The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
2017-12-07 05:40 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 528 references
[Comments enabled]  

Has the light come on yet?

Why do you think the US Congress passed the Sexual Assault Taxpayer Bailout Act by unanimous vote in 1995 -- and Bill Clinton signed it?  Why has it not been repealed -- and in fact, even today there is no bill on the floor of either House or Senate to repeal it, nor has Trump called for it to be repealed and stated he will refuse to sign any other bill (which is within his power) until it is?

The Hollyweird cabal's escapades are not just limited to harassment.  We all know about the Michael Jackson allegations.  Then there's Epstein -- and his connections to both the entertainment and political "industries."  Epstein, I remind you, was convicted and yet of all the people who I've ever read about being convicted of that sort of offense he's the only one who was basically given a slap on the wrist instead of decades in prison.

Worse, all of the others connected to him were not pursued.  At all.  Herr Clinton was of course one of those persons but hardly the only one.  Number of prosecutions of those others?  Zero.

So let's ask the inconvenient question: Is all of this in the political and media sphere nothing more or less than a monstrous blackmail scheme and that is why it never came out until it suddenly was forced into the public eye by some damning revelations that could not be silenced once they got circulating on Social Media?

Good question.

I'm willing to bet that question will never be asked and explored by any so-called "journalist" and that if it was you would not like the answer.

There's another side of this as well: This sort of blackmail doesn't always include actual harassment or assault!  Certainly there are very clear cases (e.g. a photo Senator Al Franken has out there in which he's obviously boob-grabbing a sleeping woman with a huge ****-eating grin on his face) but then there are the decades-old ones that could easily be harassment or even assault or might not be.

There are people who have a consensual affair that goes bad and they decide to get revenge.  Especially when they can destroy someone wealthy or powerful.  What's worse is that they don't have to be the one to use it as a tool of compliance -- anyone who knows about it can do so.

How about Roy Moore?  The evidence thus far (a "yearbook") appears to be forged.  Gloria Allred has refused to turn it over for forensic examination.  What we have learned is that the alleged "victim" had a divorce signed by the Judge which was not disclosed and she might not have liked the outcome.  Motive?  Quite possibly so.  Do we know?  Nope, but her refusal to allow the only piece of physical evidence to be submitted for impartial forensic examination speaks volume as to credibility -- and the likelihood that the alleged "event" was fabricated and Gloria Allred knows it.

Extortion and blackmail are two of the oldest games in the book when it comes to illicitly-wielded power.

Whether the target is actually guilty or not (often they are, of course) the power is there, is abused, and, it appears, widely so.

Exactly how many bills did Dennis Hastert not bring to the floor because he was being blackmailed by a kid he apparently diddled years prior?  We'll never know, but that he paid off said person is now a matter of public record.  We just don't know when the payoffs started, especially if they weren't in money, or who he paid -- and why.

I remind you that Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House and had plenary authority to control the agenda of the House -- that is, which bills came to the floor and which did not.  Do we have reason to believe that he made any of those thousands of decisions under threat?  Yes.  Do we have evidence he did?  No, but we don't need to -- we know the threat was there, the conduct was there and he later paid off the alleged victim (because he got caught doing it.)

Can we ever prove his conduct in setting the House agenda in the years prior was clean?  Nope.  Nor, unless someone is willing to admit to a serious federal offense (and probably go to prison for it), can we ever prove it wasn't.  Never mind that if the person doing the blackmailing wasn't in the US -- like, for example, a Russian -- they'd be utterly untouchable and never admit it because they're not about to give up their cudgel!

When it comes to media personalities it's arguably even worse because they intentionally shape public opinion.  Walter Cronkite's intentional deception on the Vietnam War, which didn't come to light for years after we left Saigon, is fact.  When you add to personal animus for or against some political point of view extortion the view from the so-called media gets very murky indeed.

