Wednesday, October 5, 2016

BARACK OBAMA AND THE GOLDEN AGE OF CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING - Obama, Clinton silent on Wells Fargo Crime of the Century

Obama, Clinton silent on Wells Fargo Crime of the Century


Obama, Clinton silent on Wells Fargo Crime of the Century

By Mark Wachtler
Sen. Elizabeth Warren rips into Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf during a Senate hearing yesterday. Image courtesy of

September 21, 2016. San Francisco, CA (ONN) By all accounts, Wells Fargo has been perpetrating the crime of the century. Some have called it the largest illegal scam in history. Over the past five years, at least two million crimes were committed by 5,300 employees of Wells Fargo bank. The Obama administration has retained its perfect record of protecting bankers from criminal prosecution, settling like always for a large cash payment to the same Executive Branch that refuses to prosecute.

Not a single conviction in 8 years

There’s a reason why most bank executives, while being longtime Republicans, are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton for President. We’d be speculating if we revealed their reasons. But this week’s bombshell that Wells Fargo bank perpetrated the largest crime in American history and the Obama administration has continued its longstanding policy of not bringing a single offender to justice, suggests there’s more to the cozy relationship between criminal banks and Democratic Party leaders like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

It took a Senate Committee hearing yesterday in which Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was crucified by Democrat and Republican Senators alike, for the American people to find out just how big and widespread the five-year crime spree at Wells Fargo was. The LA Times exposed the fraud three years ago with California prosecutors conceding the crime was too large and too widespread for its limited capabilities to prosecute, opting instead for a cash payment from the bank. But the Obama Justice Dept is accused of refusing to investigate the largest crime in history until only days ago.

The crime of the century

As revealed in the Senate Committee hearing yesterday, the details of the Wells Fargo fraud perpetrated on the American people are mind-blowing. As one US Senator put it, the number of victims of this latest fraud is more than double the whole population of his entire state.

5,300 Wells Fargo employees were identified and fired for opening over 2 million bank accounts for their customers without the customers’ knowledge. A separate US Senator said his office was flooded with calls from outraged small, local bank executives in his state who insisted that if they or their employees stole money from their customers’ accounts, forged customers’ signatures to open new accounts, and then stole even more money from the new accounts in the form of fees and fines - they’d all be in jail.

But the Obama Justice Department, as well as a host of Executive Branch regulatory agencies, has continued its policy of protecting individual perpetrators from criminal prosecution opting instead for cash payments from shareholders to the Obama administration. In this case, Wells Fargo was ordered to pay a $185 million fine to the government. That amount pales in comparison to the $5 billion in profits the bank pockets every quarter.

Crime does pay

In grilling the Wells Fargo CEO yesterday, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) accused him of personally pocketing millions of dollars from the scam. The bank executive who oversaw the criminal activity – Carrie Tolstedt – has announced she is leaving the bank, and she’s leaving with a cash payout of $124 million.

Outraged critics of the Obama administration’s handling of recurring crimes perpetrated by giant Wall Street banks point out that they also happen to be some of his and Hillary Clinton’s largest financial contributors. They repeatedly point out that not a single person has been brought to justice for any crime committed by any of the big banks since Barack Obama took office.

They point to the economic collapse of 2008-2009. They point to the robo-signing scam in which over 1 million American families and businesses had their homes and property stolen by Bank of America and Wells Fargo, only to have the Obama Justice Dept settle for a payment of a few thousand dollars to each victim instead of the return of their homes. They point to illegal money laundering for Iran by Standard Chartered and illegal money laundering for Mexican drug cartels by HSBC. JP Morgan Chase has been convicted multiple times both criminally and civilly. But in every case, not a single person ever went to jail.

Critics of the Democrat administration also point out that under Republican administrations, hundreds of criminal bankers were put in jail. They also point to the imprisonment of Worldcom’s executives, and Enron’s executives, and a host of others. Under Democrats, they argue, not a single banker has gone to prison. In fact, in 2008 after the economic collapse banks were deemed “too big to fail, too big to jail”. But under President Obama, they’ve gotten even bigger, and obviously still too big to jail.

Clinton and Obama silent

One Senator summed up the unified outrage by all Americans yesterday when he said Wells Fargo had managed to do something that has never happened in his entire political career – uniting Senators from both parties in their outrage at the fraud committed, and the Obama administration’s refusal to prosecute it.

And while big named Democrats from this year’s Presidential campaign like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have publicly condemned the fraud, other Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have remained ominously silent.

“You squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren told the Wells Fargo CEO yesterday, “You should resign. You should give back the money you took while the scam was going on.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders was also outspoken in his condemnation. “Let’s be clear, the business model of Wall Street is fraud,” he said yesterday, “There is no better example than the recently-exposed illegal behavior at Wells Fargo.”

