WHO IS BEHIND TRUMP?

As a little kid back in the days when PAP was battling socialists and communists in Singapore, I could see how enemies of democracy camouflaged themselves as libertarians and accuse the other side of wanting to destroy democracy. Today, we see the same agitprop playbook of the liberal left and Democrats in US employed against conservatives and Republicans. Any social or political activist, or fund raising group which has ‘Democracy’ in its name, is almost usually pushing anything but democracy.

If elected in 2024, Trump will be a dictator and he will jail all his political opponents. A small group of people decided that will be the talking point and all leftist mouthpieces take to the airwaves with coordinated headlines and speeches. If you were Rachel Maddox of MSNBC drawing US$28m a year, you would be incentivised to poison the well for Trump. As would the denizens slithering in the pits of leftist media. It surprised no one when Hillary Clinton joined the fray. All seemed to not realise they had 4 years of Trump and no one was jailed. Least of all Hillary whom Trump refused to carry through a campaign promise to prosecute when he was in the White House because, as he said later, “it wouldn’t be the right thing to do (prosecuting a political opponent).”

The lawfare currently going on in the US against Trump leaves no doubt who is the dictator and who are being persecuted. The collusion between Biden’s White House, federal law enforcement agencies, and state prosecutors, are slowly becoming clear. Information shared from FOIA suits and unsealing of motion documents by non-partisan constitutional judges have shown state prosecutors visit the White House on many occasions. There is no question who is pulling the strings on the high profile cases against Trump. The transfer of Democrat activist Matthew Colangelo from DOJ to New York confirms the weaponisation of an agency of law. Colangelo was obviously tasked as the hatchet man to get Trump in the classified documents case, unless a move from the third highest ranking official in DOJ office to a public prosecutor in a Manhattan District Attorney’s office is somehow a promotion.

Those following the progress of the cases against Trump may be excused if they seem to see some sort of Marian intercession going on. Events seem to transpire for the accusers to be shown guilty of the very same acts they accuse Trump of.

In Fulton County election 2020 fraud case, Georgia DA Fani Willis charged Trump et al with conspiracy to defraud the election under the RICO Act. This is for racketeering, which is legislation against mob-related crimes. Apart for the argument before SCOTUS on presidential immunity, the defence’s case rests on the argument it is well within a president’s responsibility to call for investigation into an election if he felt the integrity of the vote is questionable.

The case is in jeopardy. Willis herself has been proven to lie in court, conspired to defraud the state by engaging the services of her lover Nathan Wade at a higher rate as special prosecutor (Wade is a lawyer specialising in divorce cases), and corruptly benefiting from the arrangement. She has been subpoenaed separately by Congress and State Senate to attend their investigation into her conduct. Presiding Judge Scott McAfee decided the pair in breach of judiciary standards of conduct serious enough to warrant removal from the case. However, it is strange he found it serious enough to remove Wade but not Willis. McAfee once worked for Willis, and the judge is a donor to the DA. Unfortunately for Willis, she now faces an appellate court hearing brought by the defendants for her dismissal from the case. 

The Stormy Daniel case in Manhattan is unique in its non-specification of charges. DA Alvin Bragg said it is not necessary for him to specify the charge. The prosecution’s case is Trump falsified accounts by recording ‘hush money’ payment to Stormy Daniels as ‘legal fees’. This is not a criminal act, but it becomes a felony if the act was performed in furtherance of another act. Bragg said Trump falsified the accounts so his 2016 presidential campaign will not be impaired. It thus becomes a felony. The case is allowed to proceed despite the fact Trump has nothing to do with accounting entries and the payment was made in 2018 so it's difficult to see how it influenced 2016 election.

There is a great tabloid story here of whether Trump had sex with a porn star. But it’s all anecdotal and has nothing to do with the case before the court. The judge allowed Daniels two days in the witness box giving lurid details of her liaison with Trump which has nothing to do with the case but prosecution-coached (Daniels admitted) tactic to humiliate the defendant. I restrict my comment here to the point of the accuser being revealed as the one committing the very acts the defendant is accused of.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is a porn star and film producer. She once sued Trump for defamation where she was represented by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer now dis-barred and serving time for fraud against clients. Recently, Avenatti made a revelation from his prison cell. He said a film producer approached him to participate in a film on Daniels’ story. From his queries he learnt from the producer that Daniels will be involved and her share of income from the film will be paid via a round-robbin mechanism. Her purpose was to falsify her accounts to avoid payment of legal cost of US$500,000 in two failed suits against Trump. The producer also mentioned that earnings from her memoir “Full Disclosure” was also handled this way. The book of course featured her one-night tryst with Trump. We do not know the veracity of this revelation, particularly as Avenatti was later found guilty of defrauding Daniels in the negotiation for the publication of her book. If true, then Daniels is just as guilty for falsifying her accounts in order to cheat Trump. This is exactly the felony DA Bragg is trying to convict the ex-president.

