Showing posts with label holder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label holder. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

eric (THE RED) holder ADMITS SOME BANKS 'TOO BIG TO JAIL'





http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/holder-admits-some-banks-too-big-to-jail/



  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
More than three months after the Justice Department administered a virtual slap on the wrist to global banking giant HSBC after a whistleblower’s report to WND of massive fraud was confirmed, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted to a Senate panel he believes some banks are too big to prosecute.
Under questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Wednesday, Holder said he was not referring specifically to HSBC, because it would not be “appropriate,” but the message was clear.
Banks the size of HSBC are “too big to jail,” as a member of the Senate panel put it.
“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large,” the attorney general confessed, “that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.
“And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large,” said Holder.
Significantly, the HSBC settlement with the Justice Department allowed all bank officers and directors who may have been aware of or participated in the illegal activities to be free of criminal investigation and prosecution in exchange for HSBC agreeing to pay the $1.92 billion fine.
Whistleblowers in India and London joined Cruz in charging the HSBC settlement amounts to a massive “cover up.” Avoiding criminal investigation and prosecution, they said, allows not only HSBC bank officers and directors to avoid further public scrutiny but also any government officials who may have turned a blind eye to HSBC improprieties.
At the Senate hearing last week, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Holder to explain why federal and state authorities decided not to indict HSBC after it admitted funneling cash to Mexican drug cartels, helping rogue regimes avoid sanctions and assisting Saudi banks tied to terrorism.
The senator said, “I’m concerned that we have a mentality of too-big-to-jail in the financial sector of spreading from fraud cases to terrorist financing and money laundering cases – and I cite HSBC.”
Holder replied: “The concern that you have raised is one that I, frankly, share.”
However, Holder said he was not specifically referring to HSBC, because it would not be “appropriate.”
“Again, I’m not talking about HSBC,” he said. “This is just a – a more general comment. I think it has an inhibiting influence – impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate. And I think that is something that we – you all need to – need to consider. So the concern that you raised is actually one that I share.”
Cruz has insisted to WND that it is impossible to believe HSBC laundered billions of dollars in Mexican drug cartel money, worked with terrorists through affiliate banking operations in Saudi Arabia and circumvented Obama administration banking sanctions against Iran – all activities specifically charged by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations – without the knowledge and perhaps complicity of U.S. government officials in the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the CIA and the NSA in an era in which government officials are capable of reading the emails of ordinary citizens.
In response to WND’s reporting earlier this year of Cruz’s evidence, HSBC lodged a complaint that blocked Internet access to one of the WND stories, and senior reporter Jerome Corsi was fired by the New York City investment firm he had worked with for two years as a senior managing director,Gilford Securities.
In June, WND reportedevidence Holder’s Justice Department has not investigated money-laundering charges in deference to bank clients of his Washington-based law firm, where Holder was a partner prior to joining the Obama administration.
WND reported in October HSBC was engaged in a systematic scheme to defraud citizens of India who live abroad out of billion of dollars in investment accounts, according to an Indian source who provided evidence.
Not his job
Commenting on Holder’s testimony last Wednesday, New York Times Editorial Page Editor Juliet Lapidos wrote on his blog: “It’s nice and all that Mr. Holder cares about the stability of the global financial system, but that is not Mr. Holder’s job. As attorney general he is the country’s top law enforcement officer, and in that capacity he should prosecute criminals and criminal institutions.”
Lapidos noted a New York Times editorial after the Justice Department decided not to indict HSBC in December that said “when prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished.”
“The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost,” the paper said.
Freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., weighed in on the issue at a Senate hearing Thursday, asking federal regulators with the Treasury Department why they are not stopping banks from allowing money laundering.
The regulators placed the blame on Holder’s Justice Department, insisting they could do nothing unless Justice brought a criminal case and secured a conviction.
See WND’s two-part interview with John Cruz:
Part I

Friday, March 8, 2013

PRUDEN: The tall talker and the old geezers

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/pruden-the-tall-talker-and-the-old-geezers/


PRUDEN: The tall talker and the old geezers
-
The Washington Times
Friday, March 8, 2013
·        John Brennan
John Brennan more >
·        Udi's Gluten Free BreadTry the #1 Best Selling Gluten-Free Bread. Print a $1 off CouponNow.UdisGlutenFree.com/Coupon
STORY TOPICS
·        Politics
·        John Brennan
·        Rand Paul
·        John Mccain
·        U.S. Government
FOLLOW US ON
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Top of Form
· 
·  Yes

