The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

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.

2020-11-29 08:31 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 51 references
 

 

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2020-11-28 10:32 by Karl Denninger
in Podcasts , 441 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's not complicated folks; Social Security does not pay dead people.

Ever.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/7jRqE2kiwNuc/

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2020-11-28 08:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 299 references
[Comments enabled]  

At this point all the screaming for money is treading dangerously close to the line of outright fraud and money-laundering.

Let's cut the bull**** folks -- there is no path in Congress in January.

The process is called out in 3 USC Section 15.

The first order of business for the new Congress is to seat its members.  You could try to stop enough Democrats from being seated to deny them the majority, but since it's a Democrat majority that won't work unless you physically stop them.  The only legal means to prevent it would be to have them under arrest on some charge; otherwise, since Congress makes its own rules on what is disqualifying you can forget it.  Such challenges to seating members have been made in the past and occasionally succeed, but again -- unless you're talking about violence this is unlikely to go anywhere since there is a Democrat majority.

As part of the process in 3 USC Section 15 the new Congress must first incorporate the rules for counting EVs.  This is because like all other matters a former Congress cannot bind the new one.  This, by the way, is why so-called "10 year budgets" are open and notorious frauds; there is no action that a given Congress can take that prohibits the next Congress from doing whatever it wants.  Such a prohibition would be expressly unconstitutional unless the Constitution was to first be amended.  So the first thing they do is incorporate the long-standing rules on how EVs are counted, beyond the requirements of the Statute itself, into the current Congress.  Again, with a Democrat majority they will not change this.

Once that has happened then the procedure is followed.  To challenge an EV certificate you need one House and one Senate member to, in writing, do so and state the reasons.  Once that has occurred each chamber retires, debates and votes; the resolution is privileged, time is limited to 2 hours, and the only motion that is in order is a motion to withdraw.  After the 2 hours the question must be called and voted upon.  Each representative or senator in the respective chamber gets one vote; this is not the same thing as a contested election where each state gets one vote, it is a vote under regular order.

To throw the EV certificate out, if regularly given by the Executive (Governor) you need concurrence of both House and Senate.  You will not get it because while the Senate is in Republican majority hands the House is not, even with the pickups made in members.  It is still majority Democrat and thus such a vote will fail.

The GOP could try one of a handful of parliamentary tricks, such as attempting to deny a quorum by walking out, but it is not clear at all that this would be successful, and even if it was it's a pyrrhic victory since it only delays.  As a tactic to force the Democrats to the table to negotiate the obvious question becomes "negotiate what?"  They will not consent to Creep and CumDumpster not being installed; they have no reason to.  There is no mechanism to force them to consent.  The only means to prevent the outcome would be to prevent enough Democrats from being present to deny them a majority in the session, but for there to be a sufficient number of present members in the House to have and maintain a quorum.  That's not going to happen voluntarily.

Therefore the only realistic path to stop Biden from being inaugurated is to prevent the execution and delivery of the six duplicate originals of those EV certificates by the Executive (Governor) of each state.

In that case nobody has 270 EVs and the House and Senate vote for President and Vice-President, respectively in a procedure where each state gets one vote.  Since Republicans control more delegations than Democrats in each chamber Trump and Pence win.  This is expressly Constitutional but the only way you get there is to deny 270 EVs when Congress counts the EV certificates.

There appears to be plenty of evidence that the election was not clean.  Pennsylvania's government facially appears to have violated the State Constitution with their "mail-in" ballot scheme and it is alleged they had more mail-in ballots returned than they sent out, a physical impossibility. The mere refusal to follow the State Constitution regarding the conduct of the election standing alone ought to be enough for an injunction denying certification and tossing Pennsylvania's EVs; let the citizens of the state take their ire out on an Executive and Legislature who willingly and intentionally violated the law and as a consequence destroyed their representation.  Further, in at least one state (Georgia) there appears to be proof of obstruction of justice as well in that it is alleged that the state destroyed election materials, specifically ballot envelopes.  That is almost-certainly contrary to state law and in the context of any sort of circumstance where you either know or have reason to believe there is legal process inbound to tamper with or deliberately destroy evidence is, in virtually every case, a felony.  But arresting and prosecuting people won't stop the governor from signing the EV certificate so if you cannot get an injunction to prevent that you're ****ed and done.

Is the same sort of problem present in other states?  Yep.  But even if you get one injunction that doesn't help since you need to "kill" enough EVs to drop Biden below 270 and you must do it by preventing those certificates from being issued by the state executives.

Therefore if Trump (or anyone else) is going to the USSC to block the process then get with it.

I very much doubt that you could get a state court, or the USSC, to void an EV certificate once issued and signed absent the development of something truly extraordinary that was not previously known.  Such a claim would be flat-out BS in this case, as the claims are already well-known having been raised immediately.

In reality this is yet another one of Trump's failures.  That there were severe audit problems with elections in the US is not news.  Those problems have been well-documented for decades, and further the post-2000 election mess made clear that major work was required.  That nepotism and perhaps outright bribery was involved, along with utterly-bogus "solicitations" and "qualifications" of election equipment and services is an outrage, but that nobody gave a crap about it, including Trump, until now is also fact.

