Taiibi: Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke

[baseline bum]

Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213)

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/blog_entry/1000x600/larry-600x400-1355426614.jpg
Assistant US Attorney General Lanny Breuer

If you've ever been arrested on a drug charge, if you've ever spent even a day in jail for having a stem of marijuana in your pocket or "drug paraphernalia" in your gym bag, Assistant Attorney General and longtime Bill Clinton pal Lanny Breuer has a message for you: Bite me.

Breuer this week signed off on a settlement deal (http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news/companies/hsbc-money-laundering/) with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/hsbc-to-pay-record-fine-to-settle-money-laundering-charges/) of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/13/Too-Big-to-Jail-HSBCs-Fine-Didnt-Fit-the-Crime.aspx#page1) for the bank.

The banks' laundering transactions were so brazen that the NSA probably could have spotted them from space. Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."

This bears repeating: in order to more efficiently move as much illegal money as possible into the "legitimate" banking institution HSBC, drug dealers specifically designed boxes to fit through the bank's teller windows. Tony Montana's henchmen marching dufflebags of cash into the fictional "American City Bank" in Miami was actually more subtle than what the cartels were doing when they washed their cash through one of Britain's most storied financial institutions.

JEvwQgQPkF0

Though this was not stated explicitly, the government's rationale in not pursuing criminal prosecutions against the bank was apparently rooted in concerns that putting executives from a "systemically important institution" in jail for drug laundering would threaten the stability of the financial system. The New York Times put it this way:

Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to-near-1-9-billion-settlement-over-money-laundering/?ref=business) HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the reasoning here is beyond flawed. When you decide not to prosecute bankers for billion-dollar crimes connected to drug-dealing and terrorism (some of HSBC's Saudi and Bangladeshi clients had terrorist ties (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-hsbc-senate-20120717,0,3041182.story), according to a Senate investigation), it doesn't protect the banking system, it does exactly the opposite. It terrifies investors and depositors everywhere, leaving them with the clear impression that even the most "reputable" banks may in fact be captured institutions whose senior executives are in the employ of (this can't be repeated often enough) murderers and terrorists. Even more shocking, the Justice Department's response to learning about all of this was to do exactly the same thing that the HSBC executives did in the first place to get themselves in trouble – they took money to look the other way.

And not only did they sell out to drug dealers, they sold out cheap. You'll hear bragging this week by the Obama administration that they wrested a record penalty from HSBC, but it's a joke. Some of the penalties involved will literally make you laugh out loud. This is from Breuer's announcement: (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/December/12-crm-1478.html)

As a result of the government's investigation, HSBC has . . . "clawed back" deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement.

Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement? Are you fucking kidding me? That's the punishment? The government's negotiators couldn't hold firm on forcing HSBC officials to completely wait to receive their ill-gotten bonuses? They had to settle on making them "partially" wait? Every honest prosecutor in America has to be puking his guts out at such bargaining tactics. What was the Justice Department's opening offer – asking executives to restrict their Caribbean vacation time to nine weeks a year?

So you might ask, what's the appropriate financial penalty for a bank in HSBC's position? Exactly how much money should one extract from a firm that has been shamelessly profiting from business with criminals for years and years? Remember, we're talking about a company that has admitted to a smorgasbord of serious banking crimes. If you're the prosecutor, you've got this bank by the balls. So how much money should you take?

How about all of it? How about every last dollar the bank has made since it started its illegal activity? How about you dive into every bank account of every single executive involved in this mess and take every last bonus dollar they've ever earned? Then take their houses, their cars, the paintings they bought at Sotheby's auctions, the clothes in their closets, the loose change in the jars on their kitchen counters, every last freaking thing. Take it all and don't think twice. And then throw them in jail.

Sound harsh? It does, doesn't it? The only problem is, that's exactly what the government does just about every day to ordinary people involved in ordinary drug cases.

It'd be interesting, for instance, to ask the residents of Tenaha, Texas what they think about the HSBC settlement. That's the town where local police routinely pulled over (mostly black) motorists (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story) and, whenever they found cash, offered motorists a choice: They could either allow police to seize the money, or face drug and money laundering charges.

Or we could ask Anthony Smelley (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/02/take_the_money_and_run.single.html), the Indiana resident who won $50,000 in a car accident settlement and was carrying about $17K of that in cash in his car when he got pulled over. Cops searched his car and had drug dogs sniff around: The dogs alerted twice. No drugs were found, but police took the money anyway. Even after Smelley produced documentation proving where he got the money from, Putnam County officials tried to keep the money on the grounds that he could have used the cash to buy drugs in the future.

Seriously, that happened. It happens all the time, and even Lanny Breuer's own Justice Deparment gets into the act. In 2010 alone, U.S. Attorneys' offices deposited nearly $1.8 billion into government accounts as a result of forfeiture cases, most of them drug cases. You can see the Justice Department's own statistics right here:
http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/1000x600/p31-600-1355428265.jpg
If you get pulled over in America with cash and the government even thinks it's drug money, that cash is going to be buying your local sheriff or police chief a new Ford Expedition (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91490480) tomorrow afternoon.

And that's just the icing on the cake. The real prize you get for interacting with a law enforcement officer, if you happen to be connected in any way with drugs, is a preposterous, outsized criminal penalty. Right here in New York, one out of every seven cases that ends up in court is a marijuana case.

Just the other day, while Breuer was announcing his slap on the wrist for the world's most prolific drug-launderers, I was in arraignment court in Brooklyn watching how they deal with actual people. A public defender explained the absurdity of drug arrests in this city. New York actually has fairly liberal laws about pot – police aren't supposed to bust you (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/of-50000-marijuana-arrest_n_1078023.html) if you possess the drug in private. So how do police work around that to make 50,377 pot-related arrests in a single year, just in this city? Tthat was 2010; the 2009 number was 46,492.)

"What they do is, they stop you on the street and tell you to empty your pockets," the public defender explained. "Then the instant a pipe or a seed is out of the pocket – boom, it's 'public use.' And you get arrested."

People spend nights in jail, or worse. In New York, even if they let you off with a misdemeanor and time served, you have to pay $200 and have your DNA extracted – a process that you have to pay for (it costs 50 bucks). But even beyond that, you won't have search very far for stories of draconian, idiotic sentences for nonviolent drug crimes.

Just ask Cameron Douglas, the son of Michael Douglas, who got five years in jail (http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2012/05/cameron-douglas-son-actor-michael-douglas-given-longest-ever-federal-prison-sentence-im) for simple possession. His jailers kept him in solitary for 23 hours a day for 11 months and denied him visits with family and friends. Although your typical non-violent drug inmate isn't the white child of a celebrity, he's usually a minority user who gets far stiffer sentences than rich white kids would for committing the same crimes – we all remember the crack-versus-coke controversy in which federal and state sentencing guidelines left (predominantly minority) crack users serving sentences up to 100 times harsher than those meted out to the predominantly white users of powdered coke.

The institutional bias in the crack sentencing guidelines was a racist outrage, but this HSBC settlement blows even that away. By eschewing criminal prosecutions of major drug launderers on the grounds (the patently absurd grounds, incidentally) that their prosecution might imperil the world financial system, the government has now formalized the double standard.

They're now saying that if you're not an important cog in the global financial system, you can't get away with anything, not even simple possession. You will be jailed and whatever cash they find on you they'll seize on the spot, and convert into new cruisers or toys for your local SWAT team, which will be deployed to kick in the doors of houses where more such inessential economic cogs as you live. If you don't have a systemically important job, in other words, the government's position is that your assets may be used to finance your own political disenfranchisement.

On the other hand, if you are an important person, and you work for a big international bank, you won't be prosecuted even if you launder nine billion dollars. Even if you actively collude with the people at the very top of the international narcotics trade, your punishment will be far smaller than that of the person at the very bottom of the world drug pyramid. You will be treated with more deference and sympathy than a junkie passing out on a subway car in Manhattan (using two seats of a subway car is a common prosecutable offense (http://gothamist.com/2010/01/26/nypd_crackdown_on_subway_riders_usi.php) in this city). An international drug trafficker is a criminal and usually a murderer; the drug addict walking the street is one of his victims. But thanks to Breuer, we're now in the business, officially, of jailing the victims and enabling the criminals.