NBC, for example, claims it knew nothing about Matt Lauer's alleged harassment (and worse; it appears at least one actual assault has been alleged.)  I'm not buying that for 10 seconds, and neither does anyone else with a brain.  Ditto for others in the media and entertainment world, never mind the political.  If Washington DC couldn't keep one blue cum-stained dress that was only known to Clinton, Monica and perhaps a secret service agent secret the odds NBC brass did not know is zero.

They simply found it convenient -- or worse, useful -- to not put a stop to it.

Everyone wants to cluck and count here but the issue is far more serious than it appears at the surface.  This is not just about women being harassed.  It is also about serious issues of national security, improper and felonious interference in our political process, the destruction of businesses and even industries through blackmail and extortion and much more.  To the extent there are children involved, and you know damn well there almost-certainly are, it gets even more serious especially given our own government's refusal to fully investigate and run into the ground everyone implicated in Epstein's "adventures" given that most of those "exploits" involved underage individuals.

This in turn means our own DOJ and FBI were not only complicit they were likely involved in the extortion and blackmail themselves.  That's right -- our own government was and is involved in it, as their willful refusal to run Lolita Express into the ground continues to this very day -- Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump's exhortations about "the Rule of Law" be damned to Hell.

Yet Boobus Americanus has and will do exactly nothing about any of it.  You won't destroy these media companies.  You won't destroy the Hollywood studios.  You won't destroy the commercial firms.  You won't hold the political parties accountable including the entire DNC since Pelosi is the head of the party in the House and she originally covered for and defended Conyers, never mind others.  You won't destroy the RNC either even though it too passed the 1995 Abuse Act by unanimous vote and has taken zero actions to repeal it since.  You won't destroy all the Silly Valley organizations and firms that have fed on the "frat" culture including but not limited to Zuckerpig, Beelzebezos and all of the rest of the big-name "tech" companies who have all feasted on the fruits of this crap if not being involved in it themselves.

To those who either claim to respect or worse are women, you have no excuse for your refusal to act -- unless of course you like this sort of conduct.

I give up.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-12-02 07:11 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 469 references
[Comments enabled]  

That would be "never", right?

You'd think I'd killed a cat on national television yesterday with my article on where Trump sits right now in regard to Flynn's guilty plea.  The claims of incipient (in other words, "you're guilty even though you haven't done it yet") bad faith on my part, including "wow, man, I'm gonna archive this post before you change it" crap on Twatter, never mind the hate-email, rivaled that which I got back when I started the series on Obama and his little document forgery exercise.

Never mind more than 10 years of reporting on political sleaze in this country on both sides of the aisle.  I call 'em like I see 'em, and who gets pissed off about that doesn't bother me in the least.

Here's the real issue and why it's barely worth the time to write on anything any more.  Despite utterly irrefutable evidence, as it's been admitted, that Hillary not only broke the law when it comes to classified information our government has, in prison right now, people it has jailed for doing far less than she did, some of whom were active service members that never let any of the information travel beyond their personal devices (unlike Hillary who both did and intended to -- cough-Huma-cough-cough), despite clear evidence and admissions that our own FBI and BATFE intentionally ran guns into the Mexico, including weapons that were then used to murder a border agent, despite proof that Herr Clinton sold targeting technology to the ****ing Chinese in exchange for illegal campaign contributions in the 1990s while knowing at the time that the Chinese had stolen an advanced nuclear warhead design from us not one economic or political retributive action was taken in response and in fact hundreds of billions a year in trade deficit has continued to accumulate since under every single Administration and Congress forward, both Republican and Democrat.

The fact of the matter is that irrespective of any of this there has not been one response by anyone in the American public that is not partisan horse****.

Not one.

There has been no concerted economic effort (legal, I remind you) to demand that this crap stop instantly under pain of economic and political destruction.

