to international law, but said: “It depends on what your definition of international law is.”https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/08/tr...As many here understand, his only "morality" is MONEY.
Meanwhile, regarding Shinyland's new colony:
Trump says US will run Venezuela for years
President Trump, in an interview with The New York Times, said the U.S. could be in control of Venezuela for years.
“I would say much longer,” Trump told the Times in a two-hour interview published Thursday, when asked if the U.S. would oversee Venezuela for months, a year or longer. https://thehill.com/policy/international/5678472-t... Steve
No. of Recommendations: 9
You would think all the corruption, grifting, self-dealing would be cause, but I guess not.
Emoluments clause?
Again, the Constitution is not a criminal law. Violating the Constitution is not a crime. Which is a good thing, because Congress and the President are constantly being challenged in court over whether one act or another violates the Constitution. They sometimes lose. They haven't committed a crime if their actions are found to be unconstitutional. That's as true of the Emoluments Clause as any other part of the Constitution.
So if you believe that "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to....well, crimes, then violating the Constitution wouldn't fall within that phrase.
Now - many actions might violate the Constitution and a criminal law as well. For example, if a federal judge takes a bribe, she will have violated both the Emoluments Clause and a number of criminal statutes. But for issues like whether Congress must give authorization for the type of military action that we are conducting in Venezuela, or whether that falls within the President's Article I power, there's not likely to be an applicable criminal statute and we're just dealing with the Constitution. So it seems to me that would not implicate a "high crime and misdemeanor."