In the classified documents case, Trump is lucky he relocated his residence to Florida. In New York city, with progressive judges and liberal juries, he would have no chance for a fair trial and proper discovery because motion documents including witness interview transcripts, would be heavily redacted. With a constitutional Judge Aileen Cannon presiding, the sloppy prosecution has no special treatment from the bench and cannot get away with shenanigans. Judge Canon unsealed motion documents and boy oh boy, what do un-redacted materials reveal. The prosecution colluded with Biden’s White House, tampered with evidence, inserted false evidence, and stole Trump’s personal effects (amongst other things, Trump claimed FBI took his will).

Recall this photo that Biden’s FBI ‘leaked’ to Biden’s media. From the very first day the photo was first made public, conspiracy sites like Gateway Pundit and Alex Jones’ Infowars analysed it and were quick to point out it was an arranged setup just for the optics. It was meant to fool the public that Trump has so much classified documents they were lying all over the floor. FBI placed the documents on the floor for the photoshoot and those marked ‘SECRET’ were not classified documents but place holders. ‘Conspiracy theorists’ have now been proven correct yet again.

Documents in the boxes were not in the same sequence as the computerised inventory list. Prosecution admitted the documents have been juggled in the boxes. This is tantamount to tampering with evidence. The sequence in the boxes is important because it is proof the documents have not been handled since they were delivered from the White House.

FBI inserted one ballot of classified documents they brought from Presidential Archive Library into evidence. Fabricating evidence is criminal malfeasance. Perhaps DOJ, FBI and leftist prosecutors have become emboldened with the way they successfully ran roughshod over judicial processes tolerated by partisan liberal judges when they go after defendants who were conservatives, MAGA or Trump supporters and associates.

In the January 6 incident, all those Trump supporters who entered the Capitol should at most be charged with trespassing which is a misdemeanor. The Democrats have been longing for an event of white supremacist violence to pin the fascist label on Trump. Unable to establish insurgency, DOJ framed charges that can inflict the most severe sentence on defendants. The purpose is to create the ethos of white supremacist danger to democracy in US. Most defendants were charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 1512, a very serious offence.

18 US Code § 1512(c)(2) states:

“Whoever corruptly or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Under the dual justice system of US today, progressive judges set murderers free and Trump supporters receive 10-15 years in prison for trespassing and disrupting Congress in session.

What will the same dual justice system now do to Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors if the same 18 U.S. Code § 1512 is applied?

18 US Code § 1512(c)(1) states:

“Whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

The prosecution is guilty of the same crimes they charged those they accuse. When Trump called for Jack Smith to be arrested and jailed for evidence tampering and falsification, the 45th President has the law behind him.

Unsealed motion documents show Biden gave the green light for FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-lago residence for the classified documents. Well, well, what do we all subsequently know. Biden himself carted away a ton of classified documents when he was Obama’s VP. The difference between Trump and Biden is wide. As president, Trump has a right to take documents from the White House after leaving office and has the right to declassify documents, which he did. Biden has no such right as VP. While Trump kept documents under secured storage (the security was actually vetted by FBI much earlier), Biden kept classified documents in his garage and in an office shared with a CCP-owned company. Special Counsel Robert Hur headed an investigation into Biden’s case. He minced no words to conclude Biden “stole” the documents. While they put Trump on trial, no Democrat or DOJ is going to do anything with Biden for committing the same crimes they accused the ex-president.

By June 2023, Mike Pence, Trump’s VP, and GOP nomination challenger for 2024, distanced himself from his ex-boss when he said: “Having read the indictment, these are very serious allegations. And I can’t defend what is alleged.” Well, well, what do we know. Pence himself has also been found to have “stolen” some classified documents just like Biden.

The over-valuation of assets case in New York brought by DA Letitia James against Trump is one for the books. Trump was found guilty of falsely inflating the value of his asset Mar-a-Lago. By declaring higher valuation, Trump was then able to obtain larger loans. It was a fraud case for which there were no victims, where a prosecution witness, a banker from Deutsche Bank, said they were not defrauded, they had every single dollar of loans repaid with interest, and that they were happy to do more business with their client. It was a case where every businessman ever interviewed said the prosecution has no idea how financing of real estate works.

