Except, Of Course, That It Doesn't
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.

2019-10-04 07:10 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 231 references Ignore this thread
Except, Of Course, That It Doesn't
[Comments enabled]

Nice try "Judge"....

A CIA agent formerly assigned to the White House – and presently referred to as the "whistleblower" – reported a July 25, 2019 telephone conversation that Trump had with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. That conversation manifested both criminal and impeachable behavior.

The criminal behavior to which Trump has admitted is much more grave than anything alleged or unearthed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and much of what Mueller revealed was impeachable.

Uh, nope.

First, Trump has not admitted to holding up aid to Ukraine for the purpose of soliciting a "favor."  The Judge accuses Trump of this (as have the Democrats) but this has been debunked not only by the transcript but also by the President of the Ukraine himself.

Trump has also admitted to accusing the as-yet publicly unnamed whistleblower of treason, and suggesting that the whistleblower and those who have helped him are spies and ought to be treated as spies were in "the old days" (Trump’s phrase) – that is, by hanging.

The president’s allusions to violence are palpably dangerous. They will give cover to crazies who crave violence, as other intemperate words of his have done. His words have already produced offers of "bounties" in return for outing and finding the whistleblower.

Trump also suggested that his impeachment would produce a second American Civil War. This language is a dog whistle to the deranged.

Meh.

"Palpably dangerous" eh?  What do you call the entire cadre of 2020 Democrats that have threatened mass firearm confiscation, registration or both -- which, I remind you, not only violate the law but the US Supreme Court has ruled would violate the Constitution and likely set off an actual Civil War?

If just 1% of the American population actually believes the Supremes (e.g. Heller, et.al.) and the clear language of the 2nd Amendment ("shall not be infringed") that would be three million Americans who, immediately after it was made clear this wasn't rhetoric (that is, when the first forcible confiscation happened, complete with shooting the person with the firearm that refused to turn it over), might choose to go hunting -- for certain specific 2-legged animals?

Is it deranged to kill someone who has both declared an intent and demonstrated that they mean it and have the capability to carry it out to murder you?  That is how such an event will be interpreted when the first gun owner is slaughtered for adhering to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment.

Essentially the entire Democrat candidate set have put forward, in public, a promise to do exactly that and note that exactly zero of them have proposed altering the language of the 2nd Amendment through the means proper to do so.

If you want palpably dangerous there it is.  While this may well be nothing more than red meat to a lefty base by your standards it's enough; the person doing the shooting isn't responsible, the "dog whistle" is.

You know that's bull**** Napolitano.

Further, you also know damn well that there are four branches of Government, not three. Indeed The Declaration makes clear who holds the right of a veto on any government -- and may exercise that veto at any time.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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. 

All forms of government are only just if they are consensual arrangements.  The minute they become non-consensual the people have every right to overthrow same.  Exactly where that threshold is -- that is, exactly how many of the people must be upset enough with the government to overthrow it, understanding that failure may be treated as treason and lead to their deaths, is a matter of some dispute.

Historically speaking it's about three percent of the population who must be upset enough to be willing to back up their demand for abolishing an existing government and its replacement with a threat to kill, understanding that such a threat exposes them to being imprisoned or killed themselves, to be effective. 

Indeed modern evidence shows that shooting is not even necessary a good part of the time and in today's highly-interconnected world it's rather likely that even an entirely lawful withdrawal of consent, such as a general strike, would likely collapse government revenue and ability to hold power even with less than a 3% threshold participation rate.

All of Trump's admissions need to be taken in context. In 2014 and 2015, Russian troops invaded Crimea, then a province of Ukraine. They took over government buildings and held a sham referendum, which had been declared unconstitutional under Ukrainian law by Ukrainian courts.

The troops dispersed the courts, and the Russian government annexed Crimea. What was a part of Ukraine five years ago today houses Russian troops and Russian tanks eyeing Kiev, Ukraine's capital.

An act that happened because our government interfered in their political process, forced their leadership out and backed opposition.  That was stupid as anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size had to know that Russia would never permit Crimea, their only 12-month deep water naval port, to be turned into hostile territory.