This is the disgrace to end all disgraces. It doesn't even make any sense. There is no reason why the Justice Department couldn't have snatched up everybody at HSBC involved with the trafficking, prosecuted them criminally, and worked with banking regulators to make sure that the bank survived the transition to new management. As it is, HSBC has had to replace virtually all of its senior management. The guilty parties were apparently not so important to the stability of the world economy that they all had to be left at their desks.

So there is absolutely no reason they couldn't all face criminal penalties. That they are not being prosecuted is cowardice and pure corruption, nothing else. And by approving this settlement, Breuer removed the government's moral authority to prosecute anyone for any other drug offense. Not that most people didn't already know that the drug war is a joke, but this makes it official.

[Will Hunting]

absolutely sickening. Bill Clinton looks like he was a shittier president every day it seems like.

[Will Hunting]

I like the part about the town in Texas that seized people's money. I wonder how the dumbasses on this site who worship state and local government feel about that part.

[LnGrrrR]

Fucking disgraceful. I think bankers have replaced lawyers as the "scummy" profession.

[boutons_deux]

the banking sector is just one of the many corrupting/corrupted owners of govt. Of the country, actually. Of the world, actually.

bankers and lenders have STOLEN Ms of homes through mortgage fraud, eg MERS fraud, and:

Founder of DocX/LPS Pleads Guilty in Federal Court

The Founder of DocX, which later changed its name to LPS, has pleaded GUILTY in US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In the “Factual Basis” document attached to her Plea Agreement, Lorraine Brown, the founder of DocX, LLC, admits that the documents produced by these companies from the period 2003-2009 were forgeries.


Beginning in or about 2003 and continuing through November 2009, employees of DocX at the direction of Brown and others, began forging and falsifying signatures on mortgage-related documents that they had been hired to prepare and file with property recorder’s offices throughout the United States. Unbeknownst to clients, the Authorized Signers were instructed or authorized by Brown to allow other DocX employees, who were not authorized signers, to sign and notarize the mortgage-related documents as if the [sic] actually by the Authorized Signer.


Later down:


Thus, even through [sic] clients were told that a senior DocX manager would be preparing and signing the client documents, there was never any intention to do so.


More


After these documents were falsely signed and fraudulently notarized, Brown authorized DocX employees to send them through the mails or by electronic means for recording with local county property records offices across the nation. Many of these documents – particularly mortgage assignments, lost note affidavits, and lost assignment affidavits – were later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and federal bankruptcy actions. Brown understood that these property recorders, courts, title insurers and homeowners, relied upon the documents as genuine.


First of all, let me gloat. I have been saying for how many years that there were easy plain vanilla mail fraud and wire fraud cases to be made (I’m in a rush to get this posted before I go to coach my HS Mock Trial Team, I’ll come back later to put in the links).


Secondly, elsewhere in the plea agreement—don’t’ worry there will be follow-up posts as I dig into these documents better—she agrees to give restitution to the “victims”. It will be hard for those victims to collect since she is apparently forfeiting most of her money. But bear with me, if foreclosure defendants were to bring a 3rd party action against Lorraine Brown and DocX/LPS (assuming there are DocX/LPS documents being used against them), they could simply Notice the Depositions of Brown and the relevant robo-signers to obtain testimony to refute the validity of those documents, and then move for Summary Judgment against the bank trying to foreclose.

http://my.firedoglake.com/cindykouril/2012/11/21/why-the-florida-and-missouri-guilty-pleas-from-docx-founder-may-change-the-mortgage-crisis/

The USA is fucking corrupt disaster owned of operated by the 1% and their corrupt lawyers.

[Wild Cobra]

Fucking disgraceful. I think bankers have replaced lawyers as the "scummy" profession.
No, they are still number 2. They still need the lawyers to protect them.

What percentage of congress are lawyers?

[LnGrrrR]

No, they are still number 2. They still need the lawyers to protect them.

What percentage of congress are lawyers?

Good point. :lol

[z0sa]

Shit like this makes me feel like the the end of the world might be just a few days away after all. In fact, I might almost be hoping for it.

[symple19]

Unfuckingbelievable

Problem is, it doesn't matter whether D's or R's are in power, they all just continue to let these fucks off the hook time and again.

Why isn't there more outrage about this?!?!?

[Wild Cobra]

Unfuckingbelievable

Problem is, it doesn't matter whether D's or R's are in power, they all just continue to let these fucks off the hook time and again.

Why isn't there more outrage about this?!?!?
There has been for decades. What good does it do?

[Winehole23]

Unfuckingbelievable

Problem is, it doesn't matter whether D's or R's are in power, they all just continue to let these fucks off the hook time and again.

Why isn't there more outrage about this?!?!?it's like Leona Helmsley said: the rules are for little people. that goes double for rule of law.

[boutons_deux]

AIFAU :)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Unfuckingbelievable

Problem is, it doesn't matter whether D's or R's are in power, they all just continue to let these fucks off the hook time and again.

Why isn't there more outrage about this?!?!?
Because the MSM barely covers it and pretends its not a big deal. Banks getting let off the hook for illegal activity is basically par the course in this country. The average American is also borderline retarded and would rather watch here comes Honey Boo Boo than read the news.

When a black guy in Memphis gets caught laundering money/drugs, he gets thrown in jail and the government seizes his assets. That's what should have happened here. Worried about destabilizing the banking industry? Fine. Seize all of HSBC's domestic assets and nationalize it.

[Winehole23]

we're only allowed to nationalize the risks when they turn bad; if we nationalized insolvent or criminal firms, that would be socialism.

[LnGrrrR]

we're only allowed to nationalize the risks when they turn bad; if we nationalized insolvent or criminal firms, that would be socialism.

:lol How fucking sad but true.

[boutons_deux]

"Because the MSM barely covers it"

MSM are huge corporations, often have interlocking directorates AND advertising from the guilty other corps. MSM ain't never gonna rat on their benefactors.

[boutons_deux]

Big Banks Want Stronger Legal Protections From Mortgage Lawsuits (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/18/1350481/banks-mortgage-legal-protections/)
the New York Times reports:

As regulators complete new mortgage rules, banks are about to get a significant advantage: protection against homeowner lawsuits.

The rules are meant to help bolster the housing market. By shielding banks from potential litigation, policy makers contend that the industry will have a powerful incentive to make higher quality home loans. [...]


The legislation mandated that loans be affordable, but Congress conceded that banks might fear the legal consequences if the mortgages did not comply. So lawmakers created a type of home loan that would have legal protection, called a “qualified mortgage.” In practice, the protection will make it harder for borrowers to sue their lenders in the case of foreclosure.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/18/1350481/banks-mortgage-legal-protections/

[coyotes_geek]

The repeated passes Obama's justice department continue to give banks is pathetic.

[boutons_deux]

The repeated passes Obama's justice department continue to give banks is pathetic.

it's not Dem or Repug, it's the 1% vs 99%. Dems are bad, but the Repugs are much worse. Gecko/Ryan + control of Congress would have been a disaster for the 99%.

[coyotes_geek]

it's not Dem or Repug, it's the 1% vs 99%. Dems are bad, but the Repugs are much worse. Gecko/Ryan + control of Congress would have been a disaster for the 99%.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c233/redlami/financial_industry_fraud_25years.png

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/16/1037088/-Criminal-Prosecutions-for-Financial-Institution-Fraud-Hit-25-Year-Low

I even went out of my way to find a boutons-approved source........

[boutons_deux]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/16/1037088/-Criminal-Prosecutions-for-Financial-Institution-Fraud-Hit-25-Year-Low

I even went out of my way to find a boutons-approved source........

confirms what I said. 1% vs 99% is more explanatory that Repug vs Dem, but Repugs are represent and fight for the 1% and against the 99% than the Dems do.

Bishop Gecko was going to kill just about all recent financial regulation, and you know his Treasury and SEC people would suck Wall St dick even harder than Barry's.

[coyotes_geek]

Maybe Mitt would have been worse, maybe he wouldn't have been. Either way, doesn't change the fact that Obama is the biggest pushover this country has seen in at least 30 years. If Obama and this crop of democrats really are fighting for the interests of the 99% against the 1%, they sure do suck at it.

