The So-Called "Moon Landing"

The “moon landing” has come up in conversation this week.  I  would like to clear things up regarding this issue, so here it goes…this what actually happened….

What were you doing 50 years ago?  Do you remember?  I sure do!

Just about 50 year ago today I was watching a so-called “moon landing”, where you sak????...try in my backyard!  Yes, it is true! 

Sudbury was visited by the Apollo “astronauts” prior to their “moon landing” so that they could familiarize themselves with the geology of the area which is supposed to be similar to that of the moon….this is well-known.

What is NOT well-known is that Neil Armstrong was actually a washed-up off-Broadway actor before he was spotted by NASA in the mid-1960s, and then “trained” for the “moon landing” that supposedly occurred in July, 1969. 

You want the Truth?  Can you handle the Truth!?  Here it is…"red pill "time…

In fact, while the world was glued to their televisions watching breathless as Armstrong supposedly took “One small step for man, one giant step for Mankind...” I was looking out the rear-facing window at 1034 Hawthorne Drive, Sudbury, Ontario, watching a US Government film crew on a rocky outcrop film a man in a space suit amble down from a cardboard “lunar lander”, and plant his feet in a pile of conveniently placed sawdust as he uttered his famous line. 

“Buzz” Aldrin was there as well.  He was off to the side and outside of camera range smoking a Marlboro, and chatting with Stompin’ Tom Conners who happened to be in town for a gig.

Note - The original first lines from the song “Sudbury Saturday Night” went as follows. The lyrics that were later changed at the insistence of the US Government are underlined…

“The girls are out to Bingo and the boys are gettin' stinko,
And we think no more of NASA on a Sudbury Saturday night.
The glasses they will tinkle when the stars begin to twinkle,
And we'll think no more of faked moon landings on a Sudbury Saturday night…”

Stompin’ Tom spent the next 44 years playing a song whose lyrics had actually been dictated by the propaganda arm of the CIA.  This is 100% true.

What happened after that, you ask?

Well, the film crew and NASA actors were packed up and gone by about midnight, with all vestiges of their presence wiped away by G-Men from the US Government.  The world then began to celebrate the miracle of the “moon landing” that is being commemorated this week. 

But Tom and I knew better.

And now it can be told.

Questions for Mueller

Robert Mueller will appear before Congress on July 24^th to speak to his report into Russian interference in the last presidential election.  

Here are some questions that I would love to see him asked…

1. The Origins of the Investigation: "Did the Steele Dossier have anything at all to do with your investigation, either its inception of as a source of evidence for the investigation itself?"

Note - Trump's shills in the media have alleged for years that the Mueller investigation was prompted by the Steele Dossier. It is important to put this lie to rest, as the purpose of this is to suggest that they entire investigation is illegitimate as it was somehow a Clinton/Democratic Party/"deep state" set-up. Not true.

2. Barr's Bona Fides I: "Shortly after Barr was made Attorney General, the issuing of indictments by your office stopped, and in particular, all speculation that the President's son may be indicted for lying to Congress came to an end. Of course, you did not recommend any indictments against him. Were you ever considering recommending such indictments, and Did Barr order you to not pursue any indictments against Trump Jr.?"

Note - Barr was made Attorney General for the sole purpose of limiting then shut down the investigation, which is what he did. This needs to be brought into the light of public scrutiny.

3. Barr's Bona Fides II: "Before your report became public, Attorney General Barr issued an exceptionally misleading summary of the report that you attempted to correct in a letter that you sent to him personally shortly thereafter. Would you please outline your concerns with Barr’s summary of your report, and highlight its many inaccuracies."

Note - See above - it is important to note that Barr serves Trump personally, not the American people or justice.

4. Premeditated Obstruction: "You have noted that your investigation was limited, in part because of the use of encryption technology by some of the persons of interest.  Can you describe the effects of use of encryption and especially how damaging was this attempt to hide secret communications to your investigation?"