There has not been one concerted economic effort (legal, I remind you) to demand and enforce over the last two election cycles that those "big three megacap silly valley enterprise" (that would be Google, Facebook and Twitter) which in the last election cycle had their employees display a 96.7% to 98.9% preference in campaign contributions for Hillary Clinton stop censoring fully half of the opinion in this nation or they will be legally and economically destroyed by said censored half through targeting every single one of their advertisers and other economic partners they rely on to remain in business, never mind their employees and families who made those political contributions. Every single one of these individuals and firms are fair game legally, economically and socially when they abuse their political preference and amplify same through corporate visages either as owners or employees to silence dissenting voices.

Instead the attack any time someone points out that yes, sleaze and tolerance of same crosses the aisle (like, for example, the 1995 "Abuse your Sexatary Act") and is damned near unitary in our Government is directed at the person who points out same by those same partisan hacks who remain silent when their own side does the same ****ing thing.

I wake up this morning to McConnell's grinning visage as he just horse-****ed America once again with the Senate's "tax cut" bill that in fact monstrously increases tax preference for hedge funds and their "2 and 20" profits when the owners of same's personal capital is NOT at riska tax preference zero common Americans will ever be able to take advantage of.  This is one of the biggest and most-blatant quid-pro-quo campaign "contribution" scams in history and yet half the country is cheering it on and letting it go forward without so much as a whimper.  That son-of-a-bitch McConnell should have been hauled off the floor of the Senate in irons and yet.... where are handcuffs?  The passed package was and is a fraud yet it will obviously be signed into law and you will be immediately abused through higher deficits (much higher; I remind you the CBO always gets this wrong, and always does so in one direction -- they understate the deficit impacts every single time due to the rules on how they "score" bills), teased with a little scrap of bacon on the table while these *******s eat the whole steak in front of you.  While the Democrat side of the aisle have and will scream (but do nothing) the Republican side, including all the Trumpers, will cheer their own demise as the health care monopolies feast on your fat-ass diabetic carcass and asset-strip you to your underwear.

Let me know if and when the paradigm shifts but as far as I can tell that is a lost cause and so is what was America.

America isn't a place, it's an idea.

An idea sold out to a bunch of spineless screaming and willful tolerance of fraud, theft and abuse so long as it comes from the "correct" side of the political aisle.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-12-01 15:46 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 417 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is a lot worse than the Trumpers are letting on.

First, let's dispel the complete and utter crap that's flying around: Mueller can't indict Trump.

That was pretty-well hashed out during Nixon's Presidency; even after it was known that he was involved in the Watergate Burglary at a level that could have led to an accessory charge he still wasn't indictable.  Nor was he indictable for obstruction either when he destroyed the tapes.

But, in this case, that's not the end of the issue.  Mueller can indict anyone who conspired with Flynn, who he just gave a "no felony time" free pass card to, other than Trump.  I would not be shocked at all if there's a wink-wink nod-nod that with cooperation that won't even be recorded as a felony conviction either.

No prosecutor does that unless he thinks he can get more and better.  Therefore Mueller does and the target isn't Trump since he can't indict him and he knows it.

That's bad, not good, because the likely target is one of Trump's closest and the highest-probability targets include either one of his kids or their spouse (e.g. Kushner.)

I remind you that a conspiracy charge only requires some sort of act of involvement and a predicate act to complete a felony, which Flynn just admitted to.  So the predicate act is there, now we only need the involvement of another person that in some way furthers the offense.  That's a damned-broad brush he's got there and it's before we get to a potential obstruction charge.

That's where the risk is -- along with whether Trump would immediately pardon any of those people if Mueller indicts them.

This much I'm sure of: Trump's prediction that this thing will over by the end of the year, given that Mueller just gave Flynn a "get out of jail free" card, appears to me to have a probability of zero.