[boutons_deux]

"maybe he wouldn't have been"

he said in his campaign that he would kill and re-do all financial regulation that had been set up under Barry. no "maybe" about it. CFPB, increased capital reserves, poof, all gone. Barry is too close to Wall st but Bishop Gecko __IS__ Wall st. There is a huge difference.

[boutons_deux]

" If Obama and this crop of democrats really are fighting for the interests of the 99% against the 1%, they sure do suck at it."

agreed. But the Repugs have been and will be much worse since they don't even try to protect the 99% (eg, see current fiscal proposals from Boner, see Ryan's twice-passed 10-year budgeting)

[Bill_Brasky]

Makes me wanna puke, tbh. So much wrong here.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Boutons, Matt Taiibi is one of the most liberal journalists I've ever read and he's not even defending Obama on this (probably because he's what a liberal was pre-Clinton), why do you insist on doing so? The fact Romney would have been just as bad if not worse (and don't kid yourselves Republicans, he would have been) is irrelevant especially since no one said otherwise. It doesn't change the fact Obama is a total corporate shill and this is approaching the territory of how Bush handled Enron. The "He can't do anything radical since it's his first term!" excuse is over, it's his 2nd term, he doesn't have any more elections to worry about, and he's still handing out corporate welfare. There were excuses that could be made for the bailout, there's no possible excuse for this.

Taiibi's main point is dead on too, the war on drugs is a totally racist, corrupt scam. It's sickening how many Americans don't seem to care that their tax dollars go towards prosecuting and incarcerating fuckin marijuana users.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

he said in his campaign that he would kill and re-do all financial regulation that had been set up under Barry.

Apparently Barry didn't set up any financial regulation regarding the laundering of drug dealer money.

[coyotes_geek]

"maybe he wouldn't have been"

he said in his campaign that he would kill and re-do all financial regulation that had been set up under Barry. no "maybe" about it. CFPB, increased capital reserves, poof, all gone. Barry is too close to Wall st but Bishop Gecko __IS__ Wall st. There is a huge difference.


Mitt said a lot of things. Mitt liked to talk out of his ass. No way to tell what he was actually serious about and what he wasn't. Nor did Mitt bother to share with us what his "re-do" might look like.


" If Obama and this crop of democrats really are fighting for the interests of the 99% against the 1%, they sure do suck at it."

agreed. But the Repugs have been and will be much worse since they don't even try to protect the 99% (eg, see current fiscal proposals from Boner, see Ryan's twice-passed 10-year budgeting)

The biggest finanical scam in history is staring him right in the face and he can't seem to find one gawd damned banker who's committed a crime worthy of jail time. Bankers look pretty damn protected and it's happening on his watch. Is blue team really fighting for the little guy, or do they just want the little guy to think that they are?

[Latarian Milton]

bankers fucking own this world and HSBC ain't the only bank that operates money laundering business. banks know this shit better than governments do so the majority of time they can do it fine w/o getting caught, and even if they get busted doing it someday due to some bad luck, they can get away with it. an average bank staff earns about twice the money an average blue collar worker makes and most of them don't have any advanced degrees, you're fooling yourselves if you think their profits are only made from loan interests tbh.

[symple19]

it's like Leona Helmsley said: the rules are for little people. that goes double for rule of law.


Because the MSM barely covers it and pretends its not a big deal. Banks getting let off the hook for illegal activity is basically par the course in this country. The average American is also borderline retarded and would rather watch here comes Honey Boo Boo than read the news.



Of course you guys are both correct and intellectually I realize these to be facts. But what can somebody do other than rant and rave?

Personally, I just keep my money out of the market as well as anything other than a credit union. Yes, I know I'm hurting my bottom line in so doing, but I'm debt free and have peace of mind.

Furthermore, I no longer vote for R's or D's unless its on a local/state basis where I have no other alternative.

I guess those things, coupled with trying to educate my friends and family without being a dick, are all I can do

[symple19]

Boutons, Matt Taiibi is one of the most liberal journalists I've ever read and he's not even defending Obama on this (probably because he's what a liberal was pre-Clinton), why do you insist on doing so? The fact Romney would have been just as bad if not worse (and don't kid yourselves Republicans, he would have been) is irrelevant especially since no one said otherwise. It doesn't change the fact Obama is a total corporate shill and this is approaching the territory of how Bush handled Enron. The "He can't do anything radical since it's his first term!" excuse is over, it's his 2nd term, he doesn't have any more elections to worry about, and he's still handing out corporate welfare. There were excuses that could be made for the bailout, there's no possible excuse for this.

Taiibi's main point is dead on too, the war on drugs is a totally racist, corrupt scam. It's sickening how many Americans don't seem to care that their tax dollars go towards prosecuting and incarcerating fuckin marijuana users.

Goods :toast

But trying to talk sense into BD is like trying to talk sense into a wall

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Of course you guys are both correct and intellectually I realize these to be facts. But what can somebody do other than rant and rave?

Personally, I just keep my money out of the market as well as anything other than a credit union. Yes, I know I'm hurting my bottom line in so doing, but I'm debt free and have peace of mind.

Furthermore, I no longer vote for R's or D's unless its on a local/state basis where I have no other alternative.

I guess those things, coupled with trying to educate my friends and family without being a dick, are all I can do

Yup, that's about all you can do. Vote 3rd party and try to inform the people around you who might respect your opinion. Don't expect to make too much of a difference, I have friends who are otherwise as intelligent as it gets but don't recognize how much this country is rotting from the inside.

[TDMVPDPOY]

bank of china right...lol chinese bank...good luck

[boutons_deux]

Goods :toast

But trying to talk sense into BD is like trying to talk sense into a wall

symple fucktard, I've said many time the PIC's drug war is a business, and at the individual level, it's corrupt, racist enforcment sadists fucking blacks and browns.

[symple19]

:lol

[Bill_Brasky]

I can't believe more people aren't appalled with this. Anyone I mention it too hasn't even heard of it. That's how corrupt and agenda-driven our media is. They wanna have all day specials about the shootings and gun control and act like nothing else is happening in this country.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I can't believe more people aren't appalled with this. Anyone I mention it too hasn't even heard of it. That's how corrupt and agenda-driven our media is. They wanna have all day specials about the shootings and gun control and act like nothing else is happening in this country.

Their coverage of the shootings is also meaningless and does absolutely nothing.

:cryThis is Allison:cryShe liked butterflies, flowers, and her favorite color was pink:cryHer mother's wish is to never forget Allison:cry

[Bill_Brasky]

Their coverage of the shootings is also meaningless and does absolutely nothing.

:cryThis is Allison:cryShe liked butterflies, flowers, and her favorite color was pink:cryHer mother's wish is to never forget Allison:cry

Yeah that is just weird to me how people can watch that and pretend they really give a shit about it. And that's what an obsession with dead children is. Weird.

[boutons_deux]

Emails Show How Corrupt Financial Traders Bragged About Rigging Global Markets (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/19/1358971/ubs-traders-brag/)

The Swiss bank UBS will pay $1.5 billion in fines (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/ubs-e-mails-show-how-traders-gamed-the-system/) to international regulators for manipulating the LIBOR interest rate (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/12/515563/why-the-libor-scandal-matters/), which helps set rates on financial products across the world. UBS is the second bank, after Barclays, to pay fines for messing with LIBOR.

According to emails released by the British Financial Services Authority, UBS traders bragged over email about their work rigging the interest rate, promising to do “fu*king humongous deal[s] (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100326489)” with each other if the rates were rigged a certain way:
The trader, described in Financial Services Authority documents as Trader A, wrote on instant message exchanges: “3m libor is too high cause I have kept it artificially high.” This single employee appears to have made hundreds of requests to brokers to help manipulate the rate, according to the FSA. At least 45 UBS employees in total knew of, or were involved in, the rigging of the rate, the UK regulator said.

The FSA documents suggest a macho trading culture on the UBS trading floor. Trader A also said: “if you keep 6s [i.e. the six month JPY LIBOR rate] unchanged today … I will ****ing do one humongous deal with you … Like a 50,000 buck deal.”


