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


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.

2019-06-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 180 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well now let's get down to it.

If you commit a "crime" you should be tried and, if found guilty, imprisoned, right?

Only if the crime is committed by certain people -- or more to the point, not by certain people.

Like college administrators.  They're immune.  You go to prison if you bribe one but if they do the same thing so as to gain advantage (the same advantage you were looking for -- pecuniary advantage!) they get nothing.

Brooks' sentence requires him to attend literacy classes. Martin asked Brooks how he went to Auburn University when he can barely read or write.

"Didn't have to go to class," Brooks said. "In this country, it was all about how good you are, and I was one of the best in the country."

So he didn't have to go to class not only at Auburn University but also in High School either.

Both intentionally allowed him to "continue" despite his being unable to read or write.  That is, he's functionally illiterate.

How did that happen?  As he pointed out it's not an accident.

And may I point out that he's black?

Racial preference?  How come we can't talk about superiority in any area if you're white but it's perfectly fine to trumpet how this black man was "one of the best in the country" at football.  We can look at the racial make-up of football teams and see quite a lack of diversity compared against the population of the nation as a whole.

Where are the Asians, White Americans and Hispanics on said teams?  Why is the NFL overwhelmingly black -- in fact, roughly 68% of NFL players are black and 75% of NBA players.

Only 2% of NBA players are Hispanic and an effective zero, 0.2%, are Asian.

Is not that lack of diversity racist?

How about passing black people through both High School and College despite being unable to read and write when everyone involved knew damn well that this guy was incapable of performance at a grade-school level when it came to academics -- and kept letting it go on for money?

In other words it was a bribe and yet exactly zero of those High School teachers, principals, superintendents or college Deans are in the dock for bribery while at the same time if you "cheat" as an "ordinary person" by doing the same damn thing - bribing someone - you get indicted.

Where's your ******ned pitchfork America?  You stuck it up your own ass, didn't ya?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-06-04 07:50 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 259 references
[Comments enabled]  


Washington (CNN) George Nader, who was a key witness in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, was arrested on child pornography charges Monday in New York, federal prosecutors announced Monday.

Nader was arrested upon arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport for "transporting visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct."

He previously pleaded guilty to the same charge in 1991, the Justice Department said.

If convicted, he faces a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum of 40 years.

He was arrested Monday (6/3/2019.)

He was caught on January 17th 2018.

The same day he started "cooperating" with Mueller and ultimately testified before the Grand Jury.

Was his testimony truthful?

It certainly appears it was coerced (facing 15 years of hard time, especially as a second offense for the same thing, and for child porn at that) has a funny way of coercing people to say whatever you want them to say, and I bet the Grand Jury wasn't told that he had been caught with child pornography and then "magically" decided to cooperate.


After all, that's how Grand Juries work.  You don't get any exculpatory evidence introduced to one, and in addition there is no cross-examination.

The Mueller report extensively cites him, specifically related to a meeting in January 2017 regarding a banker with ties to Putin.

Does this mean he was lying? Not necessarily.

But it certainly goes to credibility; his testimony was hardly "freely given."

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-06-02 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 378 references
[Comments enabled]  

Uh, yep.

You’d think that Robert Mueller might know what any licensed attorney-at-law in the land tells a client in a tight spot with a lame alibi: better keep you mouth shut. Instead, Mr. Mueller crept Sphinx-like out of the Deep State woodwork on little cat’s paws and in a brief nine minutes blabbed out a set of whopperish riddles much more likely to get himself in trouble than the target of his hinky inquisition.

The key whopper was that he could not make “a determination” on an obstruction-of-justice charge against Mr. Trump because guidance policy from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel had said some years ago that a sitting president can’t be indicted. That is not what he told his boss, Mr. Barr, the Attorney General (and a roomful of the AG’s staffers who heard it), in person when he delivered his final report a few weeks ago.

Upon receipt of that report, Mr. Barr asked the Special Counsel three times whether his inability to conclude anything on an obstruction charge was due to the OLC guidance, and three times Mr. Mueller answered “no.” Mr. Barr relayed this on-the-record in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and, as averred above, he has plenty of witnesses. It should not be hard to reach a determination on who is telling truth here.

