Aggregator

Samanthan Busch is feeling love from above.

Lance Twiggs, the 22-year-old roommate and flame of accused shooter Tyler Robinson, could offer key evidence at a multi-day hearing next month in Robinson’s murder case.

The group stage showdown goes down at Lumen Field on Friday, June 19.

“I was very careful, even when I was physically experimenting with guys and trying to, like, figure myself out," Underwood explained.

“I was very careful, even when I was physically experimenting with guys and trying to, like, figure myself out," Underwood explained.

A new survey has revealed the nation’s deepest, darkest snacking confessions — with three in five admitting they have a secret stash hidden somewhere in their home.

Soccer fans can live it up with premium game day perks and signature experiences — all for a hefty price.

Just on the heels of last week’s severe weather outbreak across the Midwest, the threat of additional severe storms is increasing.

Forget a float, Mitchell Robinson has his own ride for the Knicks' championship parade.

Jennifer Honka had a classroom rule that, "the answer is always 'yes'" to encourage students to participate in the graded skits.

Hillary Clinton Blasts Joe Biden After Endorsing Him Twice

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appears to be suffering from buyer’s remorse about the 2024 race.

After repeatedly praising former President Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign, Clinton now says his decision to seek re-election was a “terrible mistake.”

“He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy and for the country,” Clinton said Monday of Biden’s decision to run for a second term.

She made the scathing remarks during an interview with a New York Times editor in Manhattan.

Hillary Clinton says Joe Biden made a “terrible mistake” by running for re-election.

“He made a terrible mistake. He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy, and for the country.”

Clinton said that had Biden said he was not running, the winner of the primary “would have… pic.twitter.com/Un1O9Q09Cy

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) June 16, 2026

The comments are at odds with Clinton’s repeated endorsements of both Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris during the election cycle.

A Headline USA review of Clinton’s social media found that she spent much of 2024 urging voters to back Biden.

“I’ll be voting Biden,” Clinton wrote on June 28, 2024.

The choice in this election remains very simple.

It's a choice between someone who cares about you—your rights, your prospects, your future—versus someone who's only in it for himself.

I'll be voting Biden. https://t.co/mxkpLIOEux

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 28, 2024

Clinton quickly endorsed Harris, Biden’s chosen successor, after he exited the race later that summer.

“Here’s what I know: We need to defeat Donald Trump. We need to elect Kamala Harris,” Clinton wrote on Sept. 10, 2024.

Adding to her rebuke on Monday, Clinton said that a different Democratic nominee “would have beaten Donald Trump” if the party had a competitive race.

“I think it was a terrible miscalculation on the part of President Biden,” Clinton continued.

She further suggested the nominee could have been Harris, a governor or a senator. She also said Biden triggered a “terrible dilemma” after he claimed he had never signaled in 2020 that he would be a one-term president.

Her comments come as Biden and former first lady Jill Biden expand their longshot efforts to defend their political legacy amid criticism from Democrats who blame the Bidens for propelling Trump’s grand return to power in 2025.

Biden exited the race only after mounting pressure within his own party following his disastrous performance in the first debate with Trump.

Outlets like Headline USA had long covered the evidence of Biden’s cognitive decline throughout his presidency.

By contrast, Legacy media organizations and Clinton herself downplayed or shielded him from scrutiny.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 11:25

Knicks center Karl-Anthony Towns said his fiancée, Jordyn Woods, wasn't keen on the idea of a 10-week celibacy rule that team owner James Dolan jokingly proposed before their 2026 NBA championship run.

Don't wake up in a pool of your sweat.

Builders reveal a critical labor shortage in their field is fueling the housing affordability crisis in America.

Homelessness and illicit drug use have been on the rise since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bezos about projects including his space venture Blue Origin and his new AI startup Prometheus, which is aimed at speeding up physical manufacturing.

A black bear attacked a teenager at his home early Monday morning, leaving him with bloody scratches across his face.

Three Iranian oil tankers have sailed past the US Navy blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for the first time in two months, analysts said.

The $300 Billion Wager: Inside The Private Fund At The Center Of The U.S.-Iran Framework

A proposed $300 billion investment fund has emerged as one of the most consequential-and politically explosive-features of the U.S.-Iran framework agreement, turning what began as a war-ending diplomatic effort into a test of whether private capital can be used as a substitute for reparations, sanctions relief and state-to-state reconstruction aid. This, of course, is the part where we 'give' Iran $300 billion - though what it actually is and does hasn't been disclosed until now. This isn't unfrozen Iranian assets, and is separate from parallel talks over sanctions relief. Read on and decide for yourself whether Reuters is simply polishing a turd. 

