The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
There Can Be NO Compromise On Data

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-10-05 09:59 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 436 references
[Comments enabled]  

It really isn't.

The latest attack is that Kavanaugh lacks the temperament to be a Justice.

Oh really?

So one who wishes to perform a public service job, no matter the position, is supposed to sit and be questioned by people who have referred to you as "evil" and accused you of being a serial gang-rapist -- a capital felony -- without one shred of evidence and yet be polite in response?

I think not.

In fact the proper response to that is "pistols at 20 paces, *******!" and it wasn't that long ago where such a statement would merit exactly that response.

Funny how people didn't make that kind of claim unless they were willing to duel over it.  The potential for being immediately drilled in response to such a statement has a powerful effect in focusing your mind before your yap opens and, if it doesn't, then you tend to be removed from the gene pool.

No, my issue with Kavanaugh and the entire rest of the court, which I argue renders it entirely moot and something that the people of the United States should erect a big fat middle finger to (and dare the Justices to try to enforce their rulings) rests in this lie:

Kavanaugh concluded that if he's confirmed by the Senate to the vacant seat on the bench, he "will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law."


The First Amendment opens with Congress shall make no law.

It then lists Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion as three things Congress may not abridge through any law.

In addition the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before a search can be conducted, signed by a judge, demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Yet Kavanaugh has opined in formal rulings that NSLs (National Security Letters) are Constitutional.

No, they are not.

First, they permit searches and seizures without prior judicial review and without a finding of probable cause.  They are an administrative subpoena and by definition administrative subpoenas are all flatly unconstitutional.

Second, they contain a gag clause.

As such they violate both the First and Fourth Amendments.  Any judge or justice ruling such are constitutional has violated their oath of office and declared themselves in open armed rebellion against the Constitution of the United States since these outrages are inevitably served and enforced by armed members of the government.

recipient of such a NSL has every right under our Constitution to refuse that demand.  Of course that would result in said person getting shot, right?


In addition Kavanaugh believes in a "usual" test for firearms laws.  The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is clear:

The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If you fail to understand how to parse the preamble to that statement and the difference between a dependent and independent clause go back to Grammar School. If you fail to understand that a right is something humans have that pre-dates government then you are either ignorant or a tyrant yourself.

The simple fact of the matter is that the NFA, GCA, Brady and more are all unconstitutional.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The 2nd Amendment is clear: The dependent clause explains why the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right all persons have and which in fact pre-dates all government, shall not be infringed.  If you read The Federalist and Anti-Federalist you will find that both groups debating the founding of the nation agreed that the federal government had no authority to regulate the arms owned and born by or to disarm the citizens AT ALL under ANY circumstances.

Indeed the entire debate among the Founders rested on whether the 2nd Amendment was necessary since both sides took as a matter of natural law the entire citizenry had a fundamental right to be armed in any way they so decided and to bear said arms when they wished or needed since such was an utter necessity arising from the natural law right to self-defense. Indeed the entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable you to say no to tyrants, whether the petty sort that robs you in the street or the organized sort that wear uniforms while claiming some government mandate and mean it.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer.  It is in fact about enforcing the natural law right to peaceful secession should it be asserted and the existing government reply is "NO!" -- exactly as the British Crown did.  May I remind you that the shooting started over exactly that point; the British attempted confiscation of powder and ball....

Shall not be infringed means what it says.  It leaves no wiggle room and it doesn't say "except for machine guns", "except if there are terrorist attacks in the country", or even "except if you previously committed a crime but have been released from court supervision."

If gun control advocates had passed such a Constitutional Amendment including such phrases then it would be constitutional, albeit still a violation of natural law.  But that hasn't happened and the historical record on the part of the Founders is not debatable.  Don't believe me -- go pick up The Federalist and Anti-Federalist and read both as they are the canonical source material.

Now granted, Kavanaugh is better in regard to the Second Amendment than many justices, before and now.  But that's like asking me if I'd like to get raped up the ass with the first inch of someone's penis or all eight inches, rather than having the debate be over whether******should be permitted in the first place or the attempt should be answered by a date with the gallows.

There is no question as to what the First, Second or Fourth Amendments say.  The question for today is one of time -- specifically, for how much longer the people will submit to a bunch of black-robed tyrants who have intentionally and serially, over well more than 100 years, ignored the very foundation of our nation while demanding that we perform fellatio upon them to suit their particular fetish-of-the-week any time they pick up a pen or open their mouths.  The question before us, in short, is at exactly what point we the people will again assert "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- and mean it.

Kavanaugh has no more right to call himself a Justice than does Stevens, Sotomayer, Kagan or for that matter the late Scalia.  Upon violating their oath of office for the first time all of them have voided any right to demand compliance with anything emitted from their putrid orifices and digits.