Note - Trump and his shills have claimed that the report exonerates him. It is important to note that his minions successfully thwarted the investigation through the use of the same technology used by secret government agencies; drug dealers and money launderers; and child pornographers to hide what they are actually doing from scrutiny by authorities. This was not a complete investigation so there can be no actual exoneration.

5. Trump's Tweets and Obstruction of Justice: “The broadest definition of Obstruction of Justice contained in Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the United States Code, referred to the Omnibus Clause, defines Obstruction of Justice to include anyone who ‘corruptly... endeavours to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" in connection with a pending court proceeding.’ Throughout your investigation, President Trump used his Twitter account to attack the investigation, the persons working for you, and to attack you personally in an obvious attempt to derail what you were doing. Do you believe that this relentless attack on your and your investigation qualifies as Obstruction of Justice according to the Omnibus Clause?"

Note - Trump's relentless assault on law enforcement in the United States has no precedent in American history. The man has no resepct for the Rule of Law. The public needs to understand how unethical and morally challenged the President actually is, and to have this in their minds as they head to the polls next year.

6. Obstruction of Justice II: "A total of 417 federal prosecutors have read your report and have gone on record as stating that from what they read, there is enough evidence to support a charge of Obstruction of Justice against Donald Trump. To be clear, if he was not the sitting president and therefore if he was not protected by Department of Justice policy against charging sitting presidents with crimes, would you agree with these people - would you have pursued an indictment for Obstruction of Justice?"

Note - Trump obstructed justice - this needs to be made clear to the American people.

7. Collusion: “You have explained that collusion is irrelevant, and that you were looking into possible criminal conspiracy in the form of cooperation between the Trump Campaign and the Russians to subvert American democracy. While you did not find enough evidence to proceed with a criminal indictment against anyone, your report does suggest that you did find some evidence of conspiracy and cooperation between the Trump Campaign and Russia. Would you please outline for this committee the specifics of the evidence of cooperation between the Trump Campaign and Russia during the last presidential election?”

Note - ANY level of cooperation between Russia and the Trump Campaign is exceptionally disturbing. The public needs to be aware of all of it, even if Mueller does not think there is enough evidence to meet a strict criminal law test of culpability.

Last Daze of the Stock Market Disco

The USA had an excellent jobs report yesterday - 225,000 jobs created in June, which far outstripped the estimate of 165,000 new jobs. 

The unemployment rate rose to 3.7%, but this is a fifty year low (Note - I know that you know that this statistic is unreal, as it only measures the number of people unemployed in the last four weeks in the USA...just play along, please.) 

Finally, there was 3.1% wage growth year over year, which suggests some slight inflation on the horizon - a hallmark of a growing economy.

In short, ALL GOOD! Isn't it?

The S&P 500 was down...the DOW was down....the NASDAQ was down.  

Why were these major US indices down when the jobs report indicates a growing economy, and presumably bright years ahead for things like corporate profits?

The good jobs report was a BAD thing for what really matters, which is interest rate policy.  The 225,000 new jobs number probably means that the US Fed will not lower interest rates as some had been predicting for the last few months.  

And this is BAD because it means that US companies will not be able to borrow money at lower rates to continue to fund the stock buy backs that have been propping up the stock markets in the USA for at least the last 16 months.  

You see...

Low rates = more corporate borrowing = more buy backs = more artificially inflated stock prices = more profits for corporate executives when they exercise their options. This is how the country now works..."Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich..." 

Why isn't fair to say that this latest jobs report is practically stealing money right out of the hands of the privileged class in the USA! More Americans working is BAD for the only business that counts! For shame!

The game is rigged, and everyone must continue to play their part until the while rotten edifice comes tumbling down. Expect to hear about a phone call from President Trump to Fed Chairman Powell very soon about the need to get rates down again, asap.

The Swindle Continues...

Reality

Stuff I heard recently and what it really means.

“You can now get $20,000 off a brand new 2018 Ford F-150 – that’s down from the retail price last year of $55,000, fully loaded!”