Rabid Trump-hating partisan Judge Arthur Engoron plucked a figure out of thin air and said Mar-a-Lago was worth US$18m. Trump has always insisted it is more than a hundred million dollars. All leftist media has always refuted Trump’s claim including Trump-hating CNN which only last December ran a report on fact checking Trump’s valuation claims as false. Well, well, what do we know. CNN now says Mar-a-Lago is worth US$240m.

In NY courts, conservatives and least of all, Trump, has no chance of a fair trial. He lost and was fined US$450m. Only Alex Jones has received a higher fine under the Biden admin. Jones was fined US$1b in the Sandy Hooks defamation law suit. There are rules against excessive fines to prevent Judiciary excesses. Everyone knows both cases were politically driven and the fines were meant to financially cripple and bring the two enemies of Democrats to their knees.

Democrat DA James ran for office on a platform of going after Trump with no specific crimes in mind. One is reminded of Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin's secret police chief, who said “Show me the man and I'll find you the crime”.

The New York Post on 17 Mar 2024 carried a most interesting article: “An Irish society, an unpaid loan and the hypocrisy of Letitia James” This is the interesting story in brief.

The American Irish Historical Society is a private club which owns a grand old mansion at 991 Fifth Avenue across Central Park, NY City. A certain Cahill Family has been running the club house like their own heirloom. Mismanagement brought it to insolvency. They turned to a board director James Doyle, for a personal loan of US$3m and represented to him the mansion was valued US$80m with air rights (can build taller). The loan was structured like a mortgage loan with monthly installment payments. When the society defaulted on scheduled payments, Doyle called in the loan. He soon found out the mansion had no air rights and was valued about US$20m.

In stepped DA James who claimed she received a petition against the sale and that disposal of assets by NGOs requires the approval of her office. She was in awe of the clubhouse and encouraged members to save it. The loan was restructured. When the society again defaulted, Doyle commenced legal proceedings. DA James did all she could to frustrate the sale of the building.

One wonders at the enthusiasm of James to block the sales of the clubhouse. Why is a black DA so interested in the private affairs of an Irish community? Doyle has made an FOIA request for all communication between James, the society and the Cahills. Is there a can of worms somewhere?

Meanwhile it is very clear. Here is a case of falsification of asset values to secure a loan that is exactly the same as the one Trump is charged with. In Mar-a-Lago case, DA James takes the side against borrower Trump for falsifying asset values. In the Irish clubhouse she takes the borrower society’s side for falsifying asset values. If inflating asset values for a loan application is a crime as James claims, then she is aiding and abetting a crime by taking the side of the Irish society.

One must not forget the difference between Trump’s and the Irish society’s case. In Trump’s case, the asset is worth much higher than what the court says and Deusche Bank were paid back every single dollar. In the Irish society case, the asset is worth much lower and lender Doyle is still owed US$3m.

These four lawfare cases mentioned are clearly political prosecution of Trump. The timing and the massive fine suggest judicial partisanship attempt to cripple his 2024 campaigns. In other words, election interference. It’s a wonder how all the cases have boomeranged to show the accusers guilty of exactly the same crimes they accused Trump of. Certainly many are led to ask who is behind Trump?

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

HOW GOVERNMENTS PRINT MONEY

The video is Jared Bernstein, an economic adviser to Joe Biden, struggling to explain why the U.S. government chooses to borrow money when it can just print more. It shows both the difficulty of understanding what exactly is government money printing and the incompetency of Biden admin’s appointees which explains the mess the country is in, such as a Supreme court justice who cannot define a woman.

Money itself is like a commodity and it has a price which bows to Keynesian doctrine of supply and demand. The price of a currency is of course its exchange rate in relation to other currencies. All things being equal, an increase in supply of a currency is inflationary because it stimulates spending and foreign goods become more expensive as its exchange rate depreciates.

Governments have the power to create money into existence and this opens the door to irresponsible fiscal management. Many are critical of money printing by governments, but most folks generally do not actually understand how this is done.

There are two types of money – paper money (currency notes) and digital money. The credit balances in depositors’ accounts with banks are digital money. When you deposit cash into your bank account, you convert paper money into digital money. The printing of physical currency notes and digital money are of course entirely different matters.

