Bill H:

If I had to guess...

To all; I wrote a piece yesterday regarding the Financial Times headline that the CFTC was dropping it's 4 year investigation into the most obvious of obvious price suppression of the Silver price. I wrote "what did you expect?" and finished with saying that Bart Chilton had some decisions to make if this headline turns out to be correct. I will revisit this part a little bit later but I want to say that my e-mail account was on fire in the afternoon.

I heard from 3 different sources that they had either spoken to or received e-mails from Bart Chilton completely denying the FT article and saying that no CFTC decision had been made. I have read reports that say Mr. Chilton says different things to different people and was only playing good cop but ultimately is not truthful. Until I see for my own eyes that Bart throws us under the bus, I will believe he is one of the good guys. Naive you say? Maybe, but...

I really believe that Bart deserves the benefit of the doubt. He and he alone was the reason Bill Murphy got to testify before the CFTC, he was the reason that Adrian Douglas (a brilliant minded human being) who was not scheduled to testify was allowed to speak from the audience AND the reason Andrew McGuire's evidence and e-mails were read into the testimony. Bart Chilton in no way was obligated to push for any of this, he has been under no obligation to publicly say that he believed something illegal was occurring in the Silver pits. Actually, let me rephrase the "no obligation" part, he has been FULFILLING his obligations to the public while Gary Gensler has tried to put a muzzle on it and fulfill his obligations to his masters.

We will very soon (hopefully) find out what exactly the CFTC plans to do as they must make an actual announcement as opposed to allowing a newspaper to just run the headline and be done with it. I was thinking last night that it is even possible that Bart himself got thrown under the bus by Gary (Goldman) Gensler. It is possible that Gensler has already formed the votes needed to drop this and contacted the Financial Times himself or through back channels and Mr. Chilton has no knowledge of it. I would like to think that this is what happened because I really don't want to find out that "our" one hope for justice turned out to be like all of the rest.

We will see but as I said yesterday, Mr. Chilton really only has 3 choices if the investigation is dropped. He can remain silent, he can speak out, or he can resign AND speak out. The sad thing is that SO MUCH evidence has been dropped in the lap of the CFTC by Bill Murphy, Chris Powell, Andrew McGuire, Ted Butler, David Morgan and many more. Even the briefest of looks under the hood using the bare minimum of common sense would lead to the finding of price suppression. The CFTC really didn't need to do much digging because they were GIVEN the evidence for years before the investigation finally got started and since then. They have been able to actually watch, first hand, as prices were suppressed. They were given the road map, told when it would happen, been told afterwards "see, just as we told you it would happen", yet...it took over 4 years. ...to still not find anything?

As I've written before, there is a paper trail for EVERYTHING, for every single TRADE. All the CFTC would have to do is pull all of the trades for any day that Silver "waterfalled". Then, pick any other "waterfall day" and ...see if the same names pop up as sellers. Are these sellers really "hedging"? Yes? OK, show us the long positions please. This is really REALLY simple stuff, so simple that a 2nd grader could head the investigation and within a week's time start pointing fingers screaming liar liar pants on fire! Can you imagine the fines, the jail time, the forced bankruptcies (think Hunt bros.), if anyone outright BOUGHT Silver and MADE it's price rise? I don't think it would even matter if the buyer paid all cash for all physical, no paper or contracts involved, just bought tonnes and tonnes of metal...do you think the MIB might show up at his front door?

Before I finish, I do want to mention that back in 2005, George Bush signed an executive order allowing (call this "immunizing" under the interest of National Security NSA) any institution that was acting under National Security interests. Financial institutions have not had to report various losses and been allowed to falsify their books amongst other "wrongs" in the interest of national security. This executive order would obviously pertain not only to institutions, it would cover regulatory bodies and the regulators themselves, exchanges and their principals, who knows, maybe even judges themselves have immunity? If I had to guess, could it be that this is the reason that day is now night and black is now white? Regards, Bill H.