Thursday, February 24, 2022

VIDEO - GAMER LAWYERS - THE CASE AGAINST LAWYER JOE BIDEN AND LAWYER HUNTER BIDEN

 

THE BIDEN'S AND BANKSTERS

A FAMILY OF BRIBES SUCKING PARASITE LAWYERS

The Tragic Tale of Hunter Biden




Hunter Biden Laptop Interview Body Language (2021)



Kamala Saves The Day





Watch: Biden in 2001 Praises Putin for Embracing the West, Compares Him to Peter the Great

Vice President of the United States Joe Biden, left, shakes hands with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, March 10, 2011. The talks in Moscow are expected to focus on missile defense cooperation and Russia's efforts to join the World Trade Organization. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)
AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko
3:21

A video unearthed from 2001 by the Republican National Committee’s research team revealed then-Senator Biden praising Russian President Vladimir Putin for embracing the West, heralding his actions as comparable to Peter the Great.

“I’m close to amazed by how far Putin seems to have come in making – throwing – his lot in with the West,” Biden said as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “He seems to have – out of all the briefings I’ve gotten – actually stiff-armed his military and stiff-armed some of the browns and reds in his government and out of government.”

“And made a very – I don’t think anybody since Peter the Great has made such a significant – at least an initial move to the West,” Biden claimed:

Peter the Great was the first Emperor of Russia. Through multiple wars, he expanded the nation into a major European power. He also moved to transpose medieval political systems with the western enlightenment.

Biden’s comparison of Putin with Peter the Great is unfounded. Putin is seeking to restore the lost twentieth-century boundary of the old Soviet Union and denied the “real statehood” of Ukraine in a televised address to the nation on Monday. Putin further stated Ukraine was part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.”

Biden has a history of questionable foreign policy judgment and analysis. Robert Gates, George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s secretary of defense, wrote in 2014 that Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

Biden’s foreign policy judgment before he became president are as follows:

  • Suggested sending $200 million to Iran, “no strings attached.”
  • Voted against the successful Persian Gulf War that forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
  • Insisted “the Taliban per se is not our enemy.”
  • Opposed the troop surges that brought some stability to both Iraq and Afghanistan
  • Claimed he was responsible for ending the genocide in Bosnia
  • Voted against trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Oman, and the Dominican Republic
  • Opposed the raid to kill Osama bin Laden, telling Obama “don’t go.”
  • Opposed killing Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani

On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump asserted that Russia’s “taking over” of Ukraine is due to Biden’s weakness. “I know Vladimir Putin very well, and he would have never done during the Trump Administration what he is doing now, no way!”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told CBS News Biden’s decisions as president could increase the price for a barrel of oil past $100 and perhaps to $115.

“I don’t believe the sanctions will stop them from doing what their plan is but I do think that if you don’t pay a price for doing this, he’s going to do more of it,” Rubio said. “I think Ukrainians are gonna fight back but this is gonna have an impact on Americans even though it seems to be really far away.”

Gas prices are already at their highest level since 2014.

Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter and Gettr @WendellHusebø

Sanctions Against Russia Include Designation of ‘Elites’ – But Not Putin

By Patrick Goodenough | February 22, 2022 | 11:25pm EST

  
President Biden prepares for his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva last June. (Photo by Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)
President Biden prepares for his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva last June. (Photo by Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) – Russian President Vladimir Putin is not himself targeted in the sanctions rolled out by the Biden administration on Tuesday, although a White House official said that “no option is off the table, as the president said.”

Among the package of measures responding to Putin’s recognition of two proxy states in eastern Ukraine are sanctions against five individuals, described by deputy national security advisor for international economics Daleep Singh as elites who “share in the corrupt gains of the Kremlin, and they will now share in the pain.”

“Other Russian elites and their family members are now on notice that additional actions could be taken on them as well,” he said during a White House briefing. 

Asked what it would take to target Putin directly, and why the decision was not taken on Tuesday, Singh replied, “I'm not going to telegraph exactly what it would take and under what circumstances that would occur. But no option is off the table, as the president said.”

President Biden described the sanctions announced Tuesday as a “first tranche,” and said that the U.S. and allies “will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates.”

He described Putin’s recognition of the “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk as “the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.”

Asked last month if he could envisage Putin personally being sanctioned, should Russia invade Ukraine, Biden replied “yes,” then added, “I would see that.”

Biden went on to say there would be “enormous consequences” for Russia if Putin sent his forces in to invade the entire country of Ukraine – “or a lot less than that as well” – although he did say he was referring not only to economic and political costs for Russia, but also to consequences worldwide.

 

In Paris on Tuesday, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell also confirmed that Putin was not among 27 Russian individuals and entities targeted in new E.U. sanctions for “playing a role in undermining or threatening Ukrainian territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence.”

Sanctions announced by the U.K. government included three oligarchs – “three very high net worth individuals,” in Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s words – but not Putin.

While U.S. sanctions against sitting heads of state are not common, there have been precedents.

The U.S. in 2016 sanctioned North Korea’s Kim Jong Un for human rights abuses, and U.S. administrations have sanctioned Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko since 2006, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since 2011, and former Burmese strongman Than Shwe since 2007.

Other former heads of state sanctioned in past years include Charles Taylor in Liberia, and the late Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

‘Kleptocracy’

The U.S. Treasury Department described the five individuals targeted by the U.S. as “powerful Russians in Putin’s inner circle believed to be participating in the Russian regime’s kleptocracy and their family members.”

The sanctions block any property and property interests the five men have in the U.S., block any entities in which they own at least 50 percent stake, and make liable for sanctions any person or financial institution that does business with them.

Two of the five are already under U.S. sanctions – imposed last March in response to the attempted assassination by nerve agent of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny in 2020.

They are Sergei Kiriyenko, a former prime minister and head of the state nuclear energy giant Rosatom, who is currently first deputy chief of staff at the Kremlin; and Aleksandr Bortnikov, director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), successor to the Soviet KGB.

Kiriyenko and Bortnikov, along with a third of the five men listed – Bortnikov’s son, Denis Bortnikov, deputy president and chairman of the management board of one of Russia’s biggest banks, VTB Bank – are among 35 Russians listed in the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act.

The legislation, which Biden signed into law last December, requires the president within 180 days (that is, by June 25) to submit to Congress a determination on whether the 35 individuals named should be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, a 2016 law that provides for punitive measures against human rights abusers and corrupt actors.

The other two Russian “elites” targeted in the sanctions announced on Tuesday are:

--Kiriyenko’s son, Vladimir Kiriyenko, a former vice president of the state-controlled digital service provider Rostelecom, and now CEO of Russia’s biggest social media network company, VK.

--Petr Fradkov, CEO of Promsvyazbank, a state-backed bank that supports Russia’s defense sector. (He is also the son of a former prime minister and foreign intelligence service (SVR) chief Mikhail Fradkov, who was sanctioned by the Trump administration in 2018 “in response to worldwide malign activity.)

‘A glorified piggy bank for the Kremlin’

The sanctions against the five are part of a broader package, the most significant including the blocking of two major banks and their subsidiaries. The two are Promsvyazbank and Vnesheconombank (VEB), Russia’s fifth-largest financial institution, which Singh called “a glorified piggy bank for the Kremlin that holds more than $50 billion in assets.”

The two banks will no longer be able to carry out any transactions with the U.S. or Europe, and their assets in the U.S. and European financial systems are frozen.

Other highlights were an agreement by Germany to shut down the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, and the cutting off of the Russian government from Western financing, meaning the Kremlin will no longer be able to raise money from the U.S. and Europe, or trade new debt in U.S. or European markets.

“This was the beginning of an invasion, and this is the beginning of our response,” Singh said.


Poll: Biden’s Approval Rating Underwater on Russia/Ukraine Conflict 

ukraine
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
2:23

President Joe Biden’s approval rating on the Russia/Ukraine conflict is underwater, a Wednesday Politico/MorningConsult poll revealed.

Just 40 percent of voters approved of Biden’s management of the conflict, while 45 disapproved, including 35 percent who said they strongly disapproved.

Overall, the poll handed Biden a negative approval rating (44 – 53 percent).

A majority (58 – 28 percent) of respondents also indicated they would find Biden responsible if the Russian/Ukrainian conflict increases American gas prices.

Biden told the nation on Tuesday Americans will bear a financial cost for the conflict. “Defending freedom will have costs, for us as well, and here at home,” he said upon announcing sanctions on Russia. “We need to be honest about that.”

Moscow’s ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov seemed to agree with Biden, suggesting that the sanctions will hurt American consumers more than Russians.

“There is no doubt that the sanctions imposed against us will hurt the global financial and energy markets,” Antonov said. “The United States will not be left out, where ordinary citizens will feel the full consequences of rising prices.”

“With regard to Moscow, new US sanctions will not solve anything, Russia has learned to work and develop under restrictions,” he added.

With gas prices expected to increase, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told CBS News on Tuesday the price for a barrel could surpass $100 and perhaps reach $115. Gas prices are already at their highest level since 2014.

“I don’t believe the sanctions will stop them from doing what their plan is but I do think that if you don’t pay a price for doing this, he’s going to do more of it,” Rubio said. “I think Ukrainians are gonna fight back but this is gonna have an impact on Americans even though it seems to be really far away.”

The national average price of gas per gallon is $3.535, up nearly a dollar from last year’s price of $2.645.

Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter and Gettr @WendellHusebø

W.H. Deputy NSA on Ukraine’s Call for More Sanctions: ‘There’s Almost a Bloodlust’ for Sanctions, But I’m Not Saying Ukraine Has It

1:56

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “New Day,” Deputy National Security Adviser Daleep Singh responded to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba’s call for harsher sanctions against Russia by stating that he wonders “if there’s almost a bloodlust out there for sanctions as an end in themselves.” But denied he was saying Kuleba has this bloodlust and said the sanctions announced on Tuesday were “a demonstration effect, and that demonstration effect will go higher and higher.”