For her part, Hillary Clinton also made a public statement in the form of an open letter to Wells Fargo customers. But instead of condemning the activity as unpunished crime like all of her counterparts have, Clinton excused the fraud as accidental mismanagement due to the enormous size of the nation’s largest bank. “We need to make sure that no financial institution is too big to manage,” Clinton told Wells Fargo customers, “And if any bank can’t be managed effectively, it should be broken up.”

Senate hearings on the Wells Fargo fraud will continue, with Senators turning their attention to federal regulators who turned a blind eye, bank auditors and risk managers who had to know about the scam, and the independent accounting firm that signed-off on the criminal activity.

The Bill Clinton 

administration was 

so pro-Wall Street 

that it was accused 

by many of being 

responsible for the 

global economic 

collapse of 2007-


January 2, 2014

Hillary Clinton aligns with Wall Street for 2016

By Mark Wachtler
January 2, 2014. Manhattan. (ONN) When Goldman Sachs invites you to a party, you go, especially if you have your sights set on a Presidential run in 2016. And that’s exactly what Hillary Clinton did two weeks ago. Speaking to the exclusive crowd of millionaires and billionaires, the former Secretary of State let them know in no uncertain terms that another Clinton White House would once again be on Wall Street’s side in America’s culture war.
Hillary Clinton is positioning to be Wall Street's preferred candidate in 2016. Image courtesy of Flickr.
Most people assume that the notorious 1%-ers, those elite billionaire barons of Wall Street, are all Republicans. But the truth is, in 2008 America’s super-rich abandoned the GOP and its candidate John McCain and overwhelmingly supported Democrat Barack Obama. Campaign donations from the five largest Wall Street banks exponentially favored the Democrat. That changed in 2012 when they switched back to the Republican Party and one of their own – Mitt Romney. But both times they were burned. Now, they long for the good old days of the Clinton and Bush administrations where they were given free reign to do almost anything they wanted.

Goldman’s get-together
Two weeks ago at the luxurious Conrad Hotel in lower Manhattan, some of the world’s richest and most powerful people got together for what seemed at times like a political rally. Prospective 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even reportedly took home no less than $200,000 as her minimum speaking fee. By her side giving his own six-figure keynote speech to the gathered Wall Street elite was her husband and former President Bill Clinton.
After being introduced by Goldman Sachs executive Tim O’Neill, Hillary Clinton went on to reassure the crowd of bankers and wealthy investors that a Clinton administration wouldn’t hold Wall Street responsible for the nation’s economic ills the way the current Obama administration has. Illustrating the two hypocritical faces of the Obama White House, the bankers love his policy of giving them trillions in free money. But they don’t like being called “fat cats” by the President at the same time.
According to a report from Politico which interviewed guests at the high profile event, Hillary Clinton insisted that all Americans were to blame for the country’s ever-growing economic failings over the past three decades, not just Wall Street as many from both of America’s two establishment parties contend. Bank-bashing, she told them, was counter-productive and needed to stop.
Impressions from the event
After speaking to a number of attendees, the report goes on to quote or paraphrase their reactions to Clinton’s speech. One pleasantly surprised Wall Street insider told the publication, “It was like, here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
Hillary Clinton is no stranger to Wall Street’s richest and most powerful insiders. As first lady, a US Senator, Presidential candidate, and then Secretary of State, she has literally spent decades courting them for political contributions and watching many of them grow up from their first years out of college to their positions at the helms of the wealthiest corporations on Earth. And she’s been a vocal and loyal supporter of Wall Street the entire time.
The Bill Clinton administration was so pro-Wall Street that it was accused by many of being responsible for the global economic collapse of 2007-2008. Clinton removed the barrier between investment banks and commercial banks, allowing all of them to take citizen deposits and then gamble them in the casino-like financial markets. He also incentivized them to increase home loans, even to those who didn’t qualify, in an attempt to put as many Americans as possible into their own home.
With rank and file Tea Party Republicans shunning Wall Street and the bottom half of the Democratic Party rallying around corruption-busters like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), one attendee at the Goldman Sachs event who is also a major Republican donor told Politico, “The ground is shifting beneath their feet.” He was speaking of the political clout Wall Street has lost to movements like Occupy and individual power-players such as billionaire Sheldon Adelson who single-handedly used his own vast fortune to affect the Republican nominating process.
Ironically, as the American people feel increasingly betrayed by both Democrats and Republicans in favor of Wall Street, leaders on Wall Street feel betrayed by the same two parties who feel Washington has sided with the American people at their expense. As one attendee put it, “Like the rest of America, Wall Street is looking at Washington and saying whether we agree or disagree, they’re looking at both parties with complete revulsion.”