An Iranian woman waves a national flag at Valiasr Square in Tehran. Photograph: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images

According to Reuters, the fund is not designed as a direct U.S. payment to Tehran, nor as a government-backed reparations program. It is described instead as a private investment vehicle intended to unlock large-scale capital for Iran once a final U.S.-Iran deal is signed. More than half of the $300 billion has already been committed, a source with direct knowledge of the arrangement told Reuters, with pledged financing spanning companies and investors from the United States, Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa.

The fund, reportedly to be called the Reconstruction and Development Fund, would target sectors central to Iran’s postwar recovery and long-term economic reintegration: energy, logistics, manufacturing, transport and broader infrastructure. It would not become operational immediately. Instead, the current memorandum of understanding is expected to structure a 60-day negotiating period during which fund administrators, Iranian officials and prospective investors would scope projects and establish terms.

That timing is crucial. The fund is not the deal itself. It is a prize held behind a series of political, nuclear and security conditions.

From reparations demand to investment vehicle

The financial mechanism appears to have emerged from a failed demand for compensation. Reuters reported that Tehran initially sought $400 billion from Washington for war damages, a request the United States rejected. The compromise was to shift the discussion away from U.S.-paid reparations and toward a private investment structure that could be sold differently to each side.

For Iran, the fund offers a path to reconstruction and economic revival after years of sanctions and months of war. For Washington, it creates a performance-based incentive without requiring Congress or U.S. taxpayers to finance Iran’s recovery. For Gulf states and multinational firms, it could create controlled access to one of the Middle East’s largest and most underdeveloped markets.

That distinction-investment, not indemnity-is the political heart of the arrangement. The White House can argue that Iran is not being handed American money. Tehran can argue that it extracted a massive reconstruction pathway from a conflict it says it survived. Investors can argue that they are not subsidizing Iran’s state but positioning themselves for a potential opening of a long-isolated economy.

But that structure also creates ambiguity. A private fund of this size cannot function in a vacuum. It would depend on sanctions relief, banking access, legal clarity, security guarantees and a durable political settlement. Without those, pledged capital remains theoretical.

The broader deal: Hormuz, sanctions and the nuclear file

The fund sits inside a wider U.S.-Iran framework designed to end the war that began after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. The framework is intended to halt the U.S. blockade of Iran, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin a new negotiating track on Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief and regional security.

The Strait of Hormuz is central to the urgency. Before the conflict, the waterway handled a major share of global oil and gas shipments. Its closure and militarization created pressure on energy markets, shipping, insurers and governments dependent on Gulf exports. Reopening the strait is therefore not simply a diplomatic concession; it is a global economic priority.

U.S. officials expect traffic through Hormuz to rise gradually, not instantly - so shipping lanes, insurance markets, naval risk, mines, damaged infrastructure and commercial confidence cannot be restored by proclamation. Even if the formal agreement is signed, physical normalization may lag diplomatic announcements.

What Iran must give up

The proposed fund is conditional. Vice President JD Vance has publicly framed the arrangement as a reward Iran could access only if it meets strict obligations. Those obligations include dismantling or permanently constraining its nuclear weapons pathway, eliminating its stockpile of enriched material and accepting a stringent inspection and enforcement regime.

That framing is intended to answer critics who argue that the deal rewards Tehran for escalation. The administration’s argument is that Iran receives nothing meaningful merely for signing. Instead, the framework establishes a staged bargain: Iran opens Hormuz, accepts nuclear limits and permits verification; in return, it can receive sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and eventually participation in a massive private reconstruction fund.

The distinction between the $300 billion fund and frozen Iranian assets is important. Reuters reports that the fund is separate from parallel talks over sanctions relief and the release of Iranian sovereign assets held abroad. Those are different mechanisms with different timelines. Frozen funds involve Iran’s own oil revenues and reserves trapped in foreign banking systems. The $300 billion fund, by contrast, is described as new private investment into Iran.

That separation may be legally and politically useful, but it does not eliminate the core problem: investors will not move at scale unless they believe sanctions relief is real, durable and enforceable.

Why Iran is attractive-and why it has been untouchable

On paper, Iran is exactly the kind of market global capital would normally chase. It has one of the world’s largest combined oil and gas resource bases, a population of more than 92 million, a relatively educated workforce, a diversified industrial base and major needs in refining, petrochemicals, transport, aviation, steel, ports, power and logistics.

But for four decades, Iran has been largely frozen out of global capital markets. U.S. sanctions, secondary sanctions risk, compliance uncertainty and fear of future penalties have kept most major Western banks and corporations away. Even after the 2015 nuclear deal, many large financial institutions remained reluctant to re-enter Iran because they feared violating remaining restrictions or being punished later if U.S. policy changed.