Indeed, that is exactly the problem -- and the deflection.

Mueller also knows that if impeached it would be nearly impossible to then charge Trump on the same basis.  That is, having established "high crimes and misdemeanors" (whatever that is as Congress determines; that's how the Constitution works) there is a very clean argument to be made that irrespective of conviction in the Senate Trump cannot be tried again for the same alleged act -- double jeopardy prohibits it.

This shouldn't give old Donald much comfort, however, since there are also State AGs after him, specifically in NY.  I wouldn't be even slightly shocked to see them come after him personally once he departs office, whenever that is.  Further, even a pardon at the federal level doesn't help him with state allegations.

On the other hand if there's one place Trump can fight swamp-like, as he has for the last several decades, it's in NY.  So while the State has effectively unlimited resources so does Trump and in NY said legal Battle Royale would be likely to play out over decades before delays, deferments, trials and appeals are exhausted.  Who knows how that all comes out but at least he's playing in his own back yard.

The problem with charging someone, federally or otherwise, is that they are instantly entitled to all of the prosecutions alleged evidence they intend to introduce before the case goes anywhere.  If they fail to produce something they typically are barred from using it.  This is a serious problem; Mueller has a proved history of dirty pool, and so do the people he hired.

Who remember Ted Stevens?  He was prosecuted for taking over $100,000 in "free" work on his house.  A bribe, basically.

The problem was that the government knowingly submitted false accounting records in the trial -- and got caught.

Then came evidence that the government knowingly submitted false VECO accounting records to establish the proposition that employee David Anderson and others billed $188,000 for the renovations. The records had been used by the prosecution to show the amount of time and money spent on renovations to Stevens’ chalet—an important part of proving that Stevens had received a benefit.

At yet another hearing, Judge Sullivan said, “It’s very troubling that the government would utilize records that the government knows were false.”

Then it all blew up:

In November, Judge Sullivan received a letter from prosecution witness Anderson, who had worked on Stevens’ chalet. Anderson wrote that he falsely denied on the stand that he had an immunity deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony. He also claimed prosecutors left him in a room filled with confidential documents in an effort to coach him. Anderson also claimed Allen had a contract to have him murdered.

The Justice Department has vehemently opposed Anderson’s allegations.

Then came the kicker. On December 2, 2008, FBI Special Agent Chad Joy filed a whistleblower complaint stating that prosecutors tried to hide a witness and intentionally withheld evidence from defense lawyers. Joy further accused a fellow FBI agent of having an inappropriate relationship with Allen.

Where was Mueller during all of this?

Running the FBI; he had been in the job since 2001.

Does anyone seriously believe he wasn't fully in the loop on the prosecution of a sitting Senator?

C'mon folks.

But it gets better.  Mueller has now been caught editing what he claimed was a transcript (not a "paraphrase") of a call related to Flynn's defense in his actual report in such a manner to make it appear that Trump's attorney was engaged in obstructing the investigation.  The actual transcript and full context proves otherwise but was intentionally omitted from the report as the actual transcript makes clear in plain language that his attorney is not seeking any confidential information.

I think Kunstler has it nailed here, much as I've opined.  The last thing Mueller wants is an actual adversarial process where there is a functional duty to disclose, a target that has a ****-ton of money, as many very good lawyers as he wants at his command and the ability to cite the former willing blind eye to misconduct that Mueller has repeatedly displayed -- especially since this time he can't duck behind a "oh some subordinate did it" given that he wrote the report.

Nope, that will fall on him, personally.  And while it's damn hard to actually jail a prosecutor for misconduct you can destroy their reputation in an indelible manner or even get them barred from ever practicing law in any capacity anywhere, ever again.

So Mueller in fact wants impeachment -- even though he knows The Senate will not convict.

He wants it to save his own ass by having it serve as a bar on Trump being able to use the adversarial process after his Presidency to prove Mueller's intentional misconduct including his intentional editing of the report to cast false light on issues related to the matter of obstruction of justice.