· 
·  No

· 
·  Undecided

· 
·  Other
Bottom of Form
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Talking is the national sport in Washington. For the old geezers in Congress, it’s more fun than watching baseball, complaining about the weather or remembering sex.
Nobody drones on like a U.S. senator and nobody loves the sound of his raspy voice like a U.S. senator. Rand Paul, the freshman from Kentucky who stars in the bad dreams of every Republican geezer in town, talked for almost 13 hours on the Senate floor this week to delay a confirmation vote on John O. Brennan as director of the CIA, and earned only the scorn of the geezers.
Mr. Paul’s remarks occasionally strayed a few degrees over the top (enough of the “Hitler” comparisons), decrying the prospect of using drones against American citizens in America, but he strayed no further over the top than almost any congressman on almost any day on Capitol Hill. Mr. Paul argued at length (though not at record length) that assassinating an American, even an evil terrorist with an U.S. passport, deprives him of the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
Challenging President Obama on anything will earn anybody the sneers and scorn of Democratic senators, but some of the Republican geezers joined the din of disdain, mostly about the temerity of a freshman senator talking when he should be listening to a housebroken geezer talk. It’s not the sharks who trouble the waters in Washington, but the minnows who nibble good men to death.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona rebuked the filibusterer just as he was sitting down, and just after Mr. McCain and a few of his Senate pals emerged from a cozy dinner with President Obama in the glow of fine wine and the warmth of a full belly of beef. Mr. McCain had a little patronizing advice for his talkative colleague: “Calm down, senator, the U.S. government cannot randomly target U.S. citizens.”
The presidential loser of 2008 sent further advice on how to win friends and influence voters: “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids. I don’t think what happened is helpful to the American people.”
Nobody expected Mr. Paul’s filibuster to stop the confirmation of John Brennan, the senator himself least of all, but he set out to sound an “alarm” about the use of drones in what he calls the threat to Americans by their own government. He had written to the White House to inquire whether the government could order a drone strike against an American on American soil, and Attorney Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. replied with reassurance that does not necessarily reassure. He said drones are limited to killing in conflict zones in Pakistan and Yemen, and the government has “no intention” to bomb any place specific.
So far the argument is about drones and the word “random.” How vague can the word “random” be? The U.S. government can, and already has, targeted American citizens without due process. The government had no drones at Ruby Ridge, where government agents targeted and killed a teenage American boy, and had no drones at Waco, where government agents set fire to a religious compound and 76 men, women and children burned alive, Americans all.
The government’s record is not a good one. The government’s “intentions” can change, and “random” is a word even a jackleg lawyer could parse far into the next decade. It’s just not cricket to say so, and a geezer never would.
The confirmation hearings of John Brennan and Chuck Hagel reveal a lot about how Washington works, how weak and well-meaning geezers can conflate the good of the country with the good of their own biases. Mr. McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took Mr. Hagel apart at his confirmation hearing, leaving him humiliated as few nominees have been humiliated. But when crunch time came, they fell into line, voting to confirm him despite all the flags they raised at his hearing, as if to say, “just kidding, guys.”
Mr. Brennan escaped close scrutiny over his role in the fiasco at Benghazi, where four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya, died because the Obama White House could not or would not send the help the ambassador begged for — not even a drone.
The geezers know better, but it’s easier, quieter, and more refined to do nothing. When Mr. Paul, over the top or not, stood up to demand answers to some of the questions the geezers themselves raised, he was ridiculed and told, like an irritable child, to calm down. Geezers think their role is to pour oil over troubled waters, when they should be striking a match.
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

One by one your rights are being taken away, this is one of the BIG ones



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html



Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

President Barack Obama has the authority to use an unmanned drone strike to kill US citizens on American soil, his attorney general has said.

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
Eric Holder, left, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee as Code Pink demonstrator Medea Benjamin protests against the use of drone strikes Photo: Getty Images
Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland," Mr Holder said.
His statement was described as "more than frightening" by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration's position on the subject.
"It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," said Mr Paul, a 50-year-old favourite of the anti-government Tea Party movement, who is expected to run for president in 2016.
Mr Holder wrote to Mr Paul after the senator threatened to block the appointment of John Brennan as the director of the CIA unless he received answers to a series of questions on its activities.
Mr Paul on Wednesday evening took to the floor of the Senate to launch an old-fashioned filibuster in an effort to delay a vote on the approval of Mr Brennan for CIA director. “I won’t be able to speak forever, but I’m going to speak as long as I can,” he said, before embarking on several hours of criticism of Mr Obama's compliance with the US constitution.
Mr Obama has been sharply criticised for the secrecy surrounding his extension of America's "targeted killing" campaign against al-Qaeda terrorist suspects using missile strikes by unmanned drones.
The secret campaign has killed an estimated 4,700 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. A quarter are estimated to have been civilians prompting anger