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/19/1358971/ubs-traders-brag/

Anybody going to jail?

Are city/county/state borrowers (aka taxpayers) who are NOW PAYING HIGHER rates for bond sales going to be compensated?

[Winehole23]

There’s no good way to prepare someone for life outside prison while that person is still in prison. Far better to have an offender “outside,” but under close monitoring and with the promise of swift and sure sanctions for every violation of the rules.


A combination of drug (including alcohol) testing and position monitoring via a G.P.S. anklet – enabling both curfew enforcement and the promise that any new offense will be easily detected – can provide most of the crime-reduction benefits of a prison cell at a small fraction of the costs in money and suffering. Even long-time methamphetamine and alcohol abusers turn out to be able to stop when the consequences of not stopping are certain and immediate. The result – as Angela Hawken of Pepperdine University has found in studies of the Hawaii HOPE program (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf) and the Washington State WISP program (http://www.seattle.gov/council/burgess/attachments/2011wisp_draft_report.pdf) and as Beau Kilmer at RAND has shown for South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300989) – is less drug abuse, less crime and less incarceration. No program based on treatment alone works nearly as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/community-supervision-is-better-than-incarceration

[coyotes_geek]

I can't believe more people aren't appalled with this. Anyone I mention it too hasn't even heard of it. That's how corrupt and agenda-driven our media is. They wanna have all day specials about the shootings and gun control and act like nothing else is happening in this country.


Their coverage of the shootings is also meaningless and does absolutely nothing.

:cryThis is Allison:cryShe liked butterflies, flowers, and her favorite color was pink:cryHer mother's wish is to never forget Allison:cry


Yeah that is just weird to me how people can watch that and pretend they really give a shit about it. And that's what an obsession with dead children is. Weird.

Parents see tragedies involving children in a way that non parents are simply incapable of understanding. Not saying it's a good thing/bad thing, right/wrong or anything like that. It's just different. Parents see the world differently than non parents. The thought of losing a child is a parent's worst nightmare and because of that a parent is going to have a completely different level of emotional attachement when a tragedy like this occurs than a non parent will.

The news-entertainment shows recognize the strength of that emotional attachment and know that their audience is dominated by parents and grandparents. So they catering to that audience because they're in the business of getting people to tune in.

All that being said, I agree with you that more people should be appalled by the topic of this thread, but "evil bankers" simply can't come close to stirring an emotional reaction to the the level that kids getting shot will. Human nature.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So we should cater the news to emotional soccer moms who when they're not watching the news like watching shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Storage Wars. Got it.

I think our whole point is that the average American parent is a fuckin moron and the news caters to fuckin morons.

[symple19]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/community-supervision-is-better-than-incarceration

This makes sense, Wino, and I agree that we need less people in prisons as opposed to more, but in this case (and a few others involving appalling white collar crime) the government needs to make an example out of these fucks and send them to max-sec prisons so they can be molested by other inmates as well as scumbags like silverblk mystix

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:cryI'm a parent and I'm gonna remember what Allison's favorite color was because I think that means something:cry

:cryIf we remember these kids and cry about it maybe that'll actually lead to change:cry

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/community-supervision-is-better-than-incarceration

When poor black people get caught using marijuana, the government uses logic basically opposite to this.

America is the most incarcerated country in the world, and only 7% of the incarcerated population in this country is made up of violent offenders. It's total bullshit to pretend the government did this because of an effort to reduce people in jail.

[TeyshaBlue]

So we should cater the news to emotional soccer moms who when they're not watching the news like watching shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Storage Wars. Got it.

I think our whole point is that the average American parent is a fuckin moron and the news caters to fuckin morons.

No, the point is that the two scenarios, dead children, corrupt bankers, elicit completely different responses from completely different emotional centers with completely different triggers. You could say, that the two crimes are completely different.

This would be correct. You can also do this without mocking peeps who do have an emotional reaction to dead children.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No, the point is that the two scenarios, dead children, corrupt bankers, elicit completely different responses from completely different emotional centers with completely different triggers. You could say, that the two crimes are completely different.

This would be correct. You can also do this without mocking peeps who do have an emotional reaction to dead children.

I'm mocking people who think regurgitating random facts about the dead kids because we need to :cryremember them:cry actually means anything or has any substance. It's emotional rhetoric to keep people distracted from real news.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm mocking people who think regurgitating random facts about the dead kids because we need to :cryremember them:cry actually means anything or has any substance.

It's entirely possible that it might actually be a legitimate response. Your gotcha posting precludes that possiblity.

[symple19]

I agree with DoK

There is zero news value in what the affected parties are feeling as a result of the school shootings. None. We all know that this is a terrible scenario, no need to go on and on and on about it.

Plus, the news channels/organizations only do it because it gets ratings. That's all they care about at the end of the day

[TeyshaBlue]

I agree with DoK

There is zero news value in what the affected parties are feeling as a result of the school shootings. None. We all know that this is a terrible scenario, no need to go on and on and on about it.

Plus, the news channels/organizations only do it because it gets ratings. That's all they care about at the end of the day

No denying the news value. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding DOK's point.

[TeyshaBlue]

No denying the news value. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding DOK's point.

And I would disagree with the zero figure.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's entirely possible that it might actually be a legitimate response.

For people with room temperature IQs who get caught up with sentimental bullshit and think it has substance, yeah, it's a legitimate response.

I hate to break it to her parents, but remembering the fact Allison's favorite color was pink and that she liked eating frosted flakes for breakfast is absolutely meaningless. A month from now, all these people pretending to care will forget all the random Allison trivia being shoved down their throat by CNN.

[TeyshaBlue]

For people with room temperature IQs who get caught up with sentimental bullshit and think it has substance, yeah, it's a legitimate response.

I hate to break it to her parents, but remembering the fact Allison's favorite color was pink and that she liked eating frosted flakes for breakfast is absolutely meaningless. A month from now, all these people pretending to care will forget all the random Allison trivia being shoved down their throat by CNN.

A parent gripped by the news of a dead child is hardly the room temp IQ demographic you seem to think they are.

Guess what? We ain't a herd, regardless of how much BD states it. I wouldn't think you'd buy into that nihilstic bullshit.

[coyotes_geek]

So we should cater the news to emotional soccer moms who when they're not watching the news like watching shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Storage Wars. Got it.

I think our whole point is that the average American parent is a fuckin moron and the news caters to fuckin morons.

"We" aren't catering anything. "The news" is a television program that will cater to the demographic that will return the highest ratingsm just like every other show on television does, regardless of content.

Also, I don't think the average American parent is any more of a fucking moron than the average American non-parent is. Most shows on tv are trying to cater to fucking morons.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

A parent gripped by the news of a dead child is hardly the room temp IQ demographic you seem to think they are.

Guess what? We ain't a herd, regardless of how much BD states it. I wouldn't think you'd buy into that nihilstic bullshit.
A parent who's gripped by Allison's favorite color or Allison's love for barbies does have a room temperature IQ. It's meaningless bullshit that smart people don't care about because it carries zero value.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm mocking people who think regurgitating random facts about the dead kids because we need to :cryremember them:cry actually means anything or has any substance. It's emotional rhetoric to keep people distracted from real news.

Is regurgitating random facts about dead kids somehow less meaningful or less substantive than keeping up with who Snooki is fucking or how the local sports team is doing? It's television. It's all emotional rhetoric in one form or another. Everybody is seeking out the information that they're interested in.

[symple19]

A parent gripped by the news of a dead child is hardly the room temp IQ demographic you seem to think they are.

Guess what? We ain't a herd, regardless of how much BD states it. I wouldn't think you'd buy into that nihilstic bullshit.

I get that you feel for them, and that's cool.

But would you rather NBC nightly news start their broadcast with 13 minutes of crying parents and mushy remembrances, or 13 minutes of reporting on the banking practices of HSBC and the subsequent actions of the Justice Department?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Is regurgitating random facts about dead kids somehow less meaningful or less substantive than keeping up with who Snooki is fucking or how the local sports team is doing? It's television. It's all emotional rhetoric in one form or another.

No, it's not less meaningful. The difference is, CNN isn't trying to pass Snooki's sex life off as actual news people should care about.

Thanks for proving my point.

[symple19]

And yes, DoK is right that our beloved free press should hold itself to a higher standard and report NEWS. Leave the mush for the talk shows where it belongs

If they're doing hard stories on gun legislation, mental health, or other related topics, I have no problem with it

[TeyshaBlue]

I get that you feel for them, and that's cool.

But would you rather NBC nightly news start their broadcast with 13 minutes of crying parents and mushy remembrances, or 13 minutes of reporting on the banking practices of HSBC and the subsequent actions of the Justice Department?

I understand your point and agree. I reject DOK's flawed characterization of a parent's emotional connections with external events. These are not the playthings of fucking morons no matter how little he actually understands regarding this phenomenon.

[coyotes_geek]

No, it's not less meaningful. The difference is, CNN isn't trying to pass Snooki's sex life off as actual news people should care about.

Thanks for proving my point.

CNN is just a TV show like every other TV show out there and they all try to pass off their content as something people should care about. We're in complete agreement, TV is crap. That's why I don't watch much of it.

[symple19]

I understand your point and agree. I reject DOK's flawed characterization of a parent's emotional connections with external events. These are not the playthings of fucking morons no matter how little he actually understands regarding this phenomenon.

It's just DoK being DoK, :lol

He likes to use a bazooka when a slingshot is necessary

[symple19]

CNN is just a TV show like every other TV show out there and they all try to pass off their content as something people should care about. We're in complete agreement, TV is crap. That's why I don't watch much of it.

I don't either, especially not TV news.

I just go to Reuters and AP when things are happening. About as bias free as it gets, unless somebody knows someplace better?

Sadly, what they show simply reflects a majority of our society... People who care more about "human interest" stories than about the corrupt nature of our government

[symple19]

If somebody already posted this, sorry

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/11/senator-sold-stock-before-settlement/


Sen. Jeff Bingaman (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jeff-bingaman/), New Mexico Democrat, reported the Dec. 3 sale of between $250,001 and $500,000 in HSBC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hsbc-holdings/) stock on forms he filed with the Senate (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/senate/) on Dec. 8.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/11/senator-sold-stock-before-settlement/#ixzz2FWMgYYv8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol these parents who I guess are actually really smart are gonna forget all this information that makes them feel a connection to Allison's family a month from now, that's the part of this that makes it funny

[baseline bum]

It's ridiculous to suggest that the news is in the business of trying to get the highest ratings. The news is in the business of maximizing revenue from advertisers under the constraint of not harming their own parent company. Pretty sure NBC could get some massive ratings with in-depth coverage of stories like this, but no way they'd do this since they're a bank (General Electric) and since they'd lose all their advertising dollars from Chase and Bank of America.

[boutons_deux]

"highest ratings. The news is in the business of maximizing revenue from advertisers"

ads prices are based on audience ratings, duh.

[baseline bum]

"highest ratings. The news is in the business of maximizing revenue from advertisers"

ads prices are based on audience ratings, duh.




Tell me, if the news goes in-depth on the shit quality of our beef, are they more or less likely to have Ronald McDonald's clowny ass hand them a fat check for Happy Meal ads?

[boutons_deux]

Life Sentence for the Poor, Immunity for the Wealthy

he US is the world's largest prison state, imprisoning more of its citizens than any nation on earth, both inabsolute numbers (http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal) andproportionally (http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/03/06/worlds-largest-jailer-by-far-its-not-even-close/). It imprisons people for longer periods of time, more mercilessly, and for more trivial transgressions than any nation in the west (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all). This sprawling penal state has been constructed over decades, by both political parties, and it punishes the poor and racial minorities at overwhelmingly disproportionate rates (http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=115).

But not everyone is subjected to that system of penal harshness. It all changes radically when the nation's most powerful actors are caught breaking the law. With few exceptions, they are gifted not merely with leniency, but full-scale immunity from criminal punishment. Thus have the most egregious crimes of the last decade been fully shielded from prosecution when committed by those with the greatest political and economic power: the construction of a worldwide torture regime, spying on Americans' communications without the warrants required by criminal law by government agencies and the telecom industry, an aggressive war launched on false pretenses, and massive, systemic financial fraud in the banking and credit industry that triggered the 2008 financial crisis.

This two-tiered justice system was the subject of my last book, "With Liberty and Justice for Some" (http://blog.case.edu/singham/2011/12/21/book_review_with_liberty_and_justice_for_some_by_g lenn_greenwald), and what was most striking to me as I traced the recent history of this phenomenon is how explicit it has become. Obviously, those with money and power always enjoyed substantial advantages in the US justice system, but lip service was at least always paid to the core precept of the rule of law: that - regardless of power, position and prestige - all stand equal before the blindness of Lady Justice.

It really is the case that this principle is now not only routinely violated, as was always true, but explicitly repudiated, right out in the open. It is commonplace to hear US elites unblinkingly insisting that those who become sufficiently important and influential are - and should be - immunized from the system of criminal punishment to which everyone else is subjected.

Worse, we are constantly told that immunizing those with the greatest power is not for their good, but for our good, for our collective good: because it's better for all of us if society is free of the disruptions that come from trying to punish the most powerful, if we're free of the deprivations that we would collectively experience if we lose their extraordinary value and contributions by prosecuting them.

This rationale was popularized in 1974 when Gerald Ford explained why Richard Nixon - who built his career as a "law-and-order" politician demanding harsh punishments and unforgiving prosecutions for ordinary criminals - would never see the inside of a courtroom after being caught committing multiple felonies; his pardon was for the good not of Nixon, but of all of us. That was the same reasoning hauled out to justify immunity for officials of the National Security State who tortured and telecom giants who illegally spied on Americans (we need them to keep us safe and can't disrupt them with prosecutions), as well as the refusal to prosecute any Wall Street criminals for their fraud (prosecutions for these financial crimes would disrupt our collective economic recovery).


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/15116-life-sentence-for-the-poor-immunity-for-the-wealthy

[symple19]

It's ridiculous to suggest that the news is in the business of trying to get the highest ratings. The news is in the business of maximizing revenue from advertisers under the constraint of not harming their own parent company. Pretty sure NBC could get some massive ratings with in-depth coverage of stories like this, but no way they'd do this since they're a bank (General Electric) and since they'd lose all their advertising dollars from Chase and Bank of America.

Okay, fair enough, but I still think that it weighs out in favor of ratings. All of the News channels more or less are showing the same things, and not all of them are owned by banks

I just used NBC as an example because it was the first one that came into my head

[symple19]

In the context of ratings, even if you lose one or two (advertisers) because you did a story that slams their industry, plenty more will step in if you're averaging 10+ million viewers.

I also don't have faith in the American people that they would deliver a comparable amount of viewers to an expose' on the financial system than they do to human interest stories that involve kids. Hell, I bet more people would watch a "cute kitty" story than a hard hitting piece on government corruption

Could be wrong, though

[boutons_deux]

Tell me, if the news goes in-depth on the shit quality of our beef, are they more or less likely to have Ronald McDonald's clowny ass hand them a fat check for Happy Meal ads?

media won't do anything to expose their advertisers, and will accept ad purchases from just about anybody for anything.

what's really hilariously sad is that people think "60 Minutes" is "hard hitting" :lol

[coyotes_geek]

Tell me, if the news goes in-depth on the shit quality of our beef, are they more or less likely to have Ronald McDonald's clowny ass hand them a fat check for Happy Meal ads?

McDonalds probably wouldn't want one of their ads to air during that specific in depth special, but if that news program was consistently delivering high ratings amongst potential McDonalds customers then McDonalds wouldn't hesistate to cut that check. If that news program would air something that would make even more potential McDonalds customers tune in McDonalds wouldn't hesitate to cut an even bigger one.

[baseline bum]

In the context of ratings, even if you lose one or two (advertisers) because you did a story that slams their industry, plenty more will step in if you're averaging 10+ million viewers.


I completely disagree. Exposing American society as a system where justice is determined by class lines is bad business.