Co-host John Berman read from Kuleba’s tweet and then asked, “How do you explain to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister why you are not hitting harder now?”

Singh responded, “Well, John, sometimes I wonder if there’s almost a bloodlust out there for sanctions as an end in themselves. But let me just be really clear, we did hit hard yesterday, and it was only a demonstration effect. … But the point the Ukrainians are making is right. These costs are going to escalate from here.”

Berman then asked who Singh thinks has a bloodlust for sanctions. Singh answered, “I hear it from many in the media, why didn’t you impose all of your sanctions on day one? And so, what I’m saying to you is, we saw the beginning of an invasion yesterday –.”

Berman then cut in to point out he was quoting Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, and ask, “So, does the Ukrainian Foreign Minister have a bloodlust for sanctions?”

Singh answered, “No. No. I’m not saying that. I’m saying I hear from questions out there and commentary, people wondering why didn’t we implement the full package of sanctions yesterday. And what I’m saying to you is, yesterday was a demonstration effect, and that demonstration effect will go higher and higher.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Joe Biden Sanctions Russia’s Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Nine Months After Lifting Donald Trump’s Sanctions

President Joe Biden speaks in the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex, Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Pipes at the landfall facilities of the 'Nord Stream 2' gas pipline are pictured in Lubmin, northern Germany, Tuesday, Feb. 15, …
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)(AP Photo/Michael Sohn)
1:48

President Joe Biden announced Wednesday he would level sanctions on Russia’s proposed Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, after lifting sanctions on the project put in place by former President Donald Trump.

“Today, I have directed my administration to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG and its corporate officers,” Biden said in a statement detailing his decision.

In May 2021, Biden lifted sanctions for the pipeline, arguing it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to block the project.

“It’s almost completely finished … it’s not like I can allow Germany to do something or not,” Biden said at the time, explaining why he was willing to lift sanctions.

Biden argued at the time that lifting the Trump-era sanctions was important to rebuilding America’s relationship with Europe, calling them “counterproductive.”

On Monday, Germany announced they would halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project after Putin sent troops into Ukraine for the sake of “peacekeeping” in two provinces of the country which had declared independence.

The pipeline project, once supported by the Germans, was considered a politically disastrous move for national security regions, allowing Russia to bypass Ukraine to provide natural gas to Europe.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly criticized President Joe Biden and European leaders for allowing the project to continue.

“We were very unpleasantly surprised,” Zelensky said in June when asked about Biden’s decision.

He described the pipeline as “a weapon in the hands of the Russian Federation” and said he was confused by Biden’s actions that helped Russia.

Doddering Biden volunteers America for higher energy prices to defend Ukraine's borders

After failing to plan for the obvious contingencies, a doddering Joe Biden turned up late to his own press conference and announced that he's volunteering America for higher energy prices as a result of his feeble bid to defend Ukraine's borders.

America first?  Not by anyone normal's measurement:

Defending freedom will have cost for us as well, and here at home," Biden said. "We need to be honest about that.

Freedom?  He's suddenly all in for freedom?  He sounded like George W. Bush, that same George whose dad annoyingly warned Ukraine about its "suicidal nationalism" back in 1989 in what came to be called his "Chicken Kiev" speech.  Neither Bush knew what was going on over there, nor does Biden.

Nothing in that line or in much of the Ukraine policy that preceded it has ever been particularly choate.  Ukraine is no democracy, having changed its government not too long ago in 2014 by Soros- and Obama administration–inspired machinations, and ten years earlier as well.  Its politics are "poisonous."  It ranks a lowly 86 of 167 countries evaluated for democracy on the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2021 Democracy Index, tied with Mexico, and an even worse 122 out of 186 countries evaluated on Transparency International's 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index.  The corruption, which Joe Biden helped perpetrate, is the exact reason Ukraine can't get into NATO, which would have saved it from a Russian invasion.  Meanwhile, the place is severely polarized, with the eastern regions identifying with next-door Russia, the western regions identifying with neighbors like Poland and Lithuania, and apparently no happy middle.

So now that Russia has invaded, Biden's volunteering us for higher energy prices in the name of defending that unstable, unsustainable mess, which just happens to be a profit center for his son Hunter and some of his no-show jobs, which, as he said, he would not have gotten "if my name wasn't Biden."  Joe, according to those messages from Hunter's abandoned computer, is "the big guy" who skims his "ten percent."

But fear not.  The shuffling president, slurring his speech (see for yourself here — and here), says he's got a plan for the problems that have come of all this.

"I'm going to take robust action to make sure the pain of our sanctions is targeted at [the] Russian economy, not ours." 

He said the administration is "closely monitoring" energy supplies for any disruption.

"This will blunt gas prices. I want to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump," Biden said.  

His sanctions are largely redundant, mostly the same sanctions imposed earlier by President Trump, so the sanctions don't mean much — Russian markets rose at the news of such weak measures.

His claim to be monitoring energy supplies, as his way to "blunt" the effect of higher gas prices is a joke, too.  How exactly does watching prices have anything to do with lowering prices?  It's about as believable as wearing masks to stop the spread of COVID-19 or "rigorous" vetting for imported Afghan "refugees."

If he were actually serious about this, he wouldn't have gotten into a confrontation with Putin in the first place — at the bare minimum.

But there's also the sorry fact that we now import about twice the oil from Putin under the Biden administration as we did under President Trump, making ourselves very, very dependent on Putin's goodwill. The Germans cut off their own Nordstream 2 project with Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine, and yes, their energy costs will skyrocket.  Is Joe planning to cut off Russian oil imports in the same way?  Or is he going to keep America buying to keep the dollars flowing to Putin, except that now Putin will decide if he wants to sell?  Haven't heard a thing from Biden about it.

Worse still, Biden has yet to restore America's energy independence.  He cut off the well-along-the-way Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, which would have supplied 830,000 barrels of Canadian tar sand crude to U.S. refineries had it been completed.  That's about a third more than the 595,000 barrels per day of oil the U.S. imports from Russia these days.  We would have been fat and happy and secure in our energy on that alone had Biden not pulled that one. 

He's also shut down new leases for drilling on federal lands, making the U.S. even more dependent on overseas fuel from petro-tyrants.  When Biden asked OPEC to pump more, the sheikhs thumbed their noses at him, and from their point of view, with good reason — Joe was also busy lifting sanctions from Iran to restore Ben Rhodes's and Colin Kahl's pet project — which was not received kindly by the big OPEC producers in the Middle East, who are literally threatened by the mullahs.

Way to go on the planning there, Joe.

But all this is laughable all by itself.  Joe Biden and his administration minions have openly called for higher gas prices as a means of getting America to shift to "alternative" green energy.  This unsustainable energy becomes competitive only when fossil fuel prices rise.  That, above all, is likely why Joe will just watch prices rise at the pump instead of doing something to lower those prices.

His big master plan, in other words, is to blame Putin for his own energy failures, which he can correct on a dime if he were serious about solving them.  That should make Putin happy as he cries all the way to the bank over the toothless Biden sanctions.  There's a reason Putin has been caught bankrolling greenie groups touting useless alternative energy schemes over fossil fuels.  Biden might as well applaud him because that's whose agenda he's supporting with this sorry show.

Image: Screen shot from C-SPAN video, via shareable YouTube.

U.S. Trade Deficit With Russia Up 93.9% in 2021

By Terence P. Jeffrey | February 22, 2022 | 11:24am EST

  

Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021. (Photo by Peter Klaunser-Pool/Keystone vis Getty Images)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden in Geneva, Switzerland, June 16, 2021. (Photo by Peter Klaunzer-Pool/Keystone via Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) - The United States merchandise trade deficit with Russia increased by 93.9 in 2021, according to data published this month by the Census Bureau.

In 2020, when President Donald Trump was in office, the United States imported $16,901,100,000 in goods from Russia and exported $4,886,900,000 to Russia, resulting in a bilateral trade deficit of $12,014,2000,000.

In 2021, when Joe Biden took office, the United States imported $29,695,100,000 in goods from Russia and exported $6,388,300,000 to Russia, resulting in a trade deficit of $23,306,800,000.

That was a one-year increase of $11,292,600,000—or 93.9%.

The Census Bureau has reported the U.S.-Russia merchandise trade balance going back to 1992, which was the first year after the demise of the Soviet Union. In 1992 and 1993, the United States ran relatively small trade surpluses with Russia ($1,631,100,000 and $1,226,900,000).

Then, in 1994, the United States ran a merchandise trade deficit of $66,900,000 with Russia. In every year since then, the United States has continued to run a trade deficit with Russia. 2021 was the 28th straight year that the United States has run a trade deficit with Russia.

The largest U.S. trade deficit with Russia came in 2011, when it hit $26,300,600,000. The second largest was last year’s $23,306,800,000.

The Top Ten imports the United States bought from Russia in 2021, according to the Census Bureau, were fuel oil ($10,265,587,048); crude oil ($4,714,801,618); other precious metals ($2,594,065,110); petroleum products, other ($2,528,835,6662); steelmaking materials ($1,638,966,123); fish and shellfish ($1,202,782,496); chemicals and fertilizers ($1,178,648,667); iron and steel mill products ($1,040,637,351); nuclear fuel materials ($688,757,733); and bauxite and aluminum ($528,663,788).

JOE BIDEN'S TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS - THE LOOMING ECONOMIC DEPRESSION AS BILLIONAIRES DOUBLE THEIR WEALTH AND BANKSTERS LOOT

 

On Contact: Richard Wolff & the precarious state of the US economy




Tucker: This is what we should be worried about


NAFTA AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS AND JOE BIDEN WAS PARTNERED WITH BILLARY CLINTON TO PERPETRATE NAFTA AND OPEN BORDERS!


And These Sectors are the Next to Go


Lease Defaults & Evictions SURGE (+300% in Some Cities). PANIC SETS IN for Real Estate Investors.




The American Left Is BANKRUPT




Chris Hedges on how CLINTON Betrayed us with NAFTA





Chris Hedges | America is BROKEN




REAL WAGES HAVE CRATTERED70%   -  OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED IS WORKING!!!