Central banks physically print currency notes all the time to constantly keep a ready stock to replace damaged notes and to meet exigencies. Theoretically speaking, increasing the supply of currency notes can lead to inflation. Many experts, from academia and industry, point to same examples where excessive paper money printing has driven countries into banana republics – Weimar Republic (Germany) in 1920s, Hungary 1946, Yugoslavia 1970s, Zimbabwe 2000s, and present day Venezuela.

But they have all got it wrong with the chicken and egg situation. It was systemic corruption which feeds into economic mismanagement that led to massive hyperinflation. As the value of currency shrinks, more currency needs to be printed and in higher and higher denominations. Germany had its 100 million mark notes, Hungary had 100 quintillion pengő, Yugoslavia had trillion dinar, Zimbabwe had 100 trillion dollar notes, and Venezuela has million bolivar notes.

In today’s world, a country’s money supply is predominantly in the form of digital money. Currency notes make up only a fraction of money supply. The discussion of impact of money printing basically refers to digital money.

As mentioned earlier, digital money is reflected in depositors’ bank credit balances. Central banks are governments’ banker. Thus if a central bank simply adds some credit to the government account out of nowhere, ie no transaction related, it creates money for the government. Every central bank charter obviously specifically bars this. Thus in reality, it is a fallacy to say government prints money to spend.

Note the US is unique in that it has no central bank. The Federal Bank System (Fed) comprises of 12 reserve banks which are privately owned by various member banks. The Fed is the government’s banker, but it is not a government agency. Although the government has certain interests and rights, the rights are not proprietary.

Central banks and Fed are tasked with managing the sale and purchase of government securities and monetary policies which are matters concerning quantitative money supply and general price level, or inflation, and by extension, employment. Central banks manage monetary policies of the government whilst the Fed executes the monetary policies of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) which is a committee of the Fed member banks whose policies are made in the interest of the US.

Since governments do not print money to spend, where do the funds for deficit spending come from. Here we are not talking about various government agencies which in some jurisdictions are allowed to take on loans directly. We are referring to governments funding budget spendings in excess of revenue. This is done by issuing government securities (bonds). When investors buy these securities in the primary market, buyers remit proceeds to the credit of government accounts with central banks. By this manner, governments borrow to fund budget shortfalls. There is no money creation.

Singapore is unique in the world. It practices a balanced budget and never borrows for spending.

Well then, where is all this talk about about governments creating money to spend? 

Central banks manage liquidity in the market. When money is tight, there is an upward pressure on interest rates and exchange rates. Central banks pump money into the market, ie., central banks may loosen liquidity to stimulate spending which spurs economic activities and employment. This is done in open market operations where central banks purchase securities. Central banks pay for such purchases by simply crediting the seller banks’ Reserve Accounts. Thus central banks acquire assets with money they do not have. They simply create money out of nowhere by making a credit entry in seller banks’ Reserve Accounts. So now the banks have newly created money that can be used in the market. This is an exercise called QE for quantitative easing. Thus money creation via QE has nothing to do with government spending or borrowing.

Some take the macro or bird’s eye view that governments borrow to spend, which then central banks buy back through QE by simply creating money, is tantamount to governments creating money to spend. This notion is not correct as fiscal policies and monetary policies are entirely different affairs. Fiscal policies are managed by Treasury ministries who raise debt to fund budget deficits. Monetary policies are handled by central banks who perform QE to calibrate market liquidity and interest rates.

Thus a situation is created where central banks hold an asset and the governments hold a liability. It is a case of left hand owing to the right hand. In the case of US, the status is different since the Fed is not a part of government. In this scenario, governments do not fear the amount of debts they owe. They simply net off on maturity of the securities. However, doing so will reflect debit balances in governments accounts in central banks’ books. There is no literature on some creative accounting to resolve this. In practice this accounting conundrum does not seem to have presented itself as these securities have been rolled over with more and more new issues paying off maturing ones. Government debts keep pushing the ceiling.

On the other hand, the central banks have a liability for the securities they purchased as well as a valuation risk. When central banks simply credit seller banks Reserve Accounts for securities purchased, they have a liability for the money created. This liability is backed by the asset securities. On a going concern basis, central banks have no worry with the liability because as the money is circulated in the market, all that happens is just debit and credit entries in banks’ Reserve Accounts as money moves from one bank to another.

Most of these securities are government bonds which have no credit risks. Some jurisdictions have seen QE extend to central banks building balance sheet with equities. Bank of Japan is one example. In which case, credit risks exist. In the case of government bonds, market risks exists. With rising interest rates, bond prices tumble. Central banks' capital takes a beating from rising interest rates. With massive balance sheet build up from QE and rising interest rates, the Fed is now actually in negative capital mode if they recognise valuation losses, which they don’t.

There is another way that central banks create money out of nowhere. This happens during financial or economic crisis such as in 2008 and Covid pandemic. Huge sums of money are needed for bailing out businesses in financial distress or for financial aid packages. Central banks initiate bail out programmes, or governments push financial aid packages. For example, Fed had its Tarp, MAS has other various named programmes. These are basically loan facilities. When drawn down, central banks simply record the loan, and post a credit to the Reserve Accounts of the relevant banks. In this manner, unlimited sums of money can be created.

One more way central banks can create money, although indirectly. This is through fractional banking. Banks make money work for them. They take customers’ deposit and loan them out. The full deposit amount cannot be lent out. Banks must keep a certain balance in their Reserve Account in order to maintain liquidity to meet customers’ needs. How much to retain depends on the Reserve Ratio. Suppose the ratio is 10%, if a customer deposits $100 with Bank A, it can lend out $90. This $90 is deposited with Bank B which can lend out $81. This multiplier effect work its way through the market. Theoretically, a newly created $100 and a Reserve Ratio of 10% will end up with $1,000 increase in money supply. Central banks can increase money creation by fractional banking simply by reducing the Reserve Ratio.

Another way central banks create money is in its open market operations in the FX market. Central banks monetary policies are either based on tweaking interest rates or managing its exchange rates. Singapore is an exchange rate regime. Spot rates are volatile throughout the day. Most exchange rate regimes allow the rates to move within a certain band. When the rate is hitting the upper limits, central banks sell their currency to bring rates down. To settle, central banks simply credit the Reserve Accounts of the buying banks. Thus new money is created. Market intervention works both ways. Central banks buy their currency when the lower band is tested which is a reduction of money supply as seller banks Reserve Accounts are debited. Thus money creation can be netted off as negative or positive. A persistent pressure on the upper band means central banks are selling most of the time leading to more new money created. Since FX market intervention is to manage the exchange rate and not liquidity, this money created is nullified by a sterilisation process. This is done by central banks issuing Treasury Bills to mop up the liquidity caused by the new money created.

Governments rollover maturing bonds with new ones and add fresh borrowings. As a result, government borrowings have snowballed. The US national debt is now $35T. Is there no end to kicking the can down the road? This can continue as long as there is demand by investors for the $ bonds. That demand will disappear when the $ looses its role as world reserve currency. BRICS is working on developing an alternate currency to reduce dependency on $ in international trade. It is easier said than done. However, their success will mean the downfall of the powerful USD. All the offshore $ will come home to roost and the massive debt of $35T will need to be paid off as bonds mature, for they no longer can be rolled over as the market for $ bonds disappear. But the massive debt will not bankrupt the US. Any country with monetary sovereignty can always pay off debts in its own currency. The Fed can always credit bond holders' banks' Reserve Accounts. Simply create money $ to pay off debt. But the massive $35T created will drive the $ exchange rate to the ground and bring hyperinflation and deterioration to standard of living. It will impoverish Americans.

This explainer on money creation shows why even though the governments can print money, they still have to borrow. It also shows the fallacy of massive printing of paper money leads to high inflation, but rather, the reverse is true. Hyperinflation leads to massive paper money printing.

The generally held belief is massive money creation leads to high inflation. The past decade or so have seen central banks all over the world build up massive balance sheet in QE exercises, pursued on the belief that liquidity and cheap money stimulates the economy. Strangely, the massive QE have not resulted in massive increase in money supply and high inflation. This seems like one more fallacy but it's for another day.

Addendum:

To make this primer complete, there is one more way central banks create money, but it is a special situation that has no inflationary impact as the money will not be used.

Central banks arrange standby currency swap facilities with each other to provide liquidity for foreign currencies in the event of financial crisis. A swap deal is where one currency is exchanged for another at market rate (spot deal) and reversed at a future date at an agreed rate (forward deal).

For example say MAS has a USD/SGD swap facility with Fed. During a financial crisis where USD became difficult to source, MAS can provide liquidity to the market by availing the swap facility. MAS will buy USD from Fed against SGD say for 6 months. MAS pays for the USD by crediting Fed's account in SGD. Massive sum of SGD may be created this way but it has no effect on inflation because the Fed is never going to use those SGD. The Fed's SGD deposit will be reversed 6 months later when the forward deal matures.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.