[baseline bum]

McDonalds probably wouldn't want one of their ads to air during that specific in depth special, but if that news program was consistently delivering high ratings amongst potential McDonalds customers then McDonalds wouldn't hesistate to cut that check. If that news program would air something that would make even more potential McDonalds customers tune in McDonalds wouldn't hesitate to cut an even bigger one.

McDonalds isn't going to pay a network to scare parents all across the nation into not buying their kids Happy Meals.

[symple19]

Well, at least we agree that the news industry is a fucking disgrace regardless of the reasons :lol

[boutons_deux]

"news industry"

It's not a news industry, it's an entertainment business.

[baseline bum]

Well, at least we agree that the news industry is a fucking disgrace regardless of the reasons :lol

A corporate-owned media accountable to other powerful corporate interests via advertising dollars is an incredible filter on progressive stories that raise the public's class awareness.

[coyotes_geek]

McDonalds isn't going to pay a network to scare parents all across the nation into not buying their kids Happy Meals.

They wouldn't pay a network to air one of their commercials on that specific program. They would gladly pay the network to air their commercials on a different program. 60 minutes doing an in depth special on crappy McDonalds beef isn't going to keep McDonalds from giving CBS a shitload of money to air commercials during March Madness. 60 minutes doing an in depth special on crappy McDonalds beef probably wouldn't even keep McDonalds from advertising on a different episode of 60 minutes if enough potential McDonalds customers were consistently tuning in to watch.

[Drachen]

I can't believe more people aren't appalled with this. Anyone I mention it too hasn't even heard of it. That's how corrupt and agenda-driven our media is. They wanna have all day specials about the shootings and gun control and act like nothing else is happening in this country.

They had a pretty good story about this about a week ago on NPR. Kept referencing back to it several times throughout the day. Said many of the same things that Matt said (though they did have a guy on there talking about how it isn't fair to the tellers to fine the bank 20 Billion dollars because they will be downsized to pay for it). :(

[coyotes_geek]

In the context of ratings, even if you lose one or two (advertisers) because you did a story that slams their industry, plenty more will step in if you're averaging 10+ million viewers.

I also don't have faith in the American people that they would deliver a comparable amount of viewers to an expose' on the financial system than they do to human interest stories that involve kids. Hell, I bet more people would watch a "cute kitty" story than a hard hitting piece on government corruption

Could be wrong, though

You're not wrong. You're spot on. The TV industry exists to give us programming that we'll watch and what we want to watch is sports, reality tv and talk shows about people's feelings. The spectrum of people geniunely interested in hard hitting pieces on government corruption is so small, and even that tiny demographic is splintered along political lines where people are just looking for affirmation that the corruption is all the other team's fault.

[Drachen]

You're not wrong. You're spot on. The TV industry exists to give us programming that we'll watch and what we want to watch is sports, reality tv and talk shows about people's feelings. The spectrum of people geniunely interested in hard hitting pieces on government corruption is so small, and even that tiny demographic is splintered along political lines where people are just looking for affirmation that the corruption is all the other team's fault.

They could interview the children of drug users/abusers and ask them what they think about the fact that their local bank branch helped mommy and daddy get their special white magic energy powder.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah I agree with coyotes_geek here, McDonalds is gonna advertise in whichever way it'll make them money. They wouldn't advertise on CBS unless it helped them to do so, so a 1 hour special about their grade D meat wouldn't stop them from advertising on another time slot.

[baseline bum]

You're not wrong. You're spot on. The TV industry exists to give us programming that we'll watch and what we want to watch is sports, reality tv and talk shows about people's feelings. The spectrum of people geniunely interested in hard hitting pieces on government corruption is so small, and even that tiny demographic is splintered along political lines where people are just looking for affirmation that the corruption is all the other team's fault.

The TV industry exists to sell advertising. Reality TV exists because people will watch whatever is on and because it doesn't cost anything to produce.

[baseline bum]

They wouldn't pay a network to air one of their commercials on that specific program. They would gladly pay the network to air their commercials on a different program. 60 minutes doing an in depth special on crappy McDonalds beef isn't going to keep McDonalds from giving CBS a shitload of money to air commercials during March Madness. 60 minutes doing an in depth special on crappy McDonalds beef probably wouldn't even keep McDonalds from advertising on a different episode of 60 minutes if enough potential McDonalds customers were consistently tuning in to watch.

If it's a one-time thing maybe, but if 60 Minutes keeps following up on things they're going to lose that advertiser.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If it's a one-time thing maybe, but if 60 Minutes keeps following up on things they're going to lose that advertiser.

Disagree. Corporations have more greed than they have pride. If there's a time slot on CBS where they think it would be profitable to advertise, they'll do it, even if they're also helping a TV station that's attempting to hurt their brand.

[baseline bum]

Disagree. Corporations have more greed than they have pride. If there's a time slot on CBS where they think it would be profitable to advertise, they'll do it, even if they're also helping a TV station that's attempting to hurt their brand.

I don't think it's pride at all. You threaten to pull advertising and those shows that hurt your brand are going to cease to exist. Seems like every time I see something about the quality of our food it's done in a nameless and blameless "everyone does it" sort of fashion.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't think they'd take the risk of messing with a huge media outlet. If CBS decided to call their bluff and got pissed off that McDonalds was trying to influence what CBS puts on air, CBS would go after them 100x as hard as a 60 minutes special does.

We basically agree on the general idea just for different reasons. I think they'd stop getting advertisers in that scenario because informative TV specials about crappy food or banking corruption wouldn't get the ratings from Americans that, "People camped outside for 6 hours in order to get the best Black Friday specials!" or "The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade had huge crowds this year!" headlines get. Americans want to live in ignorance. Heck, even for all the bitching I do, I'm no exception. Whenever a climate change expert is on TV, I immediately change the channel because I'd rather ignore how fucked this planet is since most people in this country don't wanna take it serious anyway.

[baseline bum]

Heck, even for all the bitching I do, I'm no exception. Whenever a climate change expert is on TV, I immediately change the channel because I'd rather ignore how fucked this planet is since most people in this country don't wanna take it serious anyway.

I turn it off because the guy only gets two minutes before the commercial break and then it's next topic.

[Winehole23]

Argentina's tax agency said on Monday it has uncovered 392 million pesos ($77 million) in fraudulent transactions by HSBC Holdings Plc (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=HCS&lc=int_mb_1001) and said it has asked the judicial system to probe the European bank for alleged tax evasion and money laundering.
HSBC, Europe's largest bank, was fined $1.9 billion last year for similar irregularities in Mexico (http://www.reuters.com/places/mexico?lc=int_mb_1001) and the United States.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/argentina-hsbc-idUSL1N0CA8MC20130318?type=companyNews

[boutons_deux]

We heard Holder say Fed/SEC/DoJ refuse to bring down a blatant $100Bs criminal like HSBC because it would be another Lehman-like systemic trigger. But, pass a bad check or two, you're really fucked.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/18/argentina-hsbc-idUSL1N0CA8MC20130318?type=companyNews

Amazing. HSBC was also at the front of the fixing LIBOR scandal iirc.

:lol people getting angry at Obama for allegebly considering the possibility of taking away guns while his attorney general doesn't wanna prosecute multi-billion dollar corporate crimes

[boutons_deux]

Amazing. HSBC was also at the front of the fixing LIBOR scandal iirc.

:lol people getting angry at Obama for allegebly considering the possibility of taking away guns while his attorney general doesn't wanna prosecute multi-billion dollar corporate crimes

The big finance outfits can reliably be assumed to be serial felonious criminals, because they make $100Bs with their crimes, and they know "their boys" in govt, now admitted publicly by Holder et al, won't touch them with more than a handslap (eg $600M fine for SAC was a handslap compared to insider traber SAC's $10B+ value, AND no person to jail or pays a penny).