Chris Hedges Exposes the Sad Truth About AMERICANS




ECONOMIC PAIN IS HERE, MILLIONS IN U.S. JUST FELL INTO POVERTY, OIL PRICE SCARE, ENDLESS CREDIT CARD






The California Dream is DEAD. THANK THE TECH BILLIONAIRES FOR OPEN BORDERS




Retail Crime is Only Getting Worse - Real Estate Buyer's Estate


here is america's housing crisis:

JPMORGAN CHASE RECEIVED MASSIVE BAILOUTS DURING THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN THEY CAUSED, AND WERE SAVED FROM PRISON TIME BY THE BANKSTER REGIME OF LAWYER BARACK OBAMA, LAWYER ERIC HOLDER AND LAWYER JOE BIDEN, aka 'CREDIT CARD BIDEN'.

BUT THEY'RE BACK!


Senators Ask JPMorgan Chase to Explain Its Lawsuit Blitz Against Credit Card Customers

Citing ProPublica’s reporting that Chase had returned to the controversial practice of robo-signing in lawsuits nationwide, six Senate Democrats have asked Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to explain the bank’s practices.

 IF THERE ARE TWO MEN WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREATEST THREAT TO DEMOCRACY IT WOULD BE DIVISIONIST SOCIOPATH LAWYER BARACK OBAMA AND HIS SIDE KICK LAWYER ERIC HOLDER. 


The office thing might have been improper, but at this point, who cares? More at issue is the extraordinary run Holder just completed as one of history’s great double agents. For six years, while brilliantly disguised as the attorney general of the United States, he was actually working deep undercover, DiCaprio in The Departed-styleas the best defense lawyer Wall Street ever had.

ERIC HOLDER HAS long insisted that he tried really hard when he was attorney general to make criminal cases against big banks in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis. His excuse, which he made again just last month, was that Justice Department prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to bring charges.

Many critics have long suspected that was bullshit, and that Holder, for a combination of political, self-serving, and craven reasons, held his department back.

A new, thoroughly-documented report from the House Financial Services Committee supports that theory. It recounts how career prosecutors in 2012 wanted to criminally charge the global bank HSBC for facilitating money laundering for Mexican drug lords and terrorist groups. But Holder said no.

ERIC HOLDER’S LONGTIME EXCUSE FOR NOT PROSECUTING BANKS JUST CRASHED AND BURNED

New evidence supports critique that Holder, for a combination of political, self-serving, and craven reasons, held his department back from prosecuting big banks.


JAMES WALSH

THE OBAMA-BIDEN HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA… first ease millions of illegals over our borders and into our voting booths!

 How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/07/james-walsh-hispanicazation-of-america.html

 

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

 

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

 

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.


 The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”

 

 Eric Holder, James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe and others could repeatedly lie to Congress and/or the FBI and they were all above the law.


 “Judicial Watch’s records request is designed to expose how California state legislators are wasting tax dollars to take care of another corrupt politician – Eric Holder – under the guise of resisting the rule of law on immigration and other matters,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  “His record at the Clinton and Obama Justice Departments demonstrates a willingness to bend the law in order to protect his political patrons.


Additionally, the Justice Department under Holder, and now Loretta Lynch, has one of the worst records before the U.S. Supreme Court, losing significantly more cases than either of the Bush or Clinton Departments of Justice. “In most administrations, the department wins about 70 percent of the cases before the Supreme Court; Mr. Holder’s department has a losing record and has lost at least nine cases 9-0–even with Obama appointees Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor on the court,” wrote Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, in a review of “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a records request with the California Legislature Joint Rules Committee seeking to examine legislative records regarding the state’s employment of former Obama U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.  The record request includes:


How Eric Holder Tipped the Scales in North Carolina’s Redistricting Fight

Former Attorney General Eric Holder / AP
 • February 22, 2022 5:00 am

SHARE

A North Carolina judge who received $200,000 in contributions from former attorney general Eric Holder's partisan redistricting network could soon cast the decisive vote in a legal battle over the state’s congressional maps.

The Holder-backed judge, Anita Earls, serves on the North Carolina Supreme Court, which will likely have the final say over which congressional maps the state adopts. The seven-member court earlier this month rejected maps drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature and is expected to knock down a revised proposal Republicans submitted on Feb. 16. A rejection of Republican maps would be a win for Holder, who formed several redistricting organizations in 2017 to draw congressional districts favorable to Democrats.

Republicans say Earls’s ties to Holder are a conflict of interest and warrant her recusal from the redistricting case. They point to the former attorney general’s endorsement of Earls in 2018, and his redistricting group’s massive donation to her campaign. Holder’s National Redistricting Foundation, which sued Republicans over their maps in November, took credit for the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month.

"Monied interests appear to have bought a supreme court justice to decide this redistricting case," state senator Amy Galey (R., N.C.) told the Washington Free Beacon.

"Eric Holder paid six figures to elect Earls so she could decide this case," said Galey, who added that Earls should have recused herself from the redistricting case. Earls rejected calls last month to recuse herself from the litigation.

The North Carolina Supreme Court, which has four Democrats and three Republicans, could potentially weigh in on maps drawn by Holder’s organizations. A three-judge panel has until Feb. 23 to rule on the General Assembly’s proposed map. The panel can accept the map, or adopt one of the maps submitted by outside groups. It is unclear what groups have submitted maps, but the National Redistricting Foundation said this month it "looks forward to participating in the redrawing process."

Holder endorsed Earls in 2018 amid his push to elect state judges for the purpose of adopting Democrat-friendly congressional maps. Holder has claimed the groups seek "fair maps" across the country, but tax filings for Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee say its goal is "to build a comprehensive plan to favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process through 2022."

To aid the cause, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee’s PAC gave maximum donations of $5,200 directly to Earls’s campaign, and appears to have funneled another $200,000 to her through the North Carolina Democratic Party. Holder endorsed Earls on Sept. 12, 2018, eight days before the National Democratic Redistricting Committee gave $250,000 to the North Carolina Democratic Party’s judicial fund. The party sent Earls’s campaign $199,000 a few weeks later, according to campaign filings. The party did not respond to requests for comment about the contributions to Earls.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee works in concert with the National Redistricting Foundation and National Redistricting Action Fund, a dark money group heavily funded by Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss.

The hefty donations to Earls are not without precedent for Holder’s network. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee spent $165,000 on ads for Wisconsin Supreme Court judge Rebecca Dallet in 2018 and spent $350,000 for Lisa Neubauer's failed Wisconsin Supreme Court bid in 2019. Holder’s committee has targeted Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania most aggressively in its redistricting campaign.

Holder made clear in his endorsement of Earls he was backing her in order to influence redistricting in the Tar Heel State.

"North Carolina is ground zero for gerrymandering," Holder said. "We have to put more people in the State House, State Senate, and we need to have Anita Earls as the next N.C. Supreme Court Justice. She is a great lawyer, she has a great history, she will be a great judge."

Earls has not disappointed Holder’s organization and other progressive groups. The League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group involved in the North Carolina redistricting litigation, called the court’s decision earlier this month a major win for voters who care about "environmental justice and climate action."

"This historic decision follows years of work challenging gerrymandered maps in the Tar Heel State by Eric Holder and the National Redistricting Foundation," said the foundation, which sued Republicans on behalf of a group of voters on Nov. 18.

While Holder has accused Republicans of illegally gerrymandering maps in North Carolina and other states, he has stayed silent on the redistricting in New York, where Democrats passed what has been called the most "egregious" gerrymander in the country so far this cycle. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D., N.Y.) approved a map that could create a seven-seat House swing in favor of Democrats.

Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias pushed for the highly gerrymandered New York maps. He is also the lead lawyer on the National Redistricting Foundation’s lawsuit in North Carolina and has represented Holder’s network on other litigation.


With Biden, one set of laws for them, another set for us

By Jack Hellner

 

Twenty-one students at three universities were charged with participation in a massive drug ring.

Total proceeds were $1.5 million over a few years. No, they shouldn't have done it. But the penalties for them are draconian: They are in huge lifetime trouble with the law. Their lives will be destroyed, and several will probably go to prison.

Twenty-one people have been charged with dealing drugs on and around college campuses after federal officials uncovered a massive drug ring involving students at three North Carolina universities, authorities announced Thursday.

Martin said that over several years the suspects allegedly moved more than a thousand of pounds of marijuana and hundreds of kilograms of cocaine and other drugs through their supply chain. The drug proceeds exceeded $1.5 million, according to the DEA.

Contrast the students’ treatment with terrorists being let off scot-free by the Obama administration Justice department after Obama dictatorially instructed bureaucrats to drop the years-long investigation into a billion-dollar-a -year drug ring, all to appease Iran.

You see, terrorists are special when Obama/Biden and John Kerry want to appease dictators who pledge death to America as they work on their legacy.


Where were the whistleblowers at the Justice department in 2008, calling out this pure abuse of power by Obama? Where were the congressional hearings and articles of impeachment?

From Politico in 2017:

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

The media and other Democrats claim they care about all deaths from drugs, so why don’t they care about all the deaths from terrorism and drug overdoses because of Obama’s actions?

The Justice department, the media, and the politicians of both parties go after pharmaceutical companies for their contribution to the drug crisis, so why didn’t they go after Obama -- and China, the terrorists and Iran, for their major contribution to the problem?

This is what is going on now in San Francisco

According to the Associated Press, 621 people have died in San Francisco of drug overdoses thus far this year, a staggering number that equates to nearly two deaths per day.

On the other hand, just 173 San Fransisco residents have died of COVID-19.

It is an absolute joke to watch Biden and the media claim that the new administration will not interfere at the Justice department when they know how the Obama/Biden administration completely politicized the Justice department throughout their eight years.

When they say that no one is above the law and there will be equal treatment under the law, they are plainly lying.