Obama double-cross
One repeating theme at the Goldman Sachs Manhattan event with the Clintons was the impression by Wall Street power-brokers that they were betrayed by President Obama. They describe how they went out on a limb to get him elected President, both publicly and financially, and he betrayed them. Most describe how the animosity dates all the way back to the opening days of the first Obama administration in 2009.
At the time, credit had disappeared, Lehman Brothers was forced out of business by the government, unemployment skyrocketed, and panic had spread across most of America and the world. Wall Street’s first demand from the new President was that his Democratic administration continue the Bush/Republican policy of bailing out irresponsible and criminal banks with trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. Obama was happy to oblige.
At the same time it was bailing out Wall Street, the Obama administration was making other small changes that rubbed the global banking community the wrong way. The first slight to them was the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Emanuel had made millions working on Wall Street over the previous three years through his political connections, but knew next to nothing about how banking worked. His well-reported promise to ‘not let a crisis go to waste’ was seen as the first shot against the banks.
“I knew right at that moment, standing in Rahm’s office, that they did not really have any interest in understanding Wall Street or working with us in any significant way,” one CEO told the publication. Federal Reserve and Treasury veteran Timothy Geithner seemed to be the only pro-Wall Street person in the Obama administration. Their impression was confirmed when the President named his White House liaison to Wall Street. Unlike Bill Clinton who picked former Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin, Clinton chose longtime neighborhood friend Valerie Jarrett.
Wall Street executives interviewed by Politico for their report describe how Jarrett knew next to nothing about finance and only cared about dictating Obama’s agenda. One pro-Obama banking executive active in Democratic Party circles was blunt when describing Valerie Jarrett and her work at the White House. “Valerie immediately designated herself as business liaison in the White House, and there is no one I know who respects her as a businessperson or thinks she knows anything about business.” And that’s from one of their own Wall Street supporters.
While the leaders of both the Republicans and Democrats are in Wall Street’s pockets, and as President Obama continues to play both sides against each other, America’s Main St. citizens continue to mobilize against the country’s financial oligarchy. Whether it’s the Tea Party on the right or Senator Elizabeth Warren and her army of corruption-busters on the left, Wall Street is feeling the heat. And depending on who the GOP nominates for President in 2016, Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like Wall Street’s candidate.
For more information, read the full Politico report.


"In her secret speeches, Clinton also reiterated her 

support for the Obama administration’s policy that the 

banks would continue to be allowed to “regulate” 

themselves. In a secret speech to the Goldman Sachs 

Alternative Investments Symposium on October 24, 

2013, Clinton declared: “The people that know the 

industry better than anybody are the people who work 

in the industry.” Translation: “The 

Obama administration and I will do nothing to halt 

your illegal practices or impede the flow of the world’s 

money into your pockets.”