Meaning – the $55,000 F-150 anyone bought less than 6 months ago is now worth only $35,000.

“The Tampa Bay Rays had their lowest attendance at a game ever last week, at under 5,800 fans.”

Meaning – Americans are tapped out again in terms of their disposable income and their ability to keep borrowing…welcome to the start of the next recession.

“Uber lost $1 Billion last quarter.”

Meaning – Uber lost $1 Billion last quarter.

“OPEC needs to cut oil output owing to decreasing demand for oil…”

Meaning – We are at the start of a worldwide recession, likely led by China.

“Companies on the TSX bought back their stock on the open market at more than twice the previous rate, at a total of over $50 Billion in 2018…”

Meaning – The Swindle Continues, but North of the border this time; the stock market is a bubble, only driven by stock buy-backs that are perpetrated to drive stock prices up so corporate management can blow out options with higher profits.

“Trump threatens Google, Facebook and Twitter…”

Meaning – The Russians have signaled to Trump that they will help him win again in 2020, and he is clearing the deck for more pro-Trump, Russian propaganda by using the power of the presidency to cow the main social media outlets into accepting Russia's lies.

“Trump backs off on Huawei threat…”

Meaning – President Xi promised to back the building of a new Trump Tower in Beijing.

"Gold is at it's highest prices in six years!"

Meaning - The US Fed went on summer vacation.

"Bitcoin is up 50% in a month!"

Meaning - See comment re Gold, immediately above.

"Kamala Harris won the second Democratic candidate's debate!"

Meaning - Vice President Harris becomes the President in 2021, after an obscure court filing from 1996 is made public confirming that President Sanders has actually been dead for 23 years.

Mueller Report 2 - All You Need To Know

NO COLLUSION! Exoneration! "Nothing to see here!"

Trump's lackeys are crowing about how Mueller's "witch hunt" did not nail its target.  

On that, if you read absolutely nothing else about this sad affair, this is what you need to read in the Mueller Report - from the end of the Executive Summary...

"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office 's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Depa11ment of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual§§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter ( or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States. 

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. 

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report." 

Mueller's report notes that there is not enough evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy; specifically, with coordinating with the Russians to subvert American democracy in favour of the Trump Campaign. The reason why there is no evidence is in the quote above - because the attempt to subvert this investigation and to take measures to hide illicit activities when they were undertaken, were ultimately successful.  

On this, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...of conspiracy. Or, just because Mueller can't prove it, does not mean it didn't happen. The reality is that he simply could not assemble enough evidence to charge people - and it is clear from the Executive Summary that there is evidence of illicit and conspiratorial coordination. Trump therefore successfully subverted the investigation - that is all you need to know. 

This successful subversion happened in the following ways.

1. Liars. People lied to the FBI to hide their illicit activities. We know about Papadopoulos, Flynn and Cohen. As noted in this blog repeatedly, the key fish that Muller had to land as a fully-cooperating witness was Manafort. It didn't happen. 

No coordination? How about this...

The Report outlines how Manafort fed polling data to persons known to be associated with the Russian state for months on end. This is what you would do if you wanted to help the Russians gauge the success or lack thereof of their campaigns of disinformation.

He also met with Russians and at their bequest put forward a plan for Ukraine that would have changed US foreign policy and essentially handed the Eastern part of the country to Russia. As noted here before, this was the obvious quid pro quo for Russian help in defeating Clinton. 

But Mueller could not prove this because Manafort would not cooperate - he even lied when he was supposed to be cooperating, meaning even more jail time! It is possible that Manafort feared his Russian friends more than his FBI enemies. In the end, the pigeon-in-chief got away, and with him went any chance of finding out what these people were really up to.

2. Inaccessible Evidence. Certain people "took the fifth" and refused to provide evidence on the grounds that it could lead to a criminal conviction. When Mobsters do this, no one has any problem noting that this means crimes were committed.  So please understand - There are crimes here that Mueller could not prosecute, which is the plain meaning of people having "taken the fifth." A number of criminals associated with Trump got away with it...so far.

