The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]

Boy, you folks are stupid in the media.

There's "two sides" to that story?  Really?

There shouldn't be an immediate and public arrest of the "special prosecutor" that brought that case before the Grand Jury?


Let's recap what this is about.  Governor Perry "threatened" to veto a bill that funded an office unless the person who was currently sitting in that chair stepped down.  He did this after said person was arrested for drunk driving at something around three times the legal limit of intoxication.  Oh, and did I mention that the office in question was the DA?  In other words, the person responsible for prosecuting, among other things, drunk driving?

When she refused he did veto the bill.

This is alleged to be "abuse of power" and "misuse of government property" (specifically, the money he vetoed the use of.)

Oh really?

So let me ask a couple of questions just to clear this up.

First, President Obama, along with every other President, has publicly threatened to veto bills he doesn't like, or which authorize people he doesn't like to take certain actions.  That's the very same coercion complained about here; that is, the threat to do something unless someone changes a thing that the President likes.  Those threats sometimes result in the desired change, and sometimes they result in a veto actually being issued.

Why isn't Obama under indictment for doing the very same thing?

Second, legislators, specifically the House of Representatives, do this literally all the time.  Because The House has the power of the purse it can simply refuse to fund any office for any reason, including because it doesn't like the person who's there!  Ah, you might say, but that's the House's job!  Yes, it is, and it's also the Executive's -- both must concur, or the House (and Senate) must override the veto!  That's called separation of powers; you need concurrence or a supermajority to spend money.

Why isn't the entire US House, and the entire Texas House, also under indictment for doing the very same thing?

There's politics and then there's law.  The law should apply equally to politicians (and we know it doesn't) but vetoing a bill because you refuse to support the person or office that bill funds is not only lawful it is done literally all the time.

The special prosecutor who brought this indictment is the one who needs to be in the dock for abuse of power, not Perry.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This sort of thing is so common these days among the media that the real news is when there's an exception to the intentional lying.

It’s been a persistent question ever since Edward Snowden revealed the National Security Agency’s expansive spying operations just over a year ago: Have the disclosures damaged U.S. interests?

Note the lie right here -- it's the disclosure that damaged US interests.  It wasn't the act itself.

Of course the truth is something different entirely.  If our government generally and the NSA specifically had not believed they were the smartest people on earth, and that they could destroy security on purpose in various commercial products and services without anyone else figuring it out there wouldn't have been anything to reveal, would there?

If the FBI, NSA and similar had gone about legal process and gotten warrants to search and seize, including due process and the ability to challenge same, nobody would have had a problem with it.

Spying, otherwise known as intelligence gathering, is nothing new and there is nothing in the general sense wrong with it.  Where it goes wrong is when you get so damned arrogant you think you're better than everyone else, and then as an expression of that hubris you start compromising not just targets but everyone and everything so you can reach into wherever you want on a permanent forward basis on the premise that you "might" need to do so at some point in the future.

That individuals have not risen up and demanded a stop to this, along with the imprisonment of everyone involved who intentionally hid these programs through open and notorious perjury, as has repeatedly happened, tells you exactly how pussified this nation has become.

But that corporations and nations have said "**** that!" should not surprise anyone.

In an email, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said, “NSA cannot crack much of the encryption that guards global commerce – and we don’t want to. We focus on using our limited and fragile cryptanalytic capabilities against our nation’s foreign intelligence targets.”

That's a(nother) knowing, intentional lie.

The NSA performs a necessary and unique service.  But that does not mean that how it does so and the scope of what it does today are legitimate, constitutional or appropriate.  None of that is true and we are well past the point where those who try to claim otherwise need to be thrown under the bus -- and after you do so make sure you back up a few times just to be sure you didn't miss.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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 reproduced 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 or for commercial use.

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.