The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

There's outrageous and then there's really outrageous.

Describing the victim of sexual assault as "a tramp" is in the second category.  It is at least as bad as calling a black person "a ******", and arguably worse in that the black person presumably hasn't just been victimized by a criminal act where the woman who was victimized and then called "a tramp" was.  Never mind calling Hillary the "victim" of said assault -- but not of Bill's conduct (who committed the assaults!) but rather her "victimhood" was the responsibility of the women who were assaulted?


Drive ABC OFF THE AIR and BOYCOTT all of their advertisers.




View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-10-11 11:33 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 3531 references
[Comments enabled]  

Someone claiming to be associated or affiliated with Anonymous has, it appears, discovered that at least one of Hillary's "private-cum-private" servers is on a public cloud.

You really ought to go read this Ticker for why that's beyond stupid and borders on criminally stupid if anything that is supposed to be "secure" is on said machine.

Here it comes Hillary; you're about to get rat****ed once again.

If you want to know why the media will not bring any of this up it's quite simple: All the "cloud" providers will have their forward business prospects instantly destroyed if it becomes common knowledge that there is no such thing as a secure encryption key that is both in-use (that is, unlocked) and on ANY VM that is running in a place where you do not have absolute (both physical and logical) control over the host.

Oh, and this is never true on a public cloud (by definition ) and cannot be made true because by definition the host process can access any of the VM "guest" processes address space.  This means that everything in said "guest" process (the cloud "instance") is always accessible without the knowledge or consent of the administrator of the cloud instance.  "Cloud" computing and indeed all virtual machine operations rely on this fact and until and unless CPUs are developed that allow for per-VM write-only decryption keys that can be loaded "out of band", enabling fully-encrypted RAM with no way for the host process to recover the key and no unencrypted memory anywhere in the running image it cannot be fixed.

In turn this means that the only legitimate use for public cloud resources is to store and distribute public content that you do not mind being released.  You can safely use a public cloud server to run a web page that has only public data on it, for example, since the entire point of said server and page is to publish material to anyone who wants it.  But as soon as you require access control (e.g. security, logins and encrypted passwords, billing data, etcor any sort of "controlled" material (e.g. encrypted data such as credit cards, private email, etc) you are betting on the security of components not under your control and in fact potentially under the control, whether directly or through various forms of compromise (whether bribery, blackmail or simple stupidity) of explicitly hostile persons!

Update: That was fast -- Anon now claims in a Twitter post that the server has been penetrated and imaged.  Here it comes Hillary; this is what you get for hiring incompetent people who do blatantly-stupid things.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

OK folks.

You know about that nice NBC/WSJ "poll" that shows that Hillary is up 11, right?

Well, CTH deconstructed it.  It wasn't very hard to do, and it showed the usual media bias in the sample, which is a problem standing alone.  But then we get into why the bias existed, and it's not so simple as it first appears.

What CTH managed to find is that the organization that ran the poll is an organization run by a man who currently is a SuperPAC operator for PrioritiesUSA in support of Hillary Clinton, and was involved in a similar one for President Obama.

In other words the so-called "media poll" wasn't actually run by NBC and the WSJ, it was run by a SuperPAC dedicated to Hillary's election.

The reason for the intentional bias in the poll's sample is now obvious -- and ought to have been reason enough for both NBC and the Wall Street Journal to refuse to run it at all.

THAT is outrageous.  But it gets better -- Hillary's campaign paid this organization over $200,000 in September alone!

Is that legal, given that SuperPACs are not supposed to coordinate with a campaign?  Maybe.  It depends on what was bought.

Is it legal for a SuperPAC to run a poll and bias it on purpose?  Sure.  Hell, SuperPACs (and campaigns) run biased messages all the time -- that's what political advertising is!

But SuperPACs, like all other "independent" groups and the campaigns themselves are required by law to disclose who is paying for the communication so that the people have some chance of discerning what is "objective" and what is obviously and intentionally biased for political purposes.  That is why you hear "I'm .... and I approve this message."  Candidates and SuperPACs don't include that because they want to, they include it because it's illegal to put forward said communication without that notice.

A "news" organization that is patently used with their full knowledge and consent to present an electioneering message to the public that originates in this fashion without any disclosure whatsoever quite-arguably violates the law and in addition such advertising (which is exactly what it is when the content is not a "poll" but instead is an engineered communication from a SuperPACcertainly appears to constitute an in-kind campaign contribution to the campaign that it promotes by the "news" organization in question.

Why do we put up with this crap again and where are the damned handcuffs?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-10-11 10:31 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 592 references

... to vote for someone who is known within her own campaign, and is admitted, to hate everyday Americans.

Half the country will vote for someone who hates them?  Really?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

CNN was caught on tape "coaching" their "focus group" post-debate just before they went on-air, telling them what to say and rendering the entire exercise moot.  (Lutz, on the other hand, immediately released his focus-group numbers along with his infamous "crank the dial" graphs, and they showed that Trump destroyed Hillary in the second debate.)  If you're going to rig an outcome you really ought to turn the recorder off first!