So no, this isn't really, from my point of view, about temperament.

Nor is it about drinking.

Or even about whether Kavanaugh stuck his penis in a college girl's face or grinded on Ford -- neither of which, by the way, I believe.

No, it's really about Congress and the court itself distracting you from the fact that the entire court is illegitimate and so is our Congress, both having voided their own right to demand anything from anyone by their own actions long ago and continuing to this very day.

THAT, and what we're going to do to address it, is the debate we should be having in this country in a political context before a bunch of someones decide that the only answer is to once again declare that the nation is too small for all of us to live in at once and further political debate is pointless.

We did that at Ft. Sumpter.

It got really sporty.

Do you really want to relive history or will you instead find your sanity?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-03 09:35 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 372 references
[Comments enabled]  

The left's fulminating over Brett Kavanaugh is nothing short of insane -- and points out that no good deed goes unpunished either.

Let's remember a few things -- Bill Clinton and especially Hillary are not sitting in a federal prison right now, in all probability, due to Brett Kavanaugh.

It's been mentioned, of course, that Kavanaugh was part of the Starr investigation into the Clintons.  But who remembers Foggy Bottom and Vince Foster?

Allegedly, he committed suicide.  But to believe this you must discount the first people who came upon the body and reported two holes in him -- one bullet hole in his neck, and a second in his head.  Whichever was first either was sufficient to be fatal, with certainty, and preclude someone committing suicide from firing a second time.

The various "investigating agencies" allegedly had such horrible crime scene technique we are to believe all of the crime scene photos were so terribly overexposed as to be useless in ascertaining this after the fact.  We are also supposed to disbelieve the original account of the person who found him.  And, behind more than a bit of witness tampering and intimidating is alleged to have been..... Brett Kavanaugh.

Of course all of this was while working for Ken Starr, and it's wonderfully unbiased, untainted "investigating" that had to find something once hard, physical evidence (DNA on a blue dress in the form of President Clinton's cum) emerged that proved he had sexual contact with Lewinski.  There was no other possible explanation for how that happened other than some form of sex, so it became the blow job for the ages and ultimately impeachment proceedings predicated on perjury.  Oh, and Clinton is forever ensconced in a call-out in the pinball machine Revenge from Mars ("I'll take the stinky cigars!")

You'd think that the Democrats and Hillary in particular would be quite thankful that Brett was running interference in that manner, if indeed he did.  Someone did, but of course we never got to the bottom of that either, did we?

Of course not.

Nor will we.  It's in the past, it's a vast right-wing conspiracy, etc etc etc.

But the bodies still hit the floor, and that's a fact.

The irony of the caterwauling by the left over Kavanaugh brings a wry smile to me these days, given that it sure looks to me, in the fullness of time, that he kept their standard-bearer out of a federal prison cell decades ago.

It just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished, and whatever you may think of someone and their political connections and alleged "friends" in DC no such thing ever actually exists.  As soon as you're no longer useful in whatever context you're being used you're immediately wood-chipper food.  At the same time I'm supposed to believe the very same FBI can conduct an "investigation", whatever that might mean on any given day, when they can't handle properly exposing photos taken at a crime scene.  Uh huh.

Mordor on the Potomac sounds more and more accurate by the day.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-02 09:03 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 273 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is why you can never convict -- in the court of public opinion or otherwise -- on a mere allegation.

The ex-boyfriend of Julie Swetnick, the third woman to make uncorroborated, lurid allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, told Fox News exclusively on Monday that she had threatened to kill his unborn child and at times even bizarrely asked him to hit her..

"Right after I broke up with her, she basically called me many times and at one point she basically said, 'You will never, ever see your unborn child alive,'" Richard Vinneccy said on "The Ingraham Angle."

According to Vinneccy, Swetnick told him at the time, 'I'm just going to go over there and kill you guys.'"

So he dates her, he stops dating her and goes out with someone else, he and his new lover are pregnant with a child and she threatens to kill both the mother and unborn kid.

At least that's the allegation, although it is backed up with a restraining order.

In addition the accuser was on a very hard-left-leaning network (MSNBC) and directly contradicted several items in her sworn statement.  In other words she not only impeached herself she implicated herself in perjury.

Then there is the fact that she apparently was sued by a former employer for making false sexual harassment allegations -- and lying about her educational background.  Folks, it's common to get fired for lying about educational achievement (in fact if you get caught it's a given) but to actually get sued by an employer, even for making a false allegation, is very uncommon.  It shouldn't be uncommon -- in fact it ought to be standard -- but almost no firm ever sues women who make even factually disproved allegations.

I'd love the see the content of those allegations..... and exactly what she claims happened.