It's not like Mueller hasn't done it before and gotten away with it, after all....

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-06-01 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 351 references
[Comments enabled]  

Look at the twisted nonsense...

Barr, in a sit-down interview with CBS News, was asked whether he agreed with previous comments Trump has made suggesting some people with ties to the former president’s administration had done so.

“You don’t think that they have committed treason?” Barr was asked by reporter Jan Crawford.

“Not as a legal matter,” he replied. “Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest and better good.

Of course it's not Treason as a legal matter.

Treason is very-narrowly defined in the Constitution; in point of fact it's the only federal crime addressed in the Constitution directly, and with good cause.  The charge of Treason was mightily abused by both the British and others over the millennia, so the Founders (rightly so) greatly restricted it.

Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Since we're not at war formally with anyone, and certainly not informally with the Democrat party to conspire with them to deny a fair election cannot be Treason.  It can certainly constitute a host of other crimes, however.

Of course Fox takes the further statement of Barr -- that these actions were antithetical to the democratic system we have and tries to turn that into a mere "misunderstanding."

Nope.  This was no mere misunderstanding; Mueller knowingly hired people who had already known there was no Russian Collusion and so did he. This knowledge, and that "evidence" presented to the FISA court, was corrupted, politically motivated and likely false was known to the DOJ and FBI long prior to his appointment and intentionally concealed.  That's illegal on its face; intentional false statements, whether by omission or commission in any official proceeding (including a FISA application) constitute perjury, which is a crime.

In addition the evidence strongly suggests that parts of the FBI and DOJ attempted to actively interfere with and overthrow the 2016 election.  The exact particular offenses there are yet to be determined but there are plenty of them that are almost-certainly able to be proved if dug into and exposed, from suborning perjury to violations of civil rights under color of Law or Authority -- and perhaps even Seditious Conspiracy.

Yes, we need answers to those questions, and no, Barr did not excuse any of that.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-05-29 11:47 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 437 references
[Comments enabled]  

Am I supposed to be impressed with that performance?

Well, I'm not.

As I have said previously Mueller is continuing to dodge the question, which is this: When did he know that the predicate for his investigation -- that is, Russian collusion -- was false?

The evidence suggests that he knew before he was appointed.

Prosecutorial misconduct is not excused by the fact that someone appointed you.  Knowingly proceeding to investigate something you know did not occur constitutes intimidation and threats.

Let's assume you're a prosecutor and are told to prosecute a murder of a specific person.  Before you're appointed to do so you physically see the allegedly murdered person in an airport present a Passport and board a plane.  You know, or have good reason to believe, that the murder never happened because the allegedly dead person was seen by you alive after the date of the alleged offense.

Several of the people Mueller had working on his team knew the collusion story was false; it was a concocted load of crap intended for political purposes during the campaign.  Mueller himself knew that not only was the claim false and ginned up for a political purpose he also knew that members of the FBI intended, prior to the election, to use it as a means of attempting to overthrow the result if the election did not go their way.

Since Mueller was personally invested with this knowledge and yet he accepted the appointment and continued anyway both he and everyone else involved must stand trial with a full, public exposition of these facts and if proved they all deserve to be hanged on the National Mall with the carcasses left for buzzards to ravage.  Prison may be all that can be achieved under present law but what's deserved is another matter.

If this doesn't happen -- and I have no reason to believe it will -- then this nation and its election system is dead.  Our Representative Republic was murdered by both Democrats and Republicans in collusion with each other, neither of which has done a damn thing about the root of this issue -- and that includes President Trump himself.

Today, after watching Mueller at the rostrum, I noted that in addition to the two major political parties exactly nobody in the media is asking the above question either.  Yet that is the issue: The attempt to first rig the election with a false, baseless claim of Russian collusion during the campaign and then overturn the results when the other side lost anyway has gone unanswered.

In 1946, in McMinn County Tennessee, the reason we have a Second Amendment was clarified over a brazen series of actions in corruption of local elections.  That corruption was at its essence exactly the same as what appears to have occurred in 2016.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)