[Winehole23]

wounded Iraq vets sue HSBC under 1992 anti-terrorism law:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-courts-banking-iran-idUSKCN0IU1Q120141110

[boutons_deux]

The Republican Senate Will Love Loretta Lynch

Right after graduating from law school, Lynch went to work as a litigation assistant for the prestigious New York-based law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel between 1984 and 1990. CG&R attorneys represented some of the more notorious figures behind the Savings and Loan Scandal of the 1980s and 1990s, including a man who had personal dealings with Charles Keating (http://openjurist.org/935/f2d/475/alfadda-v-a-fenn-nv-sa-nv-sa). In its profile of Lynch, the DOJ’s own website describes her as someone with extensive experience in “white collar criminal defense.” (http://www.justice.gov/usao/biographies/lynch.html) It’s very likely that Lynch went from Harvard straight to defending some of the worst financial criminals the country had ever seen at the time. On CG&R’s website, the “securities litigation and white collar defense” (http://www.cahill.com/practices/litigation-securities-white-collar-defense)section describes the kind of crooks the firm defends:

Recent matters include the alleged manipulation of the US Dollar London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) and multi-billion dollar federal and state court class and individual actions involving subprime and structured finance products.… We have handled some of the most significant investigations arising from existing and emerging regulation in the white collar arena, including for some of the largest transnational companies and banks as well as the largest securities rating agency.… Our securities litigation and white collar defense practice is top-ranked by Chambers USA, The Legal 500 and Benchmark Litigation.

Lynch basically got her first six years of white collar criminal defense experience working at the firm that is currently responsible for keeping the bankers behind the great subprime mortgage grift out of jail. CG&R is also defending the financial institutions that jacked up interest rates on everything from student loans to home loans out of greedy self-interest. They even defended the agencies that knowingly rated worthless mortgage-backed securities as AAA, setting up millions to lose their retirement savings in a snap.

After six years of exemplary work at this soulless law firm, Lynch walked through the revolving door to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern district of New York, which plays a major part in investigating financial crimes. She gradually worked her way up the ladder (http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/12/meet-loretta-e-lynch/), going from an assistant U.S. attorney in 1990 to becoming the unit’s Deputy Chief of General Crimes in 1993. She was chief of the office’s Long Island division by 1998, and was tapped as U.S. Attorney by June of 1999, where she remained until 2001. Then, Lynch walked back through the revolving door to return to defending the worst of America’s worst corporate criminals.

Lynch couldn’t wait to get started at the Hogan & Hartson law firm (now known as Hogan Lovells). Interestingly enough, Lynch was a partner at Hogan, working alongside John Roberts (http://www.hoganlovells.com/newsmedia/newspubs/detail.aspx?news=456), the current chief justice of what is the most corporate-friendly Supreme Court (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinion/sunday/the-corporate-friendly-court.html?_r=0) in decades. Hogan’s website doesn’t list its past clients, but you can get a pretty good idea by visiting the site’s “financial institutions” section: (http://www.hoganlovells.com/financial-institutions/)

We represent banks, brokers, insurers, asset managers, investment funds, regulators, and other market participants, large and small, on the full range of legal services. This includes corporate, competition, employment, finance, IT, intellectual property, litigation, pensions, real estate and tax.

As soon as Lynch joined Hogan in 2002, she interrupted her own vacation, came to the office without pay and immediately got to work defending an Arthur Andersen partner who had helped cook the books for Enron (http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202675892921/If-Chosen-Lynch-Faces-Dual-BattlesOn-Merits-Confirmation-Process?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=1). From 2003 to 2005, Lynch sat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, working directly under future U.S. Treasury secretary Tim Geithner (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/11/next-attorney-general-may-be-former.html). The New York Fed has been widely documented (http://www.propublica.org/article/carmen-segarras-secret-recordings-from-inside-new-york-fed) for its incestuous relationships with the big Wall Street banks it’s supposed to regulate. The revolving door spun once again in 2010, when President Obama appointed Lynch to her old job as U.S. Attorney of New York’s Eastern District.

Drawing on her past experience of standing up for white collar crooks,

Lynch has spent the last four years treating big banks with kid gloves. Under Lynch’s oversight (http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch-quietly-earns-respect-admirers-say-1.9599152), the U.S. government allowed HSBC to pay a fine that amounted to five weeks of profit for the bank after they admitted to laundering $800 million for Mexican drug cartels (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/how-bankers-help-drug-traffickers-and-terrorists.html).

Lynch was also responsible for Citibank paying a $7 billion settlement-- $3.8 billion of which was later billed to U.S. taxpayers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/14/justice-citi-7-billion-dollar-settlement/12616741/) – rather than going to jail over misleading millions of investors about mortgage-backed securities that were doomed to fail.

There’s really no question about whether or not Lynch will survive her senate confirmation hearing. Senator Dick Durbin once referred to his chamber as overly subservient to the big banks, saying, “They own the place.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html)

Bankers everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that the president’s pick for the nation’s top lawyer won’t try to put any of them in jail. The senators they sponsored in the last election cycle will likely confirm her with haste.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/26860-focus-the-republican-senate-will-love-loretta-lynch

[boutons_deux]

HSBC bank 'helped clients dodge millions in tax'

Britain's biggest bank helped wealthy clients cheat the UK out of millions of pounds in tax, the BBC has learned.

Panorama has seen thousands of accounts from HSBC's private bank in Switzerland leaked by a whistleblower in 2007.

They show bankers helped clients evade tax and offered deals to help tax dodgers stay ahead of the law.

HSBC admitted that some individuals took advantage of bank secrecy to hold undeclared accounts. But it said it has now "fundamentally changed".

The documents, stolen in 2007 by a computer expert working for HSBC in Geneva, contain details of more than 100,000 clients from around the world.

Offshore accounts are not illegal, but many people use them to hide cash from the tax authorities. And while tax avoidance is perfectly legal, deliberately hiding money to evade tax is not.

The French authorities assessed the stolen data and concluded in 2013 that 99.8% of their citizens on the list were probably evading tax.

HSBC did not just turn a blind eye to tax evaders - in some cases it broke the law by actively helping its clients.

The bank gave one wealthy family a foreign credit card so they could withdraw their undeclared cash at cashpoints overseas.

HSBC also helped its tax-dodging clients stay ahead of the law.

a former tax inspector and author of The Great Tax Robbery, said: "I think they were a tax avoidance and tax evasion service. I think that's what they were offering. They knew full well that people come to them to dodge their tax liabilities."

The bank now faces criminal investigations in the US, France, Belgium and Argentina. HSBC said it is "co-operating with relevant authorities".

But in the UK, where the bank is based, no such action has been taken. :lol (the UK finance sector own UK govt exactly like US financial sector owns US govt)

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31248913

[Blizzardwizard]

HSBC bank 'helped clients dodge millions in tax'

Britain's biggest bank helped wealthy clients cheat the UK out of millions of pounds in tax, the BBC has learned.

Panorama has seen thousands of accounts from HSBC's private bank in Switzerland leaked by a whistleblower in 2007.

They show bankers helped clients evade tax and offered deals to help tax dodgers stay ahead of the law.

HSBC admitted that some individuals took advantage of bank secrecy to hold undeclared accounts. But it said it has now "fundamentally changed".

The documents, stolen in 2007 by a computer expert working for HSBC in Geneva, contain details of more than 100,000 clients from around the world.

Offshore accounts are not illegal, but many people use them to hide cash from the tax authorities. And while tax avoidance is perfectly legal, deliberately hiding money to evade tax is not.

The French authorities assessed the stolen data and concluded in 2013 that 99.8% of their citizens on the list were probably evading tax.

HSBC did not just turn a blind eye to tax evaders - in some cases it broke the law by actively helping its clients.

The bank gave one wealthy family a foreign credit card so they could withdraw their undeclared cash at cashpoints overseas.

HSBC also helped its tax-dodging clients stay ahead of the law.

a former tax inspector and author of The Great Tax Robbery, said: "I think they were a tax avoidance and tax evasion service. I think that's what they were offering. They knew full well that people come to them to dodge their tax liabilities."

The bank now faces criminal investigations in the US, France, Belgium and Argentina. HSBC said it is "co-operating with relevant authorities".

But in the UK, where the bank is based, no such action has been taken. :lol (the UK finance sector own UK govt exactly like US financial sector owns US govt)

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31248913




Of course not, why would a conservative government ever attempt to bust wealthy corporate tax-evaders? They're their greatest assets.