Then there's the apparent fact that this accuser is a repeat tax scofflaw, and has had two tax liens filed against her.  Both were paid off, both were for material amounts of money (tens of thousands) which leads me to ask: Where did she get the money to pay them off? 

And finally, CreepyPornLayer (yes, that's intentional, and I think he's doing it too -- I have as much evidence for that as Swetnick does for her allegations) claimed in said submitted sworn statement a litany of security clearances and federal jobs.  Are they accurate or is that all a load of perjury?  If they are accurate what is our government doing -- specifically, DIA, NGA or NSA -- issuing and maintaining clearances to someone with this sort of documented history?  Serious money issues (and tax liens fall into that category) are a real issue for those guys, as are false charges of any sort since they go directly to the meat of any clearance: personal trust.

Finally, for context on all these claims against Kavanaugh, I'd like to add this:

I'm very sure FeinSwine blew me when I was sleeping and 16.  I'm not sure exactly where it happened or when, but I'm 100% sure it was her.  Those lips are unmistakable and so was her gargoyle-breath that wafted up to my teen nostrils.  It was definitely an assault, it was definitely her, and by God, she ought to be tossed out of the Senate for it even though I can't tell you when it happened, where it happened, and I'm sure I only had one beer before it happened too.

(If you're incapable of correctly parsing that may I recommend you have your psychiatrist check your meds?)

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-01 09:06 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 437 references
[Comments enabled]  

The report was provided to WaPo from the prosecutor who the Republicans hired for the Ford hearing, and it's damning.

It's not known where WaPo got it, but it doesn't really matter -- since it appears to be fully-factual.

The bottom line is that as I pointed out Ford impeached herself several times during her testimony, and the prosecutor caught several more serious problems than I had from merely listening in my car while driving, and (of course) unable to take notes.

Going forward, however, let's put a stop to this crap.  The Senate can change its rules on its own without any consent from anyone else, and I suspect the Judiciary Committee (which hears these nominees) can as well.  There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop such a rules change, and it ought to be implemented immediately.

It's simply this: No allegation of past conduct for any person subject to a confirmation hearing will be heard or accepted unless it is filed with both the majority and minority Judiciary Committee members 10 days prior to the commencement of public hearings.  The sole exception will be for conduct that is alleged to have occurred after the nomination was announced.

That's the end of this circus bullcrap.

If you withhold information as a member on either side of the aisle, it's inadmissible.

If you wish to perform a late hit sort of political maneuver, ala Thomas or Kavanaugh, it's inadmissible.

It does not matter which side of the aisle it comes from, or whether it's from the Congress itself or some outside party.  Either timely file it so the allegation can be vetted and investigated in the ordinary course of business, with both sides of the aisle fully informed, or **** off.

This should have been done after the Anita Hill horsecrap.  If it's not immediately done right here and now and passed into the Senate Rules then I deem the entire Senate, both sides of the aisle, illegitimate and their alleged actions from this day forward to be null, void, and worthy of a rusty chainsaw.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-09-28 07:03 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1614 references
[Comments enabled]  

I watched/listened to the entire thing -- both sets of testimony.

I must say this -- the prosecutor brought in from Arizona was good.  She did her job, which is to try to get people to impeach themselves, since there were no other witnesses to impeach either of the folks testifying.

She failed to get Kavanaugh, and the Democrats did a poor job of trying to follow up after she had specifically asked him whether he was ever so drunk he didn't remember something the next day.  She went at it several times from different angles, and got exactly nowhere.  The Dems tried the angle too -- and got nowhere.  When you boil it down that was all they had; fart jokes certainly weren't going to score any points for their team.

But Ford was another matter.  She impeached herself twice on a clear basis.  And no, it wasn't the flying thing -- yes, that was probably impeachment too, but only maybe -- because you can have a fear of flying yet still fly.  What she wasn't asked, mostly because the Prosecutor lady was being nice, was a direct question on whether the claim was a function of delay (and that was in fact her intent.)  Then there was another soft impeachment regarding her therapy records and their release to the WaPo; if she didn't give them out who did?  But impeachment of motive for delay or true investigation now doesn't go to the truth of the underlying case -- just what the complaining witness is trying to accomplish after the fact.  It's powerful as it goes to one's intent but only as a secondary factor once the fact that the events actually occurred as described is established.

Real self-impeachment -- the sort that blows up the case in dramatic fashion -- is a function of a direct contradiction by the person at interest in the fundamental facts of the alleged case.  We got that yesterday, and in any real proceeding it would be an instant destroyer of the complaining witness.  The first came with the recollection of the assault -- remember, there are four or five people in the building in total, three of whom are in the room (Kavanaugh, Judge and her) according to her account.  One of them "turned up the music" for cover and she testified there was no other music.  Then the event happens, the boys go down the stairs laughing maniacally after turning down the music, and shortly thereafter she locks herself in the bathroom, waits for a clear path and runs down the stairs and out the door of the house.