Finally, anyone who thinks that the half of the nation that voted for Trump should or will "accept" a Biden/Harris administration has rocks in their head.  The Democrats have spent the last four years trying to overturn the previous election -- not at the ballot box but through active and criminal obstruction.  This included tampering with the US Justice system, feeding knowingly false affidavits into judges to get FISA warrants and more.

The half of the nation that voted for Trump is entirely within its rights to tell Biden and Harris to go blow goats and mean it, enforcing that by whatever means are necessary.  All governments exist only with the consent of the governed and 70 million+ pissed-off and disenfranchised Americans who are convinced the election was stolen may well decide that they will no longer consent and mean it.  If they do take such action that too is the fault of the entire body of Congress on both sides of the aisle and frankly, they all deserve to burn in Hell for it along with their entire family line.  We have spent the last 30+ years refusing to enforce black-letter laws against those who screw people, including all those in the banking system who did so in 2008 and the entire medical system for the last four decades has violated 15 USC Section 1 on a massive basis each and every day which I remind you is both a civil and criminal felony statute.  Further, that such applies to the medical industry and that they do not have an exemption has been litigated to the USSC twice in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Cut the crap with the excuses; at some point you have to either take responsibility and act or sit down and shut the **** up and we're well past that point.

I simply refuse to give a crap if the expected product of both Democrat and Republican refusal to enforce laws that have been on the books for more than 100 years, and which screw the common American out of more than $3 trillion a year, each and every year, never mind the willful and intentional refusal to put in place fully-auditable and secure election infrastructure, leads to flat-out refusal to go along with what comes out of DC by half of the nation's adults.  And yeah, that could well mean an attempt to secede and violence if the peaceful attempt to do so is rebuffed.

What's left of the alleged American experiment is, in my opinion, simply not worth defending in its present form.  The last 8 months have made clear that it is nothing more than a means of extortion and scam for a handful of very wealthy people, and exactly zero interest exists on either side of aisle in fixing any of that.  Indeed, both sides of the aisle and the entire medical system in this country is perfectly happy to willfully and intentionally kill your grandmother so Beelzebezos can have another billion dollars, and the "testing" industry rips off $100 million a day selling what certainly appear to be fraudulent virus tests that are then used as a predicate to falsely arrest and quarantine millions of Americans with each and every such event a serious felony for which zero people have or will be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned.

If you think I'm rising up to defend any of that you're insane.

Wake me up when what America is supposed to stand for means something again -- if it ever does.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Claim:  Covid-19 has produced a crazy number of excess deaths, mostly among old people who were spry and wonderful, they were not going to die anyway, this horrible disease got them and you evil younger *******s who won't wear a mask are why they're dead.

Evidence:

 

Well, let's see. There's a very nice statistically-consistent set of lines here from one year to the next.  It's a many-year pattern.  2020 was the year in which we killed Grandma by being insensitive *******s who wouldn't lock down and by God, we all wanted to travel and go see our family for Thanksgiving, and we don't wear masks, and Jesus we're pigs and Granny's dead because of it.  We should all be ashamed.

Except..... there's no dislocation in that data set, is there?  Um, that's a problem.  It's actually a very serious problem because if old people were dying at a materially-excess rate this year then you'd see it in that data; that nice top line would decrease instead of following the very same pattern it has for the last four years and being part of a parallel set.

Dead is dead; how you code something on a certificate or in a database makes no difference if I'm dead.  There's still only one body and if they were piling up at an excess rate for real among Americans older than 65, as is claimed, it would show up right there in that chart.

If you find that above graph a bit hard to follow here's the same data visualized slightly differently; monthly and then with a 12 month moving average on it.

 

What are the bumps?  COLA increases in benefits at the start of the year.  And then people die.  Then it happens again, and people die.  This year it happened and the same number of people, statistically-speaking, died as occurred previously.

That's a check register folks; nobody tries to cheat on a check register because you get caught instantly.  If there was actual excess death it would immediately show up in that graph.  Social Security never pays anyone beyond the date of death.  Ever.

But then it gets better...

 

See, when people die there's a specific payment that, in some (but not all cases), occurs.  And..... well..... while the data set is not yet complete (last two months data is not in; nothing for December and November's is an estimate as it's not done yet) where is the wild dislocation-style spike that would absolutely be present if, in fact, all these old people who shouldn't have died did as a result of all of those younger people who are spreading this evil disease all over the place because we hate Grandma?

When you lie in one data set you have to be very careful that someone else, in some other agency, also has a data set containing the same people and they won't lie because they can't; the money either goes out or doesn't, and whether it goes out or doesn't does not depend on whether someone gets sick or not.

It only goes out or doesn't go out if someone is either alive or dead, and it stops going out immediately when they're dead.  I know this because literally within days of my mother dying they knew and sent out a letter saying so.

There's more coming with regard to said data impossibilities folks, including one I've been tracking for a while.

The problem with lying is that eventually you lose track of the lies, and as soon as that happens you'll contradict yourself and get caught.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2020-11-27 07:42 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 27 references
 

You know you want to....

 

View this entry with comments (opens new window)