[boutons_deux]

HSBC publishes apology in Sunday newspapersHSBC has published a full-page advert containing an apology in several newspapers, over claims that its Swiss private bank helped clients evade tax.
The advert reproduces an open letter signed by chief executive Stuart Gulliver, which says recent coverage had been "a painful experience".
Whistleblower Herve Falciani has said the UK government should have known about the scandal in 2010.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31476552

"We're "sorry", not one of us wealthy-from-corruption mofos is going to jail, so GFY"

[Winehole23]

As readers may have already guessed or checked, the “senior DOJ official” that refuted Breuer’s claim that there was no basis for prosecuting any HSBC officer or employee was Lanny Breuer, in his prepared written statement for the December 11, 2012 press conference he staged to celebrate the sweetheart deal with HSBC.http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/04/bill-black-lanny-breuers-defense-not-prosecuting-hsbc-officers.html

[Winehole23]

settlement for liar loans and foreclosure fraud:


Last week, the Justice Department announced (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-470-million-joint-state-federal-settlement-hsbc-address-mortgage) that it had reached a $470 million settlement with mega-bank HSBC related to mortgage lending and foreclosure fraud that led to the economic collapse of 2008.


“This settlement illustrates the department’s continuing commitment to ensure responsible mortgage servicing,” Benjamin Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in a statement. “The agreement is part of our ongoing effort to address root causes of the financial crisis.”


This isn’t the bank’s first run-in with the Feds. In 2013, HSBC reached a $250 million deal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323968304578250042965388604) with the Federal Reserve to settle complaints of wrongful foreclosures. That year, it also paid out $550 million (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/hsbc-to-pay-550-million-to-end-mortgage-related-suit/) to the Federal Housing Finance Agency over the bank’s sale of toxic mortgage-backed securities. It also agreed to pay the U.S. government $1.9 billion related to charges that the bank laundered money (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord) for Latin American drug cartels. The list goes on.

http://prospect.org/blog/tapped/justice-department-fails-criminally-prosecute-big-bank-again

[boutons_deux]

yet, HSBC doesn't lose its banking license, but non-violent state felons lose life-long right to vote, lose rights to all kinds of public assistance.

and how much of HSBC's, and other BigFinance criminals, BP's, fines are actually deducted as business expenses, meaning taxpayers subsidize their crimes.

[z0sa]

No one goes to jail, no one specifically gets blamed. What a great deal for establishment sell-your-soul politics!

[Winehole23]

government has combined with financial predators to turn us into serfs. we're just a revenue stream. money for political access more or less insures it.

[boutons_deux]

government has combined with financial predators to turn us into serfs. we're just a revenue stream. money for political access more or less insures it.

:lol maybe, just maybe, you're beginning to understand fucked and unfuckable America is.

[Winehole23]

don't give up hope -- political power occasionally trumps the influence of money.

[boutons_deux]

don't give up hope -- political power occasionally trumps the influence of money.

Not with the $100Bs the money people have now, not with the right-wing hate media and Bible humpers making up shit, lying about non-right-wingers, not with gerrymandering, voter suppression, Repug counting fraud, a packed right-wing judiciary, with DC and other political levels being totally corrupted by Big$$$, pay to play (both parites).

I support Bernie, but I know his progressive/Dem policies and any that might just come from Hillary would have no chance against the Congressional Repugs from the slave, red, Bible-humping states.

The excessive, disproportionate Senatorial power of underpopulated, red/rural states must be changed, but the Constitution won't be amended to make the Senate proportional.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

[Winehole23]

these things swing back and forth. the disestablishmentarian turn on both sides of the spectrum could have some interesting byways.

[boutons_deux]

these things swing back and forth. the disestablishmentarian turn on both sides of the spectrum could have some interesting byways.

I cannot imagine how "things" will "swing". Historically, extremely wealthy and powerful MEN ruling over emasculated, impoverished peoples has been the norm. America is now at that point. Democracy is a fraud. The politicians are totally corrupted by money from the wealthy and BigCorp.

Righwingnut politicians are hired by the 1%/BigCorp to go hell-bent on disempowering govt by severe, relentless budget cutting and privatizing the state to BigCorp that will deliver, as always, the shittiest possible "nominal" product, eg "education". for the highest possible price.

The 1%/BigCorp will not give away their incredible powers.

Any talk of taking away those powers will get the police/surveillance state, that knows more about you than you will ever know about it, crushing you.

[Winehole23]

Congress finally mounts the soapbox:



Senior DOJ leadership, including then-Attorney General Eric Holder, overruled an internal recommendation by DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section to prosecute HSBC because of DOJ leadership’s concern that prosecuting the bank would have serious adverse consequences on the financial system.


Notwithstanding Attorney General Holder’s personal demand that HSBC agree to DOJ’s “take-it-or-leave-it” deferred prosecution agreement deal by November 14, 2012, HSBC appears to have successfully negotiated with DOJ for significant alterations to the deferred prosecution agreement’s terms in the weeks following the Attorney General’s deadline.


DOJ and federal financial regulators were rushing at what one Treasury official described as “alarming speed” to complete their investigations and enforcement actions involving HSBC in order to beat the New York Department of Financial Services.


In its haste to complete its enforcement action against HSBC, DOJ transmitted settlement numbers to HSBC before consulting with Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control to ensure that the settlement amount accurately reflected the full degree of HSBC’s sanctions violations.


The involvement of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority in the U.S. government’s investigations and enforcement actions relating to HSBC, a British-domiciled institution, appears to have hampered the U.S. government’s investigations and influenced DOJ’s decision not to prosecute HSBC.


Attorney General Holder misled Congress concerning DOJ’s reasons for not bringing a criminal prosecution against HSBC.

http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/07072016_oi_tbtj_sr.pdf

[Th'Pusher]

Congress finally mounts the soapbox:

http://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/07072016_oi_tbtj_sr.pdf

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/12/eric-holders-longtime-excuse-for-not-prosecuting-banks-just-crashed-and-burned/

The Intercept weighs in on the report.

[boutons_deux]

A white Repug DoJ would have cancelled HSBC's US banking license, right?

[Winehole23]

wouldn't that have been appropriate?



The history: From 2006 to 2010, HSBC failed to monitor billions of dollars of U.S. dollar purchases with drug trafficking proceeds in Mexico. It also conducted business going back to the mid-1990s on behalf of customers in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Burma, while they were under sanctions. Such transactions were banned by U.S. law.

[boutons_deux]

wouldn't that have been appropriate?

of course, but Holder was so worried about hurting BigFinance (offending his past and future client banbks) .

"Return to private practice


In July 2015, Holder rejoined Covington & Burling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covington_%26_Burling), the law firm at which he worked before becoming Attorney General.

The law firm's clients have included many of the large banks Holder declined to prosecute for their alleged role in the financial crisis.

Matt Taibbi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi) of Rolling Stone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone) opined about the move, "I think this is probably the single biggest example of the revolving door (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)) that we've ever had."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder

short version: govt is totally corrupted. Exec, SCOTUS, Congress, and "captured" and/or intimidated regulatory agencies.

Anybody got any practical (doable) path to undo the corruption? :lol

[Pelicans78]

of course, but Holder was so worried about hurting BigFinance (offending his past and future client banbks) .

"Return to private practice


In July 2015, Holder rejoined Covington & Burling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covington_%26_Burling), the law firm at which he worked before becoming Attorney General.

The law firm's clients have included many of the large banks Holder declined to prosecute for their alleged role in the financial crisis.

Matt Taibbi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi) of Rolling Stone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone) opined about the move, "I think this is probably the single biggest example of the revolving door (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)) that we've ever had."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder

short version: govt is totally corrupted. Exec, SCOTUS, Congress, and "captured" and/or intimidated regulatory agencies.

Anybody got any practical (doable) path to undo the corruption? :lol





Thanks Obama!!!

[Winehole23]

LIBOR, foreclosure mills, money laundering for drug cartels, money laundering by HSBC execs, it's normal at this point that business models based on crime, fraud and rapine of the earth proceed without any meaningful consequences if the firm is large enough.

"Who cares if Miami is under water?" is a tidy illustration of how quarterly profits trump everything.

There haven't been any Enrons since Enron.

1529110756381310976