Ok -- all good here except she then testifies that her friend had no reason to recall the party because nothing of note happened from her point of view.


Suddenly, out of nowhere, 20 or 25% of the people at the party are gone and the one person present who just did that is the one who the alleged witness is close friends with.  She doesn't bid her farewell, doesn't tell her she's leaving, she bolts out out the door while two boys are "yukking it up", laughing maniacally which, given no other music playing, is very audible to everyone else there -- after all she can hear it through a closed bathroom door.

That's quite noteworthy -- if you were at a party at which you knew at most two of the five people present and one of them suddenly disappears you would definitely wonder why, especially when half of the remaining people are suddenly slapping each other on the back and laughing like hyenas.  Think about it -- you're out with friends, maybe in a bar, pool hall, whatever -- and you decide to leave.  Do you just bolt out the door?  No, and if you did in today's world while two guys are obviously taking great joy in some event your best friend who just witnessed that would immediately call or text you when they realized you were gone to see if you were ok.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something significant just happened.

Of course there were no cellphones then.... but it definitely would be noteworthy and in the time before cellphones it would have certainly merited a phone call the next day.

If your good friend actually was at a party where those events took place with those people.

That's strike 1.

The second was equally bad and perhaps worse, in that it went directly to the question of whether she had been assaulted and then later on, after learning Kavanaugh was a potential Supreme Court nominee for Mitt Romney when he was running for President (which was discussed about that time in 2012 widely in the press; I remember it clearly) and assigned Kavanaugh to the role of the assaulting party -- even though it wasn't him.  Then, over time she reinforced it in her own mind through both repetition and time, larded up and cemented with personal animus founded in political bias.  In other words what started as a muddled memory was animated by animus and turned into what is now a claimed honest -- but false -- belief.

Right near the end of her testimony she was asked about the process of going over such traumatic events to get to the bottom of what actually happened and got a chuckle over a Senatorial hearing with 5 minute, no-followup questions not being the right means to discern what had happened.  The prosecutor then laid out the correct, psychologically-accepted means of trying to sort out what happened in a traumatic event -- a one-on-one session where the person who underwent the traumatic experience does all the talking.

And then the bomb dropped -- she got Ford to admit that she had never proceeded in such a fashion.  Not in 2012 with her therapist when the allegation allegedly originally surfaced, 2013, 2015, 2016 or now.  Remember, in her therapists notes from 2012 she never named Kavanaugh -- or anyone else -- as the assaulting party.

This was very significant and in fact a monstrous admission on Ford's part, and she knew it.  She got visibly uncomfortable as that line of questioning was going on; it sure looked to me like she knew damn well she'd been caught with her pants down and the first flicker of panic crossed her eyes.  See, perhaps right now the time wasn't right for that sort of process... but when she originally had the "revelation" and didn't mention Kavanaugh by name it sure was.  And....... she's a professor of psychology so she knew all this and didn't proceed that way..... intentionally.  Rachel Mitchell, at that point, had her -- a follow-up question or two and she was done on her primary claim -- that she was 100% sure it was Kavanaugh.

Ford was lucky this wasn't really an adversarial proceeding -- she would have been skewered right then and there.

This is not to say that nobody assaulted Ford at roughly that point in her life, at a party.  It's not even slightly implausible that the predicate element of the act occurred.  But there's literally zero evidence that Kavanaugh was the person responsible and plenty of direct evidence that he was not.  It is never the job of an accused person to prove a negative.  It is nearly impossible to do that under any circumstances, but Kavanaugh has come damn close given his contemporaneous calendars and the physical facts on where he and the other allegedly-involved boys lived, plus the claimed details of the alleged assault itself, as I've previously covered in these pages.

Yesterday revealed not only that Ford and her counsel have intentionally tried to bury a direct refutation of her claims by someone who is, by Ford's own admission, a life-long friend of hers but in addition they have tried to bury an intentional series of actions that Ford took when this incident originally surfaced that made possible the conflation of Kavanaugh with someone else. Given Ford's profession that is not only inexcusable it has a whiff of scienter to go with it.

The press has been very kind to Ford overnight; nobody wants to go after someone who claims to be a victim of assault.  But the facts are what they are, and the Senators saw what happened.  The simple reality is that while Ford had a good story she utterly failed on three counts -- she has no corroboration of any element of the story, far too many "I don't remember"s and several elements have been directly refuted by people she claimed were there, under penalty of perjury.

Now add to that at least two (and arguably a couple more, such as the polygraph and flying) cases in which she directly impeached herself in open testimony and IMHO she and her story are


View this entry with comments (opens new window)