That history is a warning. A commitment to invest is not the same as an executed project. A memorandum of understanding is not the same as bankable legal certainty. And a fund administrator cannot neutralize the risk that a future U.S. administration-or even the current one-could reverse course.

According to Reuters, the deal’s “cash sweeteners” should be treated cautiously. The central contradiction is simple: Iran wants proof of economic benefit before making irreversible concessions, while Washington wants Iranian compliance before allowing major financial benefits. That sequencing problem has bedeviled U.S.-Iran diplomacy for years.

Israel and the regional security dilemma

Israel’s position remains one of the biggest uncertainties. Reuters has reported that Israel is not a party to the U.S.-Iran memorandum and that Israeli officials have insisted they retain freedom of action against threats. Iran, meanwhile, has linked regional calm to Israeli conduct in Lebanon and beyond.

This creates a fragile triangle. The U.S. may be able to negotiate with Iran over Hormuz and nuclear inspections, but it cannot automatically bind Israel to every term Tehran wants. If Israel continues operations in Lebanon or strikes Iranian-linked targets, Tehran may claim the broader bargain has been violated. If Iran or its allies resume attacks, Israel may escalate. Either path could undermine investor confidence before the fund is even created.

That is why the $300 billion headline may obscure the more important question: can the security architecture hold long enough for any money to matter?

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 11:05

Cushing Stocks Crash To 'Tank Bottoms', Seasonally Lowest Since 2005; SPR Sees Another Huge Drain

Oil prices have tumbled in recent days as optimism grew there would be a lasting Middle East peace agreement, which would mean supplies would be back on track - but investors are taking a breather today with prices marginally higher this morning, rising off three month lows (and the 200DMA) after Trump threatened to 'start bombing again' if he doesn't like the deal (or how Iran is behaving). Solid US macro data also helped lift oil prices (demand).

"The collapse in oil has changed the tone of global markets, supporting bonds (prices) and reducing near-term inflation pressure," noted Tickmill market strategist Patrick Munnelly.

Oil industry experts and shipping companies have warned that it will take time to restore normal operations after the waterway's near shutdown.

Crude inventories held by OECD member countries fell in May to the lowest level since 1990 as governments drew down stocks to offset the blockage of Gulf crude shipments during the Middle East war, the International Energy Agency said Wednesday.

The drawdown since the start of the conflict has reached 163 million barrels in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development club of wealthy countries, the IEA said in its monthly report.

And so, all eyes on the official situation in the US today for any signs of those drawdowns slowing (API's report suggest not).

API

• Crude -8.33mm

• Cushing -1.5mm

• Gasoline +2.47mm

• Distillates -461k

DOE

• Crude -8.263mm (-3.5mm exp, -5.2mm whisp)

• Cushing -1.606mm

• Gasoline -906k

• Distillates +951k

Crude inventories fell for the 8th straight week (-8.3mm) and Cushing saw another major drop in stocks. Products were mixed...

Source: Bloomberg

At Cushing, Oklahoma, stockpiles declined for the eighth straight week, taking inventories to just above 20 million barrels. That’s the lowest inventories have been at the storage hub since October 2014, and takes us to what are considered essentially 'tank-bottoms', the point at which the hub is unable to fully operate. 

This is the lowest level for Cushing stocks for this time of year since 2005...

Source: Bloomberg

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve saw yet another massive drawdown (8.9mm barrels), down almost 75mm barrels since the war started...

Source: Bloomberg

The US rig count continues to rise along with US Crude Production (now back near record highs)...

Source: Bloomberg

WTI was trading around $76.50 ahead of the official data and rallied uyp to $77 on the report...

Finally, we note that The International Energy Agency warned on Wednesday that the conflict is causing a bigger hit to demand than previously thought, while adding in its first look at next year’s balances that it expects a renewed glut.

Crude prices are down by almost 40% from their peak during the conflict. Producers, shippers and traders are now assessing whether the interim peace agreement will prove to be durable, and how long it will take for vessel transits of the Hormuz chokepoint to be revived in earnest. Sticking points remain, including opposition in Israel, which launched the war with the US in late February.

But the scale of the price drop is already quashing concerns about a further energy-induced inflationary spike.

“This decline is not merely a reduction in the geopolitical risk premium; it is a recalibration of the global oil balance for the months ahead,” said Tamas Varga, an oil analyst at brokerage PVM.

“With oil prices tumbling, inflation expectations are likely to decline, while increases in consumer and producer prices should moderate.”

In addition to the extra supply, the selling pressure that has hit oil markets has been compounded by a clutch of factors.

Technical traders have added to bearish wagers but today's rebound comes right as Brent (briefly) dropped below its 200-day moving average for the first time since February.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/17/2026 - 10:41