One of the most interesting parts of the above quote is this..."The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Department of Justice policies."  

So Mueller believed that certain members of the "so-called" media had information germane to the investigation, but he chose not to pursue them because of Department of Justice policies. I think this is obviously referring to Sean Hannity, who we have since learned knew about the infamous June 9, 2016 meeting between Kushner, Manafort and Trump Jr., and the Russian lawyer a week before it happened, and did not report on it. "Fair and Balanced"... in favour of a criminal conspiracy against one's own country?

3. Deletions and Encryptions. I guess Trump learned from Hillary and the Democrats! Simply put, if you have embarrassing e-mails, for goodness sakes do what Hillary did and delete them! Better still, make sure no one can ever access them in the first place by using encryption services!

Understand that this means that the Trump Campaign took measures to hide its activities from authorities even while the campaign was on. They weren't hiding their dinner plans and off-colour jokes.  

Who uses encryption services in regular electronic communications?

Governments do this when communicating secrets, as do corporations that do not want competitors accessing their sensitive commercial information. 

Child pornographers and money launderers use encryption, as do mobsters and others of their sort. 

And, as we now know, so did members of the Trump Campaign.

Conclusion: In the end, what Mueller is teling us at the end of his Executive Summary is that the obstruction of the investigation was a success. It was not "NO COLLUSION", but "SUCCESSFUL OBSTRUCTION!" Trump is a criminal like few others. Too bad his political oppostion is so utterly deficient and corrupt as well. 

For the record, I think the conspiratorial deal was likely this - release Hillary's damaging e-mails and provide the information that will incriminate her, and we will change the foreign policy of the United States of America specifically concerning Ukraine once we are in power. Had it proved possible to prove this, the charges could have included Treason. But Trump and his crew beat the FBI by lying, evading, and by being careful to cover their tracks while engaged in their illicit conduct.

In light of the above, Barr's exoneration of Trump needs to be seen as nothing more than shameful political theatre. His summary of the Mueller Report does not focus on these evidentary issues - does not focus on the on-going obstruction of the investigation by Trump himself and his minions that was ultimately successful. In fact, Barr himself exonerates Donald Trump of Obstruction of Justice! The word you are looking for is "betrayal".

What should worry anyone who is concerned about the state of the world is that while Mueller could not prove conspiracy, the fact is that the Russians know all about it, and they could certainly provide proof of criminal conspiracy on the part of the Trump Campaign at any time. 

Query - What concessions may the Russians want to extract from the President of the United States over the next few years to make sure that they do not do precisely that? If I were in the Baltic States or Ukraine, I would be very worried.

Mueller Report 1 - Mueller v Barr

This is the first in a series of blogs regarding the Mueller Report.  

This blog starts with a comparison between the mini-summary of the report that is provided in the first few pages on the report itself, and the summary provided by AG Barr, with commentary on the conclusions reached.

The Mueller Report Summary:

After a paragraph outlining the legal status and obligations of a Special Counsel, Mueller starts his report with the following startling statement, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."  

He notes that the FBI began to investigate possible Russian interference in July, 2016. The investigation began following a tip from a foreign government that one of its representatives had been advised by Papadopolous, who was part of the Trump campaign team at the time, that the Trump Campaign had received information that the Russian government could assist it through the release of embarrassing information about Clinton.

After outlining the mandate of the investigation, Mueller outlines how the Russians interfered, and that "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Mueller than adds a paragraph about the evidence that the evidence that his team looked at, which ends with this line, "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts." 

Read with the statement about not establishing conspiracy on the part of the Trump Campaign, the plain meaning of this was that there probably was some evidence of such conspiracy, just not enough to establish - in law - that the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.

Mueller then goes to explain that "collusion" is irrelevant  - it is not a crime, and they were looking at possible "conspiracy", with a definition of what would constitute "conspiracy" provided.  In essence, to make our "coordination" or "conspiracy" would require that "...the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." Again, and following from the above discussion on evidence, it seems clear that they did find some information indicating coordination and conspiracy. 