They not only let terrorists off scot free, IRS bureaucrats who targeted Obama opponents, obstructed justice, destroyed computers and lied to Congress were also above the law.

Hillary Clinton, her aides, and officials throughout government, including Obama, could violate the nation's security laws, could destroy computers, hide documents, and repeatedly lie and they were above the law.

The Justice department could shake down corporations, establish a slush fund, and give kickbacks to political supporters such as ACORN or whatever they call themselves now, and few cared.

Eric Holder, James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe and others could repeatedly lie to Congress and/or the FBI and they were all above the law.

Bureaucrats could use a fake dossier from a foreign source, paid for by the DNC and Hillary campaign, and lie to the FISA court as they targeted Trump and his supporters, and they, too, were above the law.

Bureaucrats within the Obama/Biden Administration illegally spied on thousands of Americans throughout their eight years in office and they were all above the law. Remember this?

Newly declassified memos detail extent of improper Obama-era NSA spying

The Obama/Biden Justice department refused to enforce immigration laws. Politicians and bureaucrats in sanctuary cities and states were above the law.

The Clinton and Biden families were allowed to use their powerful government positions to solicit massive kickbacks for themselves and their families from foreign sources, and they were and are above the law.

Democrats not only didn’t care about the kickbacks, they impeached Trump for wanting an investigation into the Biden corruption.

While members of the Obama/Biden crime syndicate could violate as many laws as they liked, they were also targeting innocent people like Gen. Michael Flynn and energy expert Carter Page for destruction.

It is no wonder there is so much corruption and criminal activity among politicians and bureaucrats thrives throughout the United States when the press is coopted, asleep, or just don’t care. They frequently bury the stories and actively campaign for the corrupt criminals. It is sad that they support putting corrupt criminals in the White House. They support anyone who seeks to make the government run by leftists more powerful.

Meanwhile, they will seek to destroy anyone who wants to give the power, purse, and freedom back to the people as fast as possible. They don’t care about how many fake stories, such as  Russian collusion, they have to peddle in their efforts to defeat political opponents. Evidence and the truth are not important. Anonymous sources are treated as evidence. Only victory for leftists matters and that truly makes the media an existential threat to our survival as a great country. 

Image credit: Pixabay public domain


 Judicial Watch’s records request is designed to expose how California state legislators are wasting tax dollars to take care of another corrupt politician – Eric Holder – under the guise of resisting the rule of law on immigration and other matters,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  “His record at the Clinton and Obama Justice Departments demonstrates a willingness to bend the law in order to protect his political patrons.

 

Biden’s influence-peddling is consistent with what I wrote in my book, 'Capitol Hills Criminal Underground'

By Richard Lawless

More than three years ago, MedLaw Publishing released my book, “Capitol Hills Criminal Underground” in which I, the book's author, describe a long-running “protection racket” being run by then-Vice President Joe Biden, as well  as Attorney General Eric Holder and New York Senator, Chuck Schumer.  

The three amigos effectively arranged to have all Wall Street criminal cases directed to the lefty-friendly Southern District of New York, and for the right “payments” the cases would be closed. Money would then go into PACs controlled by Schumer and distributed to all those involved.  In return for those payments, there would be no investigations, no prosecutions and no regulatory action.  As author, I tracked over $110,000,000 in payments to politicians. 

The CIA tracked some of the money-laundering related to the theft by these Wall Street companies and was able to track back the payments to senior DOJ officials and senior politicians like Vice President Joe Biden.  

I, and a senior CIA officer, offered this evidence to both FBI Director James Comey and DoJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz.  They both declined to respond.  I filed criminal complaints with the FBI and was told by field agents that senior leadership at the DOJ would not allow anyone to work the criminal complaints.

I want to encourage all Americans to read my book, "Capitol Hill's Criminal Underground" and decide for themselves.

 

That baleful presence of Eric Holder eyeing the coronavirus as a means to win Democrats' permanent power

By Monica Showalter

Eric Holder is back.

But instead of helping out on the coronavirus crisis as an ethical person might do, his wheels are spinning for using the crisis as a means of attaining permanent Democratic Party power.

The far left former Obama administration Attorney General got an item out on Medium, calling for the skeezy practice of universal mail-in voting, claiming the Wisconsin primary during the crisis was some kind of unspecified travesty:

 

New from @EricHolder: "Given that the virus is likely to return in the fall, if we do not start taking measures now to protect the franchise, our current voting procedures will put the health of all Americans -no matter their political preference -at risk" https://t.co/dvry9SLQsf

— Patrick Rodenbush (@pnrodenbush) April 14, 2020

 

Thanks for the concern-trolling for Republicans, Eric. We all know how sincere it is. 

Calling for mail-in ballots, online registration, same-day registration, ballot-harvesting, and month-long extended voting periods, all of which are petri dishes for election fraud in that most break the chain of custody to any number of interested players, some break secret ballot, and others can be manipulated by partisan hacks based on known ongoing tallies, Holder writes:

By refusing to move the election or provide adequate alternative voting options as they dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic, Republicans used their gerrymandered majorities in the Wisconsin legislature to force an impossible choice on the people they are supposed to represent: forgo your civic responsibility and stay healthy or cast a ballot and endanger yourself and your community. It remains unthinkable that health care experts would tell citizens that social distancing is a necessity to combat this virus and then politicians forced them to congregate in large groups and wait in long lines to vote. Poll workers afraid for their health did not show up.

Which is nonsense. People stand in grocery lines all the time, socially distancing by six feet. Somehow, Holder thinks voters can't master that in an election situation where lines are usually considerably shorter.

NPR of all outlets reported that Holder's travesty claims in Wisconsin were garbage, the public network reports that Wisconsin turnout in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic was steady and high.

The ballot harvesting, borrowed from Mexico's "perfect dictatorship," the 70-year ruling PRI party, famous for its corruption and socialism, goes on a lot in the U.S. these days already, the camel's nose is already under the tent. Fraud plagued California is the main example, but it also goes on in states with large Latin American-descended populations, by seamy [political operatives known as boliteros and politiqueras, who make sure to bring home the bacon for their party as such flying monkeys are commissioned to do. They are often union thugs, coming to people's houses, standing over them, (we know where you live) pressuring them to vote the way they want them to vote, even if they don't want to vote that way, even if they are illegal and don't want to get into trouble.

Or else.

All of this is part of the Democrats' plan for using the coronavirus to fundamentally transform America. California's Gov. Gavin Newsom said as much about the coronavirus couple weeks earlier.



BLOG EDITOR: DURING THE 8 YEAR BANKSTER REGIME OF BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER, HOLDER SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME GOING TO LA RAZA RALLIES TO PROMISE ILLEGALS AMNESTY IF THEY VOTED FOR THE OBOMB.


Now Holder's grabbed the football and is running with it, making an end to normal voting a fundamental part of the Democratic Party platform. It goes with their other offensive that I described earlier today, which is encouraging a flood of illegals, with PRI (or worse, Chavista) values into the country, and then changing the secret ballot voting system from one-man one-vote to an extended harvest mechanism, extended over a long period, with zero verification of who actually cast the ballot, and a broken chain of custody, allowing for all manner of fraud that Democrats view as beneficial.

Never let a crisis go to waste, to paraphrase Democratic operative Rahm Emanuel. Holder is one baleful presence. No matter what the crisis, all he can see is new ways to extend Democratic Party power. 

Image credit: AFGE, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0

 

CALIFORNIA COMRADES CHOOSE COMRADE HOLDER

 

https://sacramentocitizen.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/california-comrades-choose-comrade-holder/

 

JANUARY 11, 2017 / KATYGRIMES

Any attorney general who is not an activist is not doing his or her job. 

Eric Holder

In Part One of this series, we exposed the Chicano Marxist take over of the California legislature and their plans to defy federal immigration laws and expected actions of the incoming Trump administration. Gov. Jerry Brown’s nomination of  Xavier Becerra to be California’s next Attorney General was the first of many steps to protect the pervasive lawlessness of the radical left. Becerra has already taken an aggressive and combative stance against President-elect Donald Trump, vowing to fight Trump’s efforts to enforce immigration laws, and even block attempts to deport criminal illegal aliens. Trump’s campaign centered on building a wall along the United States border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants, violent gangs, and terrorists posing as immigrants.


Xavier Becerra, currently a 12-year member of Congress, is an admitted member of MEChA, or “Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan,” often likened to a Latino KKK.

Becerra has publicly defended MEChA, even though the Chicano supremacist group evangelizes discrimination against non-Hispanics and calls for the killing of Border Patrol “pigs.” MEChA’s rallying cry is: “For the race, everything; For those outside the race, nothing.

Becerra’s Radical Plans

Recently, the State Assembly Committee on the Office of the Attorney General asked nominee Becerra to detail his plans on the issues of immigration, civil rights, the environment, policing and consumer protection – apparently the only issues the California Legislature is interested in Becerra defending.

In a letter released Saturday, Becerra praised California’s policies helping illegal aliens get driver’s licenses, free college tuition, and free lawyers to represent them in deportation cases, calling it “national leadership.”

“All of these policies and programs are representative of California’s values as a welcoming state,” Becerra wrote to the Assembly committee.

Becerra also took a shot at Trump for proposing to create a registry of Muslim immigrants during the campaign.”Disturbing statements uttered during the recent Presidential campaign have given rise to legitimate fears that the new federal administration might seek to adopt policies that would discriminate against people based on factors such as their religious belief,” Becerra wrote. “Any such policies would be antithetical to the deepest constitutional values and traditions of this nation — a nation founded in part by men and women fleeing religious persecution.”

“I have no intention of allowing this policy through the doors of California,” he wrote.

Like a good progressive foot soldier, Becerra also vowed to fight for abortion, calling it “reproductive freedom.”

Becerra said he will support California’s recent legislation expanding voter registration and participation in elections. He might want to look into the 650,000 newly registered California voters, registered online only weeks before the election. According to the Los Angeles Times, “98% of all the growth in California’s voter ranks in 2016 happened in just the last 45 days of the registration season.”