Secret Clinton speeches and emails reveal systematic corruption

By Tom Carter 
10 October 2016
In a secret speech at securities law firm 
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego
on September 4, 2014, Democratic Party 
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton 
bragged that she “represented and worked 
with” so many on Wall Street and “did all I 
could to make sure they continued to 
In another secret speech, Clinton admitted that the policy she advocated with respect to Syria would involve mass killings of civilians. “To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defenses, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians,” she stated.
Secret documents and emails containing these and other revelations were published by Wikileaks and The Intercept in recent days. The latter remarks were revealed as the United States threatens to escalate its military intervention in Syria under the pretext of protecting civilian lives.
In one remarkably Machiavellian speech, 
Clinton frankly admitted that she has “both a 
public and private position” on certain policy 
issues, and that she only reveals the “private 
position” when she is engaging in “back room 
discussions.” In other words, she consciously 
lies to and deceives the public, pursuing an 
entirely different agenda in secret 
negotiations within the American 
“If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” Clinton said.
Perhaps one example of this distinction is provided by Clinton’s public and private positions with respect to Syria. While the US State Department uses the pretext of civilian casualties in Syria to ratchet up tensions with Russia, Clinton’s “private position” acknowledges that her own plan will “kill a lot of Syrians.”
Other emails confirm the corrupt ties between the Clinton 
campaign and the media, which involve undisclosed 
payments to pundits appearing on cable news programs. An 
internal list of contemptuously-labeled media “surrogates” 
contains those media personalities that could be relied upon 
to produce favorable coverage of the campaign.
The list of the “surrogates” deemed “reliable” by the Clinton campaign includes 
Maureen Dowd, Wolf Blitzer, David Brooks, Gail Collins, Rachel Maddow, Charlie 
Rose, George Stephanopolous and others. A similarly incriminating list of “progressive
helpers” includes Judd Legum of ThinkProgress and the “Correct The Record” Super 
PAC run by David Brock.
Other documents published by The Intercept reveal secret “off-the-record” cocktail parties held by the Clinton campaign that were attended by journalists from ABC, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, the Daily Beast, GPG, Huffington Post, MSNBC, NBC, T he New Yorker, the New York TimesPeople, Politico, Vice and Vox.
Invitees of these cocktail parties, where the reporters were briefed on how to present the Clinton campaign to the population in the most favorable light, apparently included Diane Sawyer (ABC), George Stephanopolous (ABC), Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) and Gail Collins ( New York Times ), among many others. The publication of these documents by The Intercept should forever reduce the credibility of these “news organizations” and “journalists” to zero.
The Clinton campaign responded to these revelations with its standard answer to all exposures of corruption and criminality on the part of the Democratic Party or Clinton personally—blame it on Russia. Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin declared that the revelations “removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump’s candidacy.”
The response of former Democratic Party presidential 
contender and so-called “socialist” Bernie Sanders to these 
revelations stands out as particularly craven and absurd. 
Sanders—who once rallied support based on his 
denunciations of the “billionaire class,” but who now 
functions as a Clinton campaign sideshow—reaffirmed his 
support for Clinton in a statement released Saturday: 
“Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said 
behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to 
implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform, 
which was agreed to by her campaign.”
During the Democratic Party primary elections, Sanders made an issue of the millions 
of dollars in “speaking fees” Hillary and Bill Clinton had accumulated, which currently 
totals around $153 million. Exposing the fraudulent nature of his entire presidential 
bid, Sanders now admits that he will support Clinton no matter what she said or did.
Of course, only the very naive could believe for a moment that the enormous “speaking fees” accumulated by Clinton and her husband were paid for the speeches themselves. Instead, the designation of these sums as “speaking fees” more probably represents what is known in the criminal underworld as money-laundering. In other words, the corrupt flow of cash to the Clintons for services dutifully rendered to the financial aristocracy was disguised as “speaking fees” for taxation and accounting purposes.
In one secret Wall Street speech, Clinton 
candidly admitted that she is “far 

removed” from the middle-class interests 

that she has 
sought to rally behind her campaign, 
reassuring her rich patrons that her lifestyle 
and social outlook more closely mirror theirs.
Clinton stated that she is “kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten it.”
In a secret speech at Goldman Sachs on October 24, 2013, Clinton brushed off the conception that rampant corruption, speculation and criminality at Wall Street had led to the economic crash of 2008. Defending Wall Street, Clinton claimed that all this was a “misunderstanding.”
Speaking as though she was an attorney retained to confidentially advise all billionaires regarding their interests, Clinton pointed with concern to the perception “that somehow the game is rigged” as well as the way that hatred of Wall Street was becoming “politicized.”
In the same secret speech to Deutsche Bank on October 7, 2014, Clinton pointed to popular hostility to Wall Street as “a problem for all of us”—using the word “us” to refer to financial aristocrats and their political servants. She reassured the bankers in attendance that any measures or regulations implemented by Congress or the Obama administration would be designed to restore “public trust” in the financial system. In other words, they would be toothless and they would leave the privileges and prerogatives of the financial elite intact.
In her secret speeches, Clinton also reiterated her support for the Obama administration’s policy that the banks would continue to be allowed to “regulate” themselves. In a secret speech to the Goldman Sachs Alternative Investments Symposium on October 24, 2013, Clinton declared: “The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” Translation: “The Obama administration and I will do nothing to halt your illegal practices or impede the flow of the world’s money into your pockets.”
Behind closed doors, Clinton also spoke frankly of her need for vast sums of money to fund her campaign. “I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount,” she said, describing her previous presidential bid, “and in the last campaign President Obama raised $1.1 billion.” In that speech, made to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida on January 6, 2014, Clinton admitted that the US Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision ushered in a “wild west” period of unlimited corporate bribes in elections.
Documents released by The Intercept on Saturday detail the corrupt relations between sections of the media and the Hillary Clinton campaign, with reporters jostling each other to present themselves as the most loyal and reliable outlets for a calculated “leak” of exclusive information. “One January 2015 strategy document,” reported The Intercept, “singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a ‘friendly journalist’ who has ‘teed up’ stories for them in the past and ‘never disappointed’ them.”
The emails released over recent days appear to bolster allegations in a lawsuit filed Thursday by the campaign finance watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, which claims that the Clinton campaign flouted federal election law by coordinating activity with a “super PAC” run by David Brock, which contributed $6 million to the Clinton campaign. The allegations are serious and have the potential to trigger criminal prosecutions.

In an internal Clinton campaign email released by Wikileaks, Research Director Tony Carrk urged staff to “give an extra scrub” to the transcripts of Wall Street speeches before any portions could be publicly released.

No comments: