Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Who Framed Senator Ted Stevens?

As the charges against Senator Ted Stevens are dropped, one has to ask the most important questions:

First question: Who framed Senator Ted Stevens?

Second question: What was their purposed in making him a target?

Third question: When did they decide to target him?

Fourth question: Where was the decision to target him made?

Fifth question: Why did mainstream media reporters back away from this pivotal case?

And sixth question: How did "they" manage to get away with removing Sen. Ted Stevens from office without having a single spotlight shining down on "them."

Ah yes, the basic tenets of investigative reporting: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.

I'm not a reporter. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. I'm not a private investigator.

But I do have access to the Internet... and I have an intensely curious mind. When the Ted Stevens story hit the mainstream media headlines, I had my suspicions that something was fishy.

What I "tripped across" yesterday in my travels on the information highway investigating a few interesting financial "secrets" being hidden behind the gas price spikes of last year (and the parties involved) shocked me -- because it immediately triggered in my mind that Senator Stevens was FRAMED. He opened his mouth and landed directly in "their" target sights. He had to be removed from the Senate -- as FAST as HUMANLY POSSIBLE. Or at least, that was the "gut feeling" I got.

You see... he was asking some questions -- questions that some very powerful people do NOT want to have answered -- and making some comments that possibly were far too close to the truth for comfort -- at least for one financial giant that protested loud and clear (perhaps their first BIG mistake and everyone missed it).

Stay with me here.

I'll explain shortly.

So, when the headlines came out this morning that the charges against Sen. Stevens were being dropped, a part of me had already expected it.

What disgusts me is the "reasons" they give for dropping the charges.

They cite "his age" and the fact that "he's no longer in office" as being a good reason to let it go.

Uh, yeah, sure...

Amazing how the media choose to ignore the 8-page FBI "whistle-blower" agent complaint officially filed in this case. Names were named. Actions fully described. And almost the entire document red-acted. I'd say there is a bigger story here, wouldn't you?

For the record -- I'm not a registered Republican. I'm not a registered Democrat. I am a seeker of truth... plain and simple.

With that said, I don't think the "sting" was orchestrated solely to help the Democrats and sway undecided votes in favor of Obama (although it most likely helped because Senator Stevens was from Alaska and in the same party as was vice-President-elect Sarah Palin whom they are still attacking and using Internet zombies and mainstream media as weapons against her -- man-oh-man, are the zombies ever getting played -- what morons).

The timing of the targeting and pursuant smear campaign against Senator Ted Stevens was simply convenient ...having it all came down at a critical time during the 2008 elections.

And a critical time for a very well known and powerful financial giant -- one financial giant that is so embedded inside the White House (for decades) that it is often assumed they are a stepping stone into Government positions.

Call me crazy if you want... but with respect to the Ted Stevens case, I sincerely believe something far more sinister was/is going on here.

It involves MONEY.

It involves OIL.

It involves POWER.

Forbes broke the story. "Did Goldman Goose Oil? - How Goldman Sachs was at the center of the oil trading fiasco that bankrupted pipeline giant Semgroup." [LINK]

Now, some of you reading this might be slapping your forehead and going,
"Ah, yes! I remember the gas price spikes at the time."


We were still in the heat of the Democratic primaries when gas prices were going through the roof. And now, a few short months later it seems like so many out there have completely forgotten it.

What does this have to do with Ted Stevens and what did he say which would make him an enemy of the "Goldmanite shadow government" that would paint a target on his back?
When oil prices spiked last summer to $147 a barrel, the biggest corporate casualty was oil pipeline giant Semgroup Holdings, ... some of the people involved in cleaning up the financial mess are suggesting that Semgroup's collapse was more than just bad judgment and worse timing. There is evidence of a malevolent hand at work: oil price manipulation by traders orchestrating a short squeeze to push up the price of West Texas Intermediate crude to the point that it would generate fatal losses in Semgroup's accounts.
Speculation? Here's another important quote from the article:
"What transpired at Semgroup was no less than a $500 billion fraud on the people of the world," says John Catsimatidis, the billionaire grocer turned oil refiner who is attempting to reorganize Semgroup in bankruptcy court. The $500 billion is how much the world would have overpaid for crude had a successful scam pushed up oil prices by $50 a barrel for 100 days.
And here is where the sinister hand of Goldman Sachs enters the picture:
What's the evidence of this? Much is circumstantial. Proving oil-trading manipulation is difficult. But numerous people familiar with the events insist that Citibank, Merrill Lynch and especially Goldman Sachs had knowledge about Semgroup's trading positions from their vetting of an ill-fated $1.5 billion private placement deal last spring. "Nothing's been proven, but if somebody has your book and knows every trade, it would not be difficult to bet against that book and put the company into a tremendous liquidity squeeze," says John Tucker, who is representing Kivisto.

What's known for sure is that Goldman Sachs, through J. Aron & Co., its commodities trading arm, was in prime position to use such data--and profited handsomely from Semgroup's fall. J. Aron was Semgroup's biggest counterparty, trading both physical oil flowing through pipelines and paper oil, in the form of options and futures.
So how does Senator Ted Stevens fit into this picture?

Another, separate story that ran back in July 2008 -- at the height of the price spikes -- demanded something be done about speculation in the oil markets by parties that have no intention of taking delivery:
"Americans are being taken advantage of not only by OPEC but by speculators right here in our own country," says Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, referring to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. "Historically, this has not been a bad problem. Only recently has speculation reached these unsustainable levels." [link]
Indeed, Senator Ted Stevens was one of 3 Republicans (along with Snowe and Collins) who signed on to proposals backed by Democrats to limit speculation.

What was the response from the financial community?

Surprise, surprise... it came from Goldman Sachs:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the world's biggest securities firm, said supply and demand, rather than speculators, are responsible for oil's rally. [link]

We all now know that Snowe and Collins are both more Democratic in their leanings. But Ted Stevens... not so. He was a long-standing Republican.

And thus, I believe, he was also the most likely "target" to be removed as quickly as possible.

I somehow doubt he even realizes how close he came to opening the Goldmanite Pandora's box. And I sincerely doubt there is a politician alive, in this country and other countries, with the courage to go after them. The Goldman virus is like mold spores, with fibroids feathering out into every nook and cranny in finance, energy and beurocratic power. They're not "to big to fail"... they're too BIG to STOP!!!

How many current administration officials have ties -- directly and indirectly -- to Goldman Sachs?

Sure, all of this is speculation on my part.

And, as in every single case that others have tried to bring up with respect to securities speculation... most of the evidence can only be circumstancial, right?

Well, considering those running the finances of our country are so well connected to the "Goldmanite shadow government" are also, in many cases, guiding, advising and/or actually making the laws in this country... you decide.

Bottom line, what was the reasoning behind dropping the Ted Stevens charges?
An Alaska FBI agent has accused fellow agents and at least one prosecutor
of misconduct and unethical behavior in the public corruption investigation in
Alaska and the trial of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.

...The complaint had sharp words about one supervising agent, accused of getting too close to sources, including Allen. It said agents took gifts and accepted favors from
sources and revealed confidential grand jury information and investigative practices to sources and reporters.

And the complaint said that prosecutors deliberately withheld and covered up evidence favorable to Stevens during his month-long trial, contradicting their statements to the judge at the time that their errors in not producing material to Stevens were accidental. [LINK]
Hmmmm... everything from FBI agents (and prosecuters?) possibly "taking bribes" (err, gifts?) to possible "perjury" to hiding evidence favorable to the defendent.

Does it sound like Senator Ted Stevens was framed?

'Ya think?

Keep in mind, Senator Ted Stevens was "convicted" on all 7 counts.

But, even though it appears oh-so-easy to tie this together and paint a picture of voter manipulation against the Democratic party, I still believe it is far deeper, far more sinister ...and far more dangerous to this nation. I'm giving the Democratic machine a walk on this one (but I'm paying very close attention to the Goldmanites in their Administration).

Oil... gold... silver -- POWER -- there's more to this story.

Don't believe everything you watch, hear and read in the news. If the critical questions have not been asked, the full story has not been told. Dig deep. Look for the story behind the story behind the story.

What "short selling" do 'ya think some of those big bailed out financial institutions were (probably still are) trying to cover using taxpayer dollars to do it? Who requested they make those "shorts" in the markets? Who is really manipulating what in this country?

Dig. Dig. Dig.

"In a world without truth, freedom loses its value." Pope John Paul II

Further Reading:
- Goldman Says Demand, Not Speculators, Behind Oil Gain
- Goldman Reverses Course, Says Dollar Has 'Bottomed'
- International Policy Aspects...
- The Commodity Conundrum: Securitization and Systemic Concerns (Part III)
- How Banks Can Exploit Geithner's Plan
- Goldman Takes Risks With Lending Offer
- A Senator Whom Colleagues Are Hesitant to Cross (Pay particular attention to this one. IMPORTANT: Ask yourself, why would Goldman want to hamper/prevent drilling in Alaska?)

PS: Some further "food for thought" on all of this.
The 2008 elections for the White House and Congress and state office will cost a staggering $5.3 billion. The presidential race alone, that cost will amount to more than $2.4 billion. The presidential candidates have raised and spent nearly $1.6 billion alone.

That's double the candidate's fund raising just in 2004. It has tripled the fundraising of 2000. This is also the first time the candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion in an election campaign. The biggest corporate contributor, by the way, turns out to be Goldman Sachs.

Goldman's political action committee has contributed more than $5 million to the 2008 election campaigns. Citigroup and JPMorgan are close behind contributing more than $4 million each. And you wondered why Wall Street was getting a bailout. [link]
Just wait 'til you find out what REALLY HAPPENED to those pension funds and mutual funds. And wait 'til you see what happens next in the carbon credits markets, too. Think these guys are NOT really pulling our strings?

1 comment:

sbgoldman said...

Goldman's power is enourmous. They control the government. Senator Stevens cross them