As Attorney General, Becerra has vowed to continue enforcing policies to combat climate change and work to “transition Californians to a low-carbon way of life.” Becerra added that a part of environmental protections is safe drinking water and vowed to “pursue the goal of providing safe drinking water to all Californians.” Perhaps Becerra can begin by supporting the safe drinking water bills that Assemblyman Devon Mathis has tried to get passed over the last two years?  In Mathis’ district, wells began going dry in East Porterville more than three years ago, with more continuing to dry up every day.

Assemblyman Devon Mathis, R-Porterville, authored the bills to provide $10 million to homeowners (not farmers) to dig deeper wells and clean contaminated ones.

Both bills passed through the Assembly and a state Senate committee without opposition, only to have Senate Appropriations Chairman Ricardo Lara, D-Los Angeles and Mecha activist, put both bills on suspense– one after the other, killing them and depriving 10,000+ low-income individuals access to running water. Sen. Lara was playing politics with this Republican bill, despite the 10,000 poor people who need the clean water.

Sanctuary Cities

California, through its 35 Sanctuary Cities, is clearly violating U.S. Federal Immigration law. Recently, Democrat members of the State Legislature proposed two bills: SB 6 by Sen. Ben Hueso, to create a state program to fund legal representation for illegal aliens facing deportation, and AB 3 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta to create taxpayer-funded training for defense attorneys and public defenders on immigration law for illegal aliens.

And now California is going to try to prevent the new Presidential administration from enforcing federal immigration law despite the fact that the Constitution clearly imposes a duty on the president and the executive branch, to enforce the law.


Hiring Eric Holder… for what?

Democrats in the California State Legislature apparently decided Becerra isn’t enough legal muscle, and recently hired former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder to fight a “clear and present danger” from President-elect Trump… the same former Attorney General Eric Holder who was once blasted for helping to trigger a “war” on police and called America  “a nation of cowards” on the issue of race. However, he now says he sees his “younger” self in Black Lives Matter activists… this is who California hired to assist California’s top law enforcement officer?

Since Trump — who is not referring to himself as “The Office of President-Elect,” as his predecessor did — has not yet taken office, nor any official actions, it is hard to see specifically for what purpose Holder has been hired.

There certainly is poetic justice in hiring the failed Attorney General of the failed Obama Administration to defend the failed and deteriorating policies of the Jerry Brown administration and radical Democrats running the state.

Described as a “devious, power-hungry, racial zealot,” Eric Holder is also a dubious choice since he is the only U.S. Attorney General in history to be held in contempt of Congress, when he refused to turn over Operation Fast and Furious documents to Congress. One of the most reckless law enforcement operations ever conducted by the Justice Department, it involved selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, and resulted in the death of a U.S. border patrol agent, Brian Terry, as well as hundreds of Mexican citizens.

Under Holder’s watch at the DOJ Civil Rights Division, more than half of all the lawyers hired were chosen from four radical, anti-American organizations: the ACLU, National Council of La Raza, NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights, John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky outlined in their 2014 book, “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

Additionally, the Justice Department under Holder, and now Loretta Lynch, has one of the worst records before the U.S. Supreme Court, losing significantly more cases than either of the Bush or Clinton Departments of Justice. “In most administrations, the department wins about 70 percent of the cases before the Supreme Court; Mr. Holder’s department has a losing record and has lost at least nine cases 9-0–even with Obama appointees Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor on the court,” wrote Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, in a review of “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a records request with the California Legislature Joint Rules Committee seeking to examine legislative records regarding the state’s employment of former Obama U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.  The record request includes:

All contracts between the California Legislature and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. or Covington and Burling.

All communications between the California Legislature and former U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. or Covington and Burling about the Legislature’s retention of Holder and/or Covington and Burling.

Judicial Watch’s records request is designed to expose how California state legislators are wasting tax dollars to take care of another corrupt politician – Eric Holder – under the guise of resisting the rule of law on immigration and other matters,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  “His record at the Clinton and Obama Justice Departments demonstrates a willingness to bend the law in order to protect his political patrons.

The hiring of Eric Holder by the California Legislature confirms a lack of confidence in Xavier Becerra by Gov. Brown and Democrats in the Legislature–which must be quite humiliating for Becerra, especially after his promise to uphold California’s “progressive” policies on immigration, Obamacare, energy, and criminal justice. “If you want to take on a forward-leaning state that is prepared to defend its rights and interests, then come at us,” Becerra said, directing his comment to Trump.  Choosing Holder also reiterates the anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-religion movement of Marxists in America, but particularly in California. The biggest obstacle standing between Marxism and Marxist domination of the world is America, and the U.S. Constitution. And standing between a Marxist takeover of America is California – only when California is destroyed can Marxists proceed.

ERIC HOLDER’S LONGTIME EXCUSE FOR NOT PROSECUTING BANKS JUST CRASHED AND BURNED

New evidence supports critique that Holder, for a combination of political, self-serving, and craven reasons, held his department back from prosecuting big banks.

 

David Dayen


July 12 2016, 8:05 a.m.

ERIC HOLDER HAS long insisted that he tried really hard when he was attorney general to make criminal cases against big banks in the wake of the 2007 financial crisis. His excuse, which he made again just last month, was that Justice Department prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to bring charges.

Many critics have long suspected that was bullshit, and that Holder, for a combination of political, self-serving, and craven reasons, held his department back.

A new, thoroughly-documented report from the House Financial Services Committee supports that theory. It recounts how career prosecutors in 2012 wanted to criminally charge the global bank HSBC for facilitating money laundering for Mexican drug lords and terrorist groups. But Holder said no.

When asked on June 8 why his Justice Department did not equally apply the criminal laws to financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, Holder told the platform drafting panel of the Democratic National Committee that it was laboring under a “misperception.”

He told the panel: “The question you need to ask yourself is, if we could have made those cases, do you think we would not have? Do you think that these very aggressive U.S. attorneys I was proud to serve with would have not brought these cases if they had the ability?”

The report — the result of a three-year investigation — shows that aggressive attorneys did want to prosecute HSBC, but Holder overruled them.

In September 2012, the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) formally recommended that HSBC be prosecuted for its numerous financial crimes.

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.

Newly public internal Treasury Department records show that AFMLS Chief Jennifer Shasky wanted to seek a guilty plea for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. “DoJ is mulling over the ramifications that could flow from such an approach and plans to finalize its decision this week,” reads an email from September 4, 2012, to senior Treasury officials. On September 7, Treasury official Dennis Wood describes the AFMLS decision as an “internal recommendation to ask the bank [to] plead guilty.” It was a “bombshell,” Wood wrote, because of “the implications of a criminal plea,” and “the sheer amount of the proposed fines and forfeitures.”

But after British financial minister George Osborne complained to the Federal Reserve chairman and the Treasury Secretary that DOJ was unfairly targeting a British bank, senior Justice Department leadership reportedly sought to “better understand the collateral consequences of a conviction/plea before taking such a dramatic step.”

The report documents how Holder and his top associates were concerned about the impact that prosecuting HSBC would have on the global economy. And, in particular, they worried that a guilty plea would trigger a hearing over whether to revoke HSBC’s charter to do banking in the United States.

According to internal documents, the DOJ then went dark for nearly two months, refusing to participate in interagency calls about HSBC. Finally,on November 7, Holder presented HSBC with a “take it or leave it” offer of a deferred prosecution agreement, which would involve a cash settlement and future monitoring of HSBC.

No guilty plea was required.

But even the “take it or leave it” offer was apparently not the last word. HSBC was able to negotiate for nearly a month after Holder presented that offer, getting more favorable terms in the ultimate $1.9 billion deferred prosecution agreement, announced on December 11, 2012.

The original settlement documents would have forced any HSBC executive officers to void their year-end bonuses if they showed future failures of anti-money laundering compliance. The final documents say that, in the event of such failures, senior executives merely “could” have their bonuses clawed back.

In addition, HSBC successfully negotiated to have individual executives immunized from prosecution over transactions with foreign terrorist organizations and other sanctioned entities, even though the original agreement only covered the anti-money laundering violations and explicitly left open the possibility of prosecuting individuals.

As a Justice Department functionary in 1999, Holder wrote the infamous “collateral consequences” memo, advising prosecutors to take into account economic damage that might result from criminally convicting a major corporation.

In 2013, he unwittingly earned his place in history for telling the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I am concerned that the size of some of these [financial] institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them,” which became known as the “Too Big to Jail” theory.

Holder told the Democratic platform drafting committee that “it was not lack of desire or lack of resources” that led to the lack of prosecutions for any major bank executive following the financial crisis. “We had in some cases statutory and sometimes factual inabilities to bring the cases that we wanted to bring,” he said.

The HSBC case, however, shows that lack of desire at the highest levels of the Justice Department was indeed the primary reason that no prosecutions took place.

Former Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., who also testified to the drafting committee, cited the HSBC case as an example of the lack of equal application of justice in the Holder era. Referring to the concern over destabilizing the financial system with an HSBC prosecution, Miller said, “That’s not an argument that’s available to too many people: ‘You can’t arrest me for selling cigarettes, it might destabilize the financial system!’ ”

The internal communications in the House report all come from the Treasury Department. The Justice Department, they say, did not comply with subpoenas for information about the settlement.

Holder has returned to Covington & Burling, a corporate law firm known for serving Wall Street clients in 2015. He had worked at Covington from 2001 until he was sworn in as attorney general in Feburary 2009. Covington literally kept an office empty for him, awaiting his return.

Jennifer Shasky, the AFMLS chief who requested the prosecution of HSBC but was overruled, recently resigned as the head of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to become a senior compliance officer with HSBC.

 

Eric Holder, Wall Street Double Agent, Comes in From the Cold

Barack Obama’s former top cop cashes in after six years of letting banks run wild

By 

MATT TAIBBI 

Eric Holder is back at Covington & Burling after serving as U.S. attorney general for six years.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty

Eric Holder has gone back to work for his old firm, the white-collar defense heavyweight Covington & Burling. The former attorney general decided against going for a judgeship, saying he’s not ready for the ivory tower yet. “I want to be a player,” he told the National Law Journal, one would have to say ominously.