Who was President when that was done and why isn't he (and his former VP) in prison?  I remind you that this is hardly the first time that the United States has unlawfully interfered in another nation's political process.  Indeed our nation seems to make somewhat of a sport out of that kind of thing.

Federal law defines as criminal the solicitation of aid – anything of value – for a political campaign from a foreign national or foreign government, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

Except that when it comes to information that is certainly neither clear nor has it led to prosecution in the past.  If it did then Steele, who is a British spy, would have caused Hillary Clinton and her campaign to be indicted along with John McCain (who helped peddle it) and a whole cadre of others in both the House and Senate.  I remind you that Steele made clear he was very keen to see his "dossier" come to light before the election and that Hillary's campaign sought and solicited same.

Not one charge has been laid in relationship to those acts which quite-clearly, as a matter of public record, solicited by the Hillary Clinton campaign and were provided by foreign interests.

Nor is that the first time.  May I remind you that foreigners peddling and publishing dirt on US candidates is hardly a new sport?  There have been zero indictments and convictions related to same over the years.

There is currently a proposal before the FEC to "clarify" this and change the rules -- but the FEC lacks a quorum and thus cannot act.  Further, ex-post facto laws are unconstitutional and you know it.  Never mind that there's FEC regulations (civilly enforceable) and then criminal law, which takes an act of Congress.

Congress hasn't acted on this either.  They could, but they haven't.

This is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.  It should be closed, but until it is your position is just not reality.

Federal law also prohibits bribery and attempted bribery, which is defined as withholding the performance of an official duty conditioned upon the personal receipt of a thing of value, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

Except there's no evidence of bribery, the President of the Ukraine has explicitly denied it and the transcript of the call contains no such offer of "payment" or "performance of an official duty."  Not only is there no official duty involved under your "get Trump" read of this Biden would have been indicted on the same charge for his admitted commission of the exact same act.  I remind you that unlike Trump, who claims no quid-pro-quo and the recipient of the call also disclaims any such quid-pro-quo took place Biden admitted direct interference with $1 billion in US Aid (funding guarantees) unless the firing of a prosecutor took place and he actually got the demanded action in return for the money.

Should the aid be held up? Should the president ask for dirt about Biden from his Ukrainian counterpart? If Biden did anything criminal, shouldn't the Justice Department get involved? Should the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call be hidden? Was the president warned in advance that asking Zelensky for a personal campaign benefit could be criminal or impeachable? Does anyone in the White House tell the president what he doesn't want to hear?

Ah but the Justice Department is involved.  Barr and Durham, to be specific.  It's now been disclosed that it is they who are and have been running this down with regard to Biden -- and not just in Ukraine either.  In fact Australia has offered assistance.

Further, Ukraine is obligated under the terms of a Treaty (executed by Bill Clinton) to cooperate in such matters.  Therefore "holding up" such aid is in fact part of enforcement of a treaty obligation.

There is exactly zero culpability involved in the Executive seeking to enforce and protect a valid, ratified US treaty.  In fact such is not only legally permissible it's legally required.

Finally, you cannot evade responsibility for a criminal act by declaring your candidacy for President of the United States.

Is violating campaign finance law by involving a foreign government in an American presidential campaign an impeachable offense? Yes, it is.

Except he didn't do that -- so says the existing precedent, manifest weight of the evidence and long-existing treaty between the Ukraine and United States on matters related to any criminal matter that is an offense in both the US and Ukraine.

Nice try "Judge"; I see Faux Snooz and you have both turned into people willing to flat-out lie to advance your agenda.

With that said impeachment is a political process. Exactly what defines "grounds" is up to the US House to charge, and the Senate to either concur and convict or refuse to do so.  Indeed during Clinton's impeachment the Chief Justice explicitly refused to issue a charge to the Senators claiming to bind them to the evidence or for that matter to anything at all; Rehnquist made clear that they were free to vote to convict or not on any basis, including making a purely political decision.

Such it is, as the Constitution directs, but the fact remains that Trump is correct as well in that the people, should they deem the process of impeachment in any given instance corrupt, hold the right to veto that decision with the understanding that such a decision, should it be taken, comes at grave cost.

View with responses (opens new window)