PS: Twitter is all ablaze with the Trumper horse**** about ABC's retraction being dispositive -- that the contact was after the election (but prior to inauguration.)  Nope.  The Logan Act, constitutionally infirm or not (it has not been struck) still applies until inauguration day if there was a policy-setting or interfering component to the conversations.  Does the ABC "retraction" change the corner case potentials?  Absolutely, but none of the above that I wrote earlier was predicated on a belief that corner case occurred, which if you've read anything I've written on this since before the election you know has been my position -- that is, I have never believed there was a quid-pro-quo for Russian election interference within the Trump campaign.  The issue is, and remains that obstruction (of which "lying to the FBI" is a lesser-included if you want to get down to brass tacks) is usually what fells politicians and to the extent that an attempt was made to obstruct the investigation it remains a problem -- potentially an impeachable one for Trump and an indictable one for those close to him.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-30 23:48 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 341 references
[Comments enabled]  

.... a very long piece tomorrow on the outrageous decision in Californicated this evening in which a jury acquitted an illegal invader of all charges, save one, in shooting Kate Steinle.

The jury "bought" the defense argument that the charge was "racist."

But I'm not going to put in the effort because nobody in this nation gives a ****.  The Steinle family will not obtain justice and that's your responsibility, America.

No, I don't think that illegal invader should have been convicted of murder.  Murder requires intent.  I don't know if that was proved; I wasn't on the jury.

But manslaughter was a lesser included charge and does not require intent -- just recklessness.

That shooting was without question reckless.

Second, as an illegal invader it was a federal offense for him to possess a firearm.  He was also a convicted felon, so there's a state and federal crime there too.  Rather than imprison him for possession of a firearm by a felon (state charge, on which he was convicted) or try him on the federal charge of acquiring said weapon (a separate and distinct offense)which the Federal Government could do now (it doesn't matter how you acquire said firearm if you're a prohibited person) they're going to deport him instead.

May I remind you that they deported him before and he came back.  What makes you think he won't do it again?  Why deport him rather than imprison him?

So rather than tell you how I really feel about this, I'm simply going to leave you with these two thoughts:

First, **** you Mr. President, as you have no respect for the Rule of Law or your Just-Us department would try that illegal invader for the federal offense of illegally obtaining a firearm as an illegal invader in federal court and upon conviction toss his ass in federal prison for doing so, or let the state sentence and imprison him on the STATE charge he was convicted of first (possession of a firearm by a felon), try him on the federal charge and then deport him when he has served said sentences.  I remind you that DoucheNozzle Trump has repeatedly criticized Obama for being "soft on federal gun crimes" (such as acquiring guns as a felon); so much for Trump having a sack when it comes to enforcing the law.

You, Mr. President, just destroyed the last bit of respect I had for you.  May you burn in eternal Hell along with Kate's killer; you deserve to join him for your complicity in not trying this jackass in federal court.  I remind you that the Executive is charged with enforcing the law and the President's Oath of Office requires that he do so faithfully.

And second, **** you California.  I respect the decision of the jury but it damn well ought to have consequences, all lawful and enforced by the people of this country.  It won't because we no longer have anyone left in this nation with a sack, but if you think I'll be sorry or enraged and willing to fight if the Norks nuke San Francisco tomorrow morning..... you're wrong.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-24 10:50 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1020 references
[Comments enabled]  

There is a basic premise behind reporting .vs. editorializing -- one is allegedly unbiased, although we all have our personal prejudices while the other is labeled opinion (it's found on the opinion page and is disclosed as such.)

Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, it is now clear, in order to effect a public lobbying strategy much larger than that which Hastings "organized" and led to a five times increase in his firm's stock price revolving around net neutrality.

That latter event occurred after ISPs, properly recognizing that he was effectively driving semi trucks over the roads built for cars and refusing to pay higher fuel taxes and license plate fees for same, or, if you prefer, opening up a 2" water connection to a 6" main and demanding not to be charged by the gallon, resulting in you having no water pressure, started pushing back and demanding that Netflix cover the outsized costs being imposed on said ISPs to prevent service-quality collapses to everyone, including those who didn't want his service.

In response Hastings got a bunch of left-aligned media to whip the public into a froth and Obama's FCC obliged by handing him tens of billions of dollars literally forced out of non-subscriber's wallets.