Holder will reassume his lucrative partnership (he made $2.5 million the last year he worked there) and take his seat in an office that reportedly – this is no joke – was kept empty for him in his absence.

The office thing might have been improper, but at this point, who cares? More at issue is the extraordinary run Holder just completed as one of history’s great double agents. For six years, while brilliantly disguised as the attorney general of the United States, he was actually working deep undercover, DiCaprio in The Departed-styleas the best defense lawyer Wall Street ever had.

Holder denied there was anything weird about returning to one of Wall Street’s favorite defense firms after six years of letting one banker after another skate on monstrous cases of fraudtax evasionmarket manipulationmoney launderingbribery and other offenses.

RELATED

 

Goldman Non-Prosecution: AG Eric Holder Has No Balls

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase's Worst Nightmare

 

“Just because I’m at Covington doesn’t mean I will abandon the public interest work,” he told CNN. He added to the National Law Journal that a big part of the reason he was going back to private practice was because he wanted to give back to the community.

“The firm’s emphasis on pro bono work and being engaged in the civic life of this country is consistent with my worldview that lawyers need to be socially active,” he said.

Right. He’s going back to Covington & Burling because of the firm’s emphasis on pro bono work.

Here’s a man who just spent six years handing out soft-touch settlements to practically every Too Big to Fail bank in the world. Now he returns to a firm that represents many of those same companies: Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup, to name a few.

Collectively, the decisions he made while in office saved those firms a sum that is impossible to calculate with exactitude. But even going by the massive rises in share price observed after he handed out these deals, his service was certainly worth many billions of dollars to Wall Street.

Now he will presumably collect assloads of money from those very same bankers. It’s one of the biggest quid pro quo deals in the history of government service. Congressman Billy Tauzin once took a $2 million-a-year job lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry just a few weeks after helping to pass the revolting Prescription Drug Benefit Bill, but what Holder just did makes Tauzin look like a guy who once took a couple of Redskins tickets.

In this light, telling reporters that you’re going back to Covington & Burling to be “engaged in the civic life of this country” seems like a joke for us all to suck on, like announcing that he’s going back to get a doctorate at the University of Blow Me.

Holder doesn’t look it, but he was a revolutionary. He institutionalized a radical dualistic approach to criminal justice, essentially creating a system of indulgences wherein the world’s richest companies paid cash for their sins and escaped the sterner punishments the law dictated.

Here are five pillars of the Holder revolution:

One is that he failed to win a single conviction in court for any crimes related to the financial crisis. The only trial of any consequence brought by his Justice Department for crimes related to the crisis involved a pair of Bear Stearns nimrods named Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, who confided in each other via email that the subprime markets were “toast” but told their clients something very different to keep them invested.

After a jury acquitted both in early 2009, the Holder Justice Department turtled. Sources inside the DOJ told me over the years that both Holder and his deputy, fellow Covington & Burling alum Lanny Breuer, were obsessed with winning and refused to chance any case where they felt a jury might go sideways on them. Thus the Cioffi-Tannin case was the last financial crisis case they dared to bring into to a criminal courtroom – virtually every other case ended in settlements.

Two: Holder famously invented a concept called “collateral consequences,” under which the state could pursue non-criminal alternatives for companies if they believed prosecuting them might result in too much “collateral” damage. Britain’s HSBC bank, which admitted to massive money laundering violations, and the Swiss bank UBS, which was caught manipulating the Libor interest rate benchmark, were examples of firms that escaped vigorous prosecution because Holder and his lackeys were, ostensibly anyway, concerned about market-altering consequences.

Significantly, both banks were later caught up in even more serious scandals, leading to criticism that stiffer punishments the first time around might have prevented future damage. Holder’s successor Loretta Lynch was even forced to rip up Holder’s UBS deal for being insufficiently punitive. It’s worth noting that Holder, before he became attorney general, represented UBS at Covington & Burling.

Holder’s lenient policies were deployed at a time when fellow officials like Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke were using bailout monies to merge troubled firms together and create even larger mega-companies. Chase and Wells Fargo, which swallowed up Washington Mutual and Wachovia in state-aided takeovers, were prototypes of the modern mega-bank. So when Holder wedded “collateral consequences” to these new Too Big to Fail mega-firms, he created Too Big to Jail. This is a huge part of his legacy, the creation of an unjailable class.

Three: Holder also pioneered the extrajudicial settlement, striking huge deals with companies in which judges did not sign off on the agreements. The arrangement prevented pesky judges like the irksome Jed Rakoff (who voided a pair of settlements he felt were inadequate) from protesting lenient justice.

This essentially institutionalized the backroom deal. Everything was done in secret, and there was no longer any opportunity for judges or anyone else to check the power of the executive branch to hand out financial indulgences.

The watchdog group Better Markets described the $13 billion Chase settlement, one of the biggest extrajudicial deals, as “an unprecedented settlement amount [that] cannot…immunize the DOJ from having to obtain independent judicial review of its otherwise unilateral, secret actions.”

Four: There is a huge misconception, pushed equally by odd bedfellows in the financial community and Obama supporters, that Eric Holder didn’t send anyone from Wall Street to jail because “no one broke any laws.”

This preposterous meme grew out of something Barack Obama said on 60 Minutes. Here are the president’s exact words:

“Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street — in some cases some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street — wasn’t illegal.”

Obama, a brilliant lawyer and wordsmith, was not saying that all of the behavior leading to the crash was legal. He merely said that some of the worst behavior wasn’t illegal. Which is true. Meaningless, but true.

Of course, some of the worst behavior was very illegal. This is confirmed in the fact that Holder extracted billions of dollars in settlement monies and even, in a few cases, obtained guilty pleas for crimes like fraud, manipulation, bribery, money laundering and tax evasion.

Anyone who even tries to claim that none of the banks actually did anything illegal should be directed to the HSBC settlement of December 2012. In this deferred prosecution agreement, Europe’s largest bank paid $1.92 billion to settle their responsibility for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and other laws.

This is from a description of HSBC’s crimes by Holder’s Justice Department:

“As a result of HSBC Bank USA’s AML failures, at least $881 million in drug trafficking proceeds – including proceeds of drug trafficking by the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico…were laundered through HSBC Bank USA.”

You might remember the Sinaloa cartel for their ISIS-style, unforgettably upsetting torture videos. HSBC washed their cash. They even created special teller windows to make their deposits easier. This is admitted, not alleged.

But Holder went out of his way to let them keep their U.S. charter. He gave their executives a grand total of zero days in jail, zero dollars in individual fines.

To reiterate: HSBC laundered money for guys who chop peoples‘ heads off with chainsaws. So we can dispense with the “but no one broke any laws” thing.

When asked about this in testimony before the Senate, Holder told elected officials he was concerned harsher penalties against firms like HSBC would “have a negative impact on the national economy,” and that this “has an inhibiting influence…on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate.”

Compare this to what he just said after returning to Covington & Burling:

“I think that what we did in the department was, I always like to say, appropriately aggressive. There may be clients that, for whatever reason, will not decide to work with me…”

Oddly enough, Holder used that same phrase – “appropriately aggressive” – in his Senate testimony. In other words, the attorney general said he was “inhibited” from giving “appropriate” punishments just a few moments before claiming his punishments were appropriate. This is classic Clintonian politics, saying two things at the same time, neither of them true.

Five: Holder contributed countless subtle inventions to soften punishments. The most revolting in my view was allowing banks like Chase the courtesy of calling their settlements “remedial payments” instead of fines for wrongdoing.

This seemingly insignificant semantic tweak allowed the bank to call $7 billion of their settlement a business expense, which meant they could claim it as a tax deduction, which in turn meant that taxpayers like you and me paid a whopping $2.45 billion of Chase’s penalty.

Some of the write-ups of these decisions emanating from the financial and legal press were hilarious. Law360.com, noting that the settlement language meant that 35 percent of the bank’s regulatory burden would be shifted “onto the backs of taxpayers,” pointed out, as if surprised, that the tax treatment “sparked debate” and that “some are even angry about it.” Shocking!

Of course, none of us mortals can deduct so much as a speeding ticket, since we wouldn’t want to use the tax code to encourage speeding. So why was it OK for the nation’s top cop to make fraud or money laundering a tax-subsidized activity?

There were other tricks. Banks that committed multiple violations of the same offense were often allowed to settle or plead to just one count. And in many cases the fines were staggeringly low compared to the volume of crime – BNP-Paribas, for instance, paid $8.9 billion after laundering $30 billion, meaning they paid about 27 cents per dollar of violations.

Holder is a cynic of a type that’s increasingly common in Washington. To follow his Justice Department was like watching an endless reel of The Good Wife – smart lawyers half-cleverly constructing one unseemly moral compromise after another, always justifying it to themselves in the end somehow in the name of keeping the ball rolling.

Holder doubtless seriously believed at first that in a time of financial crisis, he was doing the right thing in constructing new forms of justice for banks, where nobody but the shareholders actually had to pay for crime. You’ve heard of victimless crimes; Holder created the victimless punishment.

But in the end, it was pretty convenient, wasn’t it, that “the right thing” also happened to be the strategy that preserved Democratic Party relationships with big-dollar donors, kept the client base at Holder’s old firm nice and fat, made the influential rich immeasurably richer and allowed Eric Holder himself to crash-land into a giant pile of money upon resignation.

What a coincidence! In any civilized country, it’d be a scandal. In America, though, he’s just another guy selling whatever he can to get by. It was just too bad that what Holder had to sell was the criminal justice system.

 THE GAMER LAWYER. BUT THAT IS WHY GAMER LAWYER BARACK OBAMA WANTED HIM AT HIS SIDE TO SERVE HIS CRONY BANKSTERS! FOR THAT MATTER, THIS IS ALSO WHY OBOMB WANTED 'CREDIT CARD' JOE AT HIS SIDE.