CNBC was exposed as being linked to the Hillary campaign, including explicit congratulations from John Harwood to the NY Times on their biased coverage.  Oh, and to schedule a lunch with John Podesta!

Next up is apparent work that Sheryl Sandberg (COO Facebook) did for and with the Clinton campaign.  While Facebook "on background" (in other words, nobody is willing to go on record) claims Sandberg's "research" she discussed sharing with the campaign is "hers" and not the company's, there is a very good reason for the firm to not deny it on the record -- if it's a lie, and anyone inside the firm was to be able to prove that, there might actually be a violation of the law buried in there somewhere.  Not that it matters in our present environment -- hell, just look at Wells Fargo which ripped off millions of Americans, was caught, and "just paid a fine" - - nobody was indicted over that sordid mess.  If you are a "deplorable" and buy anything from any advertiser on Facebook, or in any way contribute to their operating revenue and profits it is my considered view that you are supporting Hillary Clinton.

Then you have Bloomberg, which claimed that Trump's statement in the debate about appointing a special prosecutor amounted to "dictatorship."  Uh, no.  First, Trump is well-aware, I'm sure, that the AG appoints special prosecutors.  He was around for Nixon and the sordid crap that occurred when Nixon tried to prevent investigation of legitimate law enforcement targets.  Of course nowdays Obama does exactly that as does his AG Lynch when letting Clinton board her plane.  Here's reality, however: Trump, if he wins, gets to appoint the AG.  The AG in turn gets to appoint a special prosecutor.  And if there was ever a case that called for it, it's Clinton and the email scandal, along with the so-called "foundation" she and her husband run.  There are outrageous violations of the law all over the public record of these events -- violations that others are, right now, rotting in prison for committing themselves.  There's the sailor who was convicted for having pictures of submarine consoles on his phone -- he never transmitted them to anyone as far as the record shows, but he did have them in an unsecure place, and they're classified.  That's a far lesser offense than Hillary committed; she not only had classified material in an unsecure place she sent said material via unsecure means.  In addition the public record shows her directing someone to remove classification headers from a document and then transmit it by insecure fax.  That act proves intent and is a stand-alone felony.  Not that intent is an element of the statute; it's not.  Gross negligence is enough.  I could easily spend pages going through the outrageous violations of the law in this regard and have posted multiple articles on same.  It's one thing to claim the law is arcane, outdated or simply wrong.  But it's another entirely when many people have been prosecuted and some are in prison for the exact thing that the public record proves beyond any doubt that you did, while you not only go free you run for President.

And oh, by the way, you might get a kick out of this clip.  Where was the outrage?  (Yes, you have to watch it to know what I'm talking about.)  If you think this doesn't go on all the time you're wrong -- it does.

If that's not enough bias how about Reuters?  They "breathlessly" wrote that We need a new way to vet presidential nominees.  The entire piece is an indictment of Trump, however -- not one word about Hillary and her multiple, now-uncovered but hidden at the time violations of the law and outrageous treatment of women that was not widely known (like the 12 yo******victim, for one.)  Do we perhaps need a better "vetting" mechanism?  Maybe.  But at the same time we need a means of exposing all of the media bias and outrageous coordination between media and political campaigns, candidates and office-holders, which is the real bombshell behind Wikileaks these days.

It would appear to me that any such coordination between a media entity and a political campaign constitutes a per-se violation of the law since such it sure appears to me to be an in-kind political donation, wildly exceeds campaign finance limits and is published without disclosure as to who solicited it.  I remind you that I ran promotions for candidates in the past and by law reported them to said campaigns as is required as an "in-kind" contribution even though I didn't bill the campaign anything for the promotion and ad.  When I have run editorial content on political races I have never coordinated with, emailed with, gotten approval for or otherwise done anything more than fact-checked a piece against public campaign position papers and documents.  Why?  Because I know what the law says (I did serve as a campaign treasurer and filed reports with the FEC on the campaign's behalf) and unlike all these "media organizations" I obey said law.  Where the hell are the "in-kind" campaign contribution filings, disclosure of "XXX approved this message" and, I remind you, campaign finance limits that would be detonated instantly by any of these media outlets.  Violating those limits is a serious offense and knowingly soliciting or participating in same by a campaign is also a violation.

That the media is biased is not news.

That the media appears to be coordinating their "stories" and "content" with political campaigns is news because such actions certainly appear to this reporter to fall within the definition of "in-kind" campaign contributions and those are subject to federal legal restrictions as to magnitude and permitted donors.

Where are the damned handcuffs?

PS: Oh, and if you think the Democrats don't both commit voter fraud and know it, well, you might want to watch this.....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The CERTAIN Destruction Of Our Nation

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 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.