Regarding possible Obstruction of Justice by Trump, Mueller merely notes in the mini-summary that this is addressed in Volume II of the report.

The Barr Summary:

The Barr summary was released before Barr himself had finished reviewing the Mueller Report, as noted in the Barr summary itself.  Barr indicates that his primary purpose in releasing the summary was "the public interest".

Unlike the short mini-summary provided by Mueller, the Barr 4-page summary goes to great lengths to highlight the fact that, "'The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'" Barr actually makes this point four times in four pages.  

Barr also addresses the Obstruction of Justice issue directly. He notes that Mueller "determined not to make the traditional prosecutorial judgement.", and quoted the report which says, "...while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Barr then personally exonerated his boss - the President - by noting that because Mueller did not decide one way of the other, the task would fall to the Attorney General - i.e. to him. 

After consulting officials, including Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Barr notes that "I have concluded (with Rosenstein) that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offence."
Barr then provides a legal rationale for his finding that of no Obstruction of Justice having been committed by Trump.

Commentary:

Mueller's report starts with a warning that the American democratic process had been perverted by America's historic enemy and opponent. Its first few pages subtly suggest that there was evidence of conspiracy between the prime beneficiary of this interference and the Russians, but not enough to establish conspiracy in law.  

The first few pages also respond to he suggestion that the investigation was prompted by the Steel Dossier by outlining how it all started, and the first few pages of the report respond to the idiocy of many on the Right about "NO COLLUSION!" by noting that this is a massive red herring - it was never a consideration, nor could it ever be a consideration as it is a concept unknown to law.

Barr's summary is a piece of propaganda, designed to buttress claims of "NO COLLUSION!" on the part of Trump, by noting no fewer than four times in four pages that the investigation did not "find" coordination of conspiracy.  The clear point of this in "the public interest" summary was to support Trump's  claims.  Rather than the public, Barr's summary was clearly released in Trump's interest.

Note - Words mean things to lawyers and are carefully chosen. Mueller said that the investigation could not "establish" coordination and conspiracy, while Barr says the investigation could not "find" it.  The use of the word "establish" suggests that they did in fact "find" something, just not enough to move ahead with indictments, as it is possible to find evidence that does not establish a crime. Barr's use of the word "find" in this context suggests that the investigation did not find anything - not necessarily true.  

AG Barr also personally exonerated the President of the crime of Obstruction of Justice in his four page summary. This finding had nothing to do with the report, and which again was an act of seeming political propaganda. 

In fact, only two pages of the four page summary of the Mueller Report are actually about the report, with the rest about the Attorney General's public exoneration of Trump, replete with a legal rationale for such exoneration. 

Please also keep in mind that this exoneration came from a man who noted at the very first part of his summary that, "Although my review is ongoing...." In other words, he exonerated Trump before he had even finished reviewing the report. One is left wondering if Barr wrote the summary, or did Trump's personal lawyers write it for him?

Finally, Trump recently noted that he would accept dirt from a foreign country about his future political opponents if offered, and he would not feel obligated to tell the FBI. (Note - the problem is that information may have been obtained illegally.) He has since retracted - after all, look at how much trouble doing that caused the first time! 

Mueller did respond with a letter to Barr complaining that Barr's summary did not accurately reflect the report - the reader is encouraged to read that letter.

Buy Backs - Canadian Style

From the Globe and Mail...

"Canadian companies reluctant to reinvest excess cash are instead buying back their own shares at a furious pace. Buybacks by companies in the S&P/TSX Composite Index soared to nearly $50-billion in the 12 months up to the end of the first quarter. As a proportion of the whole stock market, that’s around 50 per cent higher than the previous record set a decade ago, according to a report by Ian de Verteuil, head of portfolio strategy for CIBC World Markets."

The Market in Canada is buying the Market, as it is in the USA. This cannot last, and when it ends, the Market will fall.

The Last Days of the Free Money Disco.