Attorney General Eric Holder's bank

prosecution legacy

Darrell Delamaide

WASHINGTON — Is lying on a mortgage application fraud when lenders aren't interested in the truth?

This may sound like an abstract philosophical question similar to trees falling in the forest with no one around to hear, but it was in fact a novel legal tactic that got four defendants in California acquitted of mortgage fraud.

A jury of their peers bought the defense argument that the real fraud was being perpetrated by executives at the lending institutions.

"In the Sacramento case, the jury essentially found that the truth or falsity of the documentation the borrowers provided was immaterial," the Los Angeles Times reported, "the lenders would have made the loans anyway."

The case turned on the expert testimony of William Black, a law professor and tireless critic of the banks, who told the jury that the lenders involved wanted so-called "liar loans" to acquire mortgages rapidly so they could sell them off at a profit. They specifically instructed loan officers not to verify stated income — an invitation for applicants to inflate the figure.

Black, who is affiliated with the University of Missouri-Kansas City, was involved as a regulator in investigating and prosecuting the widespread fraud and corruption in the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s.

"The saying in the savings and loan debacle is you never wanted to be the guy that was chasing mice while lions roamed the campsite," Black said on the Bill Moyers show last weekend. "So the mice are these alleged tiny frauds type of thing, where they ignore the lions, who are the CEOs of the banks and such."

The acquittal in the California case in August came just ahead of the announcement last month that Attorney General Eric Holder would step down as soon as a successor can be confirmed.

"He will leave behind a mixed scorecard," Moyers said. "A for civil rights, C for civil liberties and F for failing to prosecute the banking executives who brought about the financial calamity of 2008."

The complete failure of the Justice Department to prosecute a single bank executive while levying billions of dollars of fines with individual banks for fraud and other felonies continues to draw criticism from journalists, legal experts and lawmakers.

Not so coincidentally, a story in the New York Times this week said that the Justice Department, still headed by Holder, may indeed prosecute individual traders in connection with its investigation of fixing the foreign exchange markets.

"The charges will most likely focus on traders and their bosses rather than chief executives," the Times dryly reported, citing anonymous lawyers. "As a result, critics of the Justice Department might view the cases as little more than an exercise in public relations."

Eventual fines and guilty pleas for the banks over currency trading would come on top of billions in fines already levied against many of these same big banks — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UBS are named in the latest Times story — for fixing the benchmark LIBOR rate.

These fines — in addition to settlements for fraud in mortgage securities, in illegal foreclosures and robo-signings, bid rigging in municipal bonds and a host of other infractions in recent years — make it hard to see these banks as anything other than rogue institutions who are willing to systematically violate the law.

Somebody is responsible for that.

Black, who likes to point out that regulators in the S&L crisis made many thousands of criminal referrals that resulted in more than a thousand successful prosecutions, makes no secret of his scorn of the current tactics of the regulators and the Justice Department.

"Apparently modern financial regulators are vastly more sophisticated than we were as financial regulators 25 years ago" Black told Moyers. "Because we had never figured out that the key to financial stability was leaving felons in charge of the largest financial institutions in the world."

Black has argued since the onset of the financial crisis in 2009 that prosecution of individuals will not, as former Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner maintained, destabilize the financial system.

The prosecutions in the S&L crisis, he told Moyers, "greatly enhanced financial stability instead of the other way around."

The guilty executives were no longer a danger to the financial system because they had criminal records. This is not the case in the wake of the recent crisis and heightens the risk of a new crisis.

"If you want to create the next crisis and make it vastly worse," Black said, "leave the people in charge who led the frauds in the senior ranks at the banks in charge of those banks. So now they have all the postgraduate education in how to run a fraud. And they learned that there are no consequences other than good consequences."

Delamaide has reported on business and economics from New York, Paris, Berlin and Washington for Dow Jones News Service, Barron's, Institutional Investor and Bloomberg News, among others.

 

Eric Holder didn't send a single banker to jail for the mortgage crisis. Is that justice?

US attorney general’s tenure has proven unhelpful to the five million victims of mortgage abuses in the US

Holder has a mixed legacy: excellent on civil and voting rights, bad on press freedom and transparency. Photograph: JONATHAN ERNST/Reuters

David Dayen

The telling sentence in NPR’s report that US attorney general Eric Holder plans to step down once a successor is confirmed came near the end of the story.

“Friends and former colleagues say Holder has made no decisions about his next professional perch,” NPR writes, “but they say it would be no surprise if he returned to the law firm Covington & Burling, where he spent years representing corporate clients.”

A large chunk of Covington & Burling’s corporate clients are mega-banks like JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America. Lanny Breuer, who ran the criminal division for Holder’s Justice Department, already returned to work there.


In March, Covington highlighted in marketing materials their award from the trade publication American Lawyer as “Litigation Department of the Year,” touting the law firm’s work in getting clients accused of financial fraud off with slap-on-the-wrist fines.

Covington, American Lawyer says, helps clients “get the best deal they can.”

Holder has a mixed legacy: excellent on civil and voting rights, bad on press freedom and transparency.

But if you want to understand what he did for the perpetrators of a cascade of financial fraud that blew up the nation’s economy in 2008, you only have to read that line from his former employer: he helped them “get the best deal they can.”

As for homeowners, they received a raw deal, in the form of little or no compensation for some of the greatest consumer abuses in American history.

Before Holder became Attorney General, banks fueled the housing bubble with predatory and at times, allegedly fraudulent practices.

As far back as 2004, the FBI warned of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud, which they said would have “as much impact as the Savings & Loan crisis.”

They were wrong; it was worse.

 

Brian T Moynihan, chief executive officer of Bank of America Corp, one of the banks accused of extensive mortgage abuses. Very little of the money from its settlements has gone to help homeowners. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images

And banks and lenders carried through that fraud to every level of the mortgage process. They committed origination fraud through faulty appraisals and undisclosed trickery.

They committed servicing fraud through illegal fees and unnecessary foreclosures.

They committed securities fraud by failing to inform investors of the poor underwriting on loans they packaged into securities.

They committed mass document fraud when they failed to follow the steps to create mortgage-backed securities, covering up with fabrications and forgeries to prove the standing to foreclose.

By the time the bubble collapsed, the recession hit and Holder took over the Justice Department, Wall Street was a target-rich environment for any federal prosecutor. Physical evidence to an untold number of crimes was available in court filings and county recording offices.

Financial audits revealed large lapses in underwriting standards as early as 2005. Provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed during the last set of financial scandals in 2002, could hold chief executives criminally responsible for misrepresenting their risk management controls to regulators.

Any prosecutor worth his salt could have gone up the chain of command and implicated top banking executives.

In 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, giving $165m to the Justice Department to staff the investigations necessary to bring those accountable for the financial crisis to justice.

Yet, despite the Justice Department’s claims to the contrary, not one major executive has been sent to jail for their role in the crisis.

The department has put real housewives in jail for mortgage fraud, but not real bankers, saving their firepower for people who manage to defraud banks, not for banks who manage to defraud people.

Most of the “investigations” of financial institutions over the past six years have swiftly moved to cash settlements, often without holding anyone responsible for admitting wrongdoing or providing a detailed description of what they did wrong.

The headline prices of these settlements usually bore no resemblance to the reality of what they cost the banks.

The National Mortgage Settlement, for example, was touted by Holder’s Justice Department as a $25bn deal. In reality, banks were able to pay one-quarter of that penalty with other people’s money, lowering principal balances on loans they didn’t even own.

Other penalties featured similarly inflated numbers that didn’t reflect the true cost. Banks could satisfy their obligations under the settlements through routine business practices (including some, like making loans to low-income homeowners, that make them money).

A recent series of securities fraud settlements with JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup, which DoJ said cost the banks $36.65bn, actually cost them about $11.5bn. And shareholders, not executives, truly bear that cost.

Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal found last week that the Justice Department only collects around 25% of the fines they impose. So the banks may have gotten off even easier.

 

The Justice Department has reportedly collected only 25% of the fines it has imposed on banks. Photograph: Petros Giannakouris/AP

These settlements have actually perverted the notion of justice, turning accountability into a public relations vehicle. And Holder’s Justice Department has been guilty of cooking the books: they admitted last August to overstating the number of criminal financial fraud charges by over 80%.

The DoJ’s Inspector General criticized this in a March report, and also found that DoJ de-prioritized mortgage fraud, making it the “lowest-ranked criminal threat” from 2009-2011.

As for homeowners, the biggest victims of Wall Street misconduct, they received little relief. Victims who already lost their homes got checks in the National Mortgage Settlement for between $1,500-$2,000, compensating people wrongly foreclosed upon with barely enough money for two month’s rent.

Despite claims that 1m borrowers still in their homes would get principal reductions under the settlement, when the final numbers came in this March, just 83,000 families received such a benefit, an under-delivery of over 90%.

Considering that over five million families experienced foreclosures since the end of the crisis, that relief is a drop in the bucket.

For those still eligible for relief, thanks to the expiration of a law called the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, any principal forgiveness will count as earned income for tax purposes, meaning that homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure will subsequently get hit with a tax bill they cannot afford.

The Justice Department only recognized this belatedly, creating a fund in a recent Bank of America settlement to “partially” defray tax costs.

For others without that benefit, the help the Justice Department provided will look more like harm.

More important, the settlements didn’t end the misconduct.

Homeowners today continue to lose their homes based on false documents. Because the Justice Department just put a band-aid over the fraud, and didn’t convict any of the ringleaders, the problems went unaddressed, and the root causes never got fixed.

In fact, the entire banking sector’s get-out-of-jail free card gives them confidence that they could commit the same crimes again, with little if any legal implications.


The decision to protect banks instead of homeowners should be laid at the feet of the president and his administration, not one man in the Justice Department. But Holder certainly carried out the policy, even if he didn’t devise it.