Amazon engages in cross-subsidization of its product sales (on which he makes no profit, particularly when fulfillment along with G&A are included) with other sales, particularly in AWS, where he does.  This now includes government sales of AWS which means you're being forced to subsidize Jeff Bezos' destruction of retailers all across the United States at literal gunpoint, along with all the jobs that go when those retailers are forced out of business.

This is illegal under 100+ year old anti-trust law which says that any attempt to monopolize trade is a felony.

Amazon even goes so far as to find products for sale by merchants on their site, identifies the ultimate manufacturer of said products and then attempts to solicit those manufacturers to "sell direct" via Amazon, a classic (and illegal) interference with existing contractual relationships and also illegal as an attempt to monopolize trade practices within a given type of product.  There is a commenting member on this very site who has had Amazon try to do this with a product he had developed and sells.

All of this, of course, requires that Amazon and Jeff Bezos have a nice loud mouthpiece with which to push political ideas -- for his scheme would collapse immediately and disastrously, with the ~300x P/E of the company reverting to about 25x (that's a fall of roughly 92% in stock price) were he forced to stop all that crap and face both investigation and penalties for even a tiny percentage of those actions.

It's therefore clear what Bezos motivation was for buying The Washington Post.

But the Post has claimed that "Democracy dies in darkness" as its mantra, and has claimed to be politically neutral.  That, of course, is critical to Bezos' scheme, because if it was to become transparently obvious that his actions were politically motivated not only would he face the wrath of half the country (which disagrees with that political view) it could form a cornerstone of a ruinous legal attack on Amazon and Jeff Bezos personally, since anti-trust violations carry not only corporate penalties but personal liability in prison time.

So here we now have it:

Allegedly unbiased Washington Post reporter Janell Ross spoke at a top-secret meeting of liberal movers and shakers last week, where Democratic donors including billionaire George Soros outlined the future of their progressive agenda.

A Post spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that Ross took part of the California event “without notifying her superiors that she would be attending.”


One of the surprising guests was Ross, who used to pass as a somewhat impartial reporter for the prestigious Post. While the paper’s slogan is, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” she apparently wanted to keep her bosses in the dark about attending the liberal planning session and hanging out with prominent Democratic donors such as Soros.

According to the agenda published by the Beacon, Ross’ panel aimed to help the liberal attendees get “the economic narrative right" and was immediately followed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speaking about on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor called it a “classic example” of journalism “openly coordinating with the alt-left” to take down conservatives.

Uh huh.  Sure she spoke (not just "attended"; she was scheduled as and participated as a speaker) without her "superiors" knowing about it.  What is plausible deniability for $100, Alex?

While I have exactly zero belief our government will go after Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post and Amazon on anti-trust grounds, although it damn well should, that doesn't stop you on the right (you know, people called "Republicans") from destroying his "investment" through perfectly-lawful actions.

Never mind all of those other businesses that Amazon and Bezos have harmed or even put into the ditch, yet those owners and their customers continue to make excuses for and even use the subsidizing services of Amazon itself!

On this so-called "Black Friday" what ought to be happening is that Amazon and Bezos ought to be seeing red.

We'll see if anyone gives a damn and makes it so.  I'll take the under on the wager in too-stupid to care and act America including both "Trumpers" and other members of the public who claim to be Republicans, which allegedly make up half the country.

If you support SPEAKER PELOSI, buy from Amazon; she was part of that conference.  If you support GEORGE SOROS, buy from Amazon; he was as well.  Both were headliners at that conference, in fact.

If you support and want a Democrat Majority in the House in 2017, BUY FROM AMAZON.  This, by the way, includes using their profitable service if you're a business customer -- AWS -- because without it Bezos would be out of business already since he could not continue to operate his product-selling operations at a loss.

But if you want none of those things THEN BOYCOTT THOSE ****ERS AND PUT BEZOS OUT OF BUSINESS.

PS: Amazon hasn't had the best price in a couple of years either, so you're getting double-screwed by shopping on their site whether you would like to once again have Speaker Pelosi or not.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.