We’ll soon find out if Holder merely presided over DoJ in a pause between helping corporate clients at Covington & Burling. But the failure to prosecute during his time in office certainly makes it look like Holder’s sympathies were with those clients even while serving as attorney general.

 

STREET SCENE

A Clue to the Scarcity of Financial Crisis Prosecutions

 

Eric Holder, the former United States attorney general, in 2015. Mr. Holder said in May that the Justice Department did not charge specific individuals after the 2008 financial crisis because it “simply did not have the proof.”

By William D. Cohan

One of the enduring mysteries of the 2008 financial crisis has been why the Justice Department made so few attempts to prosecute the individuals responsible for it, given the abundance of tangible evidence of wrongdoing by Wall Street bankers, traders and executives in the years leading up to the great unwinding.


Yes, the United States attorney in the Eastern District of New York tried, and failed, to prosecute the Bear Stearns executives who were responsible for the two hedge funds that collapsed in July 2007. And yes, in November 2013, Kareem Serageldin, a former senior trader at Credit Suisse, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for inflating the value of mortgage bonds in his trading portfolio, allowing them to appear more valuable than they really were in hopes of receiving a bigger bonus. (Mr. Serageldin was released from prison in March.) But that is pretty much it. The Justice Department’s main accomplishment was extracting $200 billion in civil fines and penalties from a variety of financial institutions in exchange for releasing them from the threat of future prosecutions.

We might never know why Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general, chose to let Wall Street off the hook with just a proverbial slap on the wrist. After six years as attorney general and a short break after leaving government last year, he recently rejoined his old Wall Street law firm, Covington & Burling, in Washington as a partner focused on litigation, complex investigations and regulatory matters.

Mr. Holder does not give many interviews. He declined Gretchen Morgenson’s request last week to discuss his logic for not prosecuting the giant British bank HSBC for money laundering, despite the recommendations of his staff to do so. But in late May, Mr. Holder sat down with David Axelrod, who was the chief strategist for Barack Obama’s two presidential campaigns, for an hourlong conversation on Mr. Axelrod’s “The Axe Files” podcast. Toward the end of the conversation, Mr. Axelrod, a friendly interviewer for sure, asked Mr. Holder about the elephant in the room: Why were so few Wall Street bankers, traders and executives held accountable for the 2008 financial crisis, compared to the many individuals who were sent to jail for their roles in the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s?

“There is a fundamental question people have to ask themselves,” Mr. Holder responded. “Do you actually think that if we could have brought these cases, we would not have?” That’s the party line, of course.

He then added that Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in the Southern District of New York, and Loretta Lynch, Mr. Holder’s successor as attorney general and a former federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, would have brought cases against Wall Street if they could have. They didn’t, he said, because “we have a responsibility in the Justice Department to only bring those cases where we think we have a better than 50 percent chance of winning, and if you look at the different ways in which decision-making was made in these financial institutions, we simply didn’t have the ability to point to specific individuals to say that person was responsible for this specific action. We simply did not have the proof. If we could have made these cases, we certainly would have brought them.” He said that he, too, was “frustrated” by the lack of prosecutions of individual wrongdoing, but he did seem to take pride in the “record-breaking” amount of money collected from the banks in the form of civil penalties.

· Unlock more free articles.

Create an account or log in

But forcing big banks to hand over their shareholders’ money in exchange for burying forever the evidence of wrongdoing is not nearly the same as holding people accountable for their behavior.

Leaving aside for the moment the long list of Wall Street whistle-blowers — among them Richard M. Bowen III at Citigroup, Alayne Fleischmann at JPMorgan Chase, Michael Winston at Countrywide Financial and Peter Sivere at Barclays Capital — who tried to interest law enforcement officials in what they had witnessed at their companies (instead, each of them was fired), there may be another reason the Justice Department has proved to be less than vigilant in its sworn duty to prosecute Wall Street wrongdoing. It has more to do with legal arcana than with a supposed lack of evidence: The Justice Department was afraid that it was misapplying the law — the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, known as Firrea — used to force Wall Street into financial settlements.

That law gives the government wide latitude to bring civil fraud cases against federally insured depository institutions and has lower burdens of proof than those found in criminal business fraud statutes. Importantly, it also has a 10-year statute of limitations, allowing the government more time to bring a case, or to threaten to bring a case. And since the investigations into Wall Street wrongdoing got such a late start — they really got going in 2012, about four years after the start of the crisis — the 10-year statute of limitations proved to be an effective weapon to get the big banks to settle. Bank after bank capitulated.

But one bank tried to fight, arguing in part that the law had been misapplied. In October 2013, a jury found that Countrywide Financial, by then a subsidiary of Bank of America, had sold about 17,000 shoddy mortgages in 2008 to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a short-lived program known colloquially as the “hustle.” In July 2014, after the jury’s decision, federal Judge Jed Rakoff imposed a $1.27 billion penalty on Bank of America.

“While the process lasted only nine months,” Judge Rakoff wrote in his decision, “it was from start to finish the vehicle for a brazen fraud by the defendants, driven by a hunger for profits and oblivious to the harms thereby visited, not just on the immediate victims but also on the financial system as a whole.”

Bank of America appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The bank argued that Judge Rakoff — long known for his tough stance against big Wall Street banks — was unfairly biased against it, that it was unable to present “a meaningful defense” and that “from beginning to end, what took place in this case was not only unfair, but utterly unprecedented.” In a brief filed in support of Bank of America, lawyers at WilmerHale, on behalf of four powerful organizations — the Clearing House Association, American Bankers Association, Financial Services Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce of the United States — argued instead that the very use of Firrea to go after Bank of America in the “hustle” case was the problem because that law was intended to protect a bank from the harm of others, not from itself.

The appeal was the first of a case that relied upon Firrea, so the Second Circuit’s ruling was watched carefully. If it were overturned, that could mean the end of using Firrea as a cudgel to get banks to pay in the remaining 175 or so civil lawsuits still pending against Wall Street.

On May 23, the Second Circuit threw out the verdict against Bank of America and vacated the penalty against it. In its opinion, the court decided not to address the specific issue of the use of Firrea against Bank of America because the bank had “persuaded” the court that the government had not proved that Bank of America violated the law in the first place.

But that the Second Circuit reversed the decision deeply troubles Mr. Bowen, the Citigroup whistle-blower, who was fired from his Wall Street job after alerting his bosses to wrongdoing at the bank and whose pleas for justice have continued to go unheeded.

“Bottom line,” he wrote me in an email from Dallas, where he is a senior lecturer in accounting at the University of Texas campus there, “the D.O.J. could not stand the embarrassment of pursuing prosecutions, only to then have the courts throw out those convictions because the D.O.J. had no legal grounds to pursue them under Firrea. That would be the ultimate proof of the D.O.J.’s incompetence and the reason they have not pursued prosecutions despite the evidence.”

The mystery continues.

William D. Cohan is a former senior mergers and acquisitions banker who has written three books about Wall Street. His latest book is “The Price of Silence: The Duke Lacrosse Scandal, the Power of the Elite, and the Corruption of Our Great Universities.”

 

by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum
Co-published with The Capitol Forum

Saying they were “deeply troubled by recent reports” that JPMorgan Chase has “renewed its predatory practice of robo-signing,” six Senate Democrats on Monday asked Jamie Dimon, the company’s CEO, to provide “detailed information regarding the bank’s credit card debt collection practices.”

The letter, signed by five members of the Senate Banking Committee and its chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, cited an article by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum that revealed how Chase had launched an ongoing lawsuit blitz against indebted credit card customers when the pandemic began battering the economy in early 2020.

Chase had stopped pursuing credit card lawsuits nearly a decade ago when regulators found that the bank’s legal paperwork was often faulty. Back then, Chase lawsuits did not include extensive billing records; they typically contained a two-page affidavit signed by a Chase employee who swore that the bank records were reliable.

Chase employees signed affidavits “without personal knowledge of the signer, a practice commonly referred to as ‘robo-signing,’” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concluded in a consent order with Chase in 2015. Nearly 10% of lawsuits Chase won were for inflated totals and “contained erroneous amounts,” the CFPB found. Chase neither admitted nor denied the CFPB’s findings at the time, but agreed to provide “relevant information and documentation” in future suits.

When key terms of the CFPB settlement expired on New Year’s Day in 2020, Chase returned to suing credit card borrowers much as it did before, according to consumer lawyers and legal records.

“Chase should not utilize robo-signing in pursuing these debt collection suits, or any other debt,” according to the lawmakers’ letter. The letter asked Dimon to lay out the steps the company takes to verify the accuracy of its lawsuit claims. “How does Chase quality check the affidavits?” the lawmakers asked. “Do these employees have personal knowledge of the case?”

The letter also requested that Dimon provide details about the company’s credit card suits and their outcomes, and it inquired about Chase’s past promises to grant hardship exemptions to customers during the pandemic. Finally, the letter noted the “extensive evidence about racial disparities in debt collection” and asked what measures Chase has in place to make sure its debt collection practices don’t create these gaps.

Chase did not immediately reply to a request for comment. But in a statement for the earlier article by ProPublica and The Capitol Forum, Chase said its current system for processing credit card lawsuits is sound and reliable. “We quality-check 100% of our affidavits today,” the bank said. And, Chase said, “we continue to meet the requirements of the consent order.”


Chase declined to say how many suits it has filed in its blitz of the past two years, but civil dockets from across the country give a hint of the scale — and its accelerating pace. The company sued more than 800 credit card customers around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, last year after suing 70 in 2020 and none in 2019, according to a review of court records. In Houston, Chase filed more than 1,000 consumer debt lawsuits last year after filing only seven in 2020. Before the CFPB settlement, roughly half a dozen Chase employees, working from a single San Antonio office, signed hundreds of thousands affidavits. Today, Chase has about a dozen employees mass-producing affidavits from the same office using some of the same methods as in the past, according to Chase employees and outside lawyers who have represented the company.

The lawmakers asked Dimon to respond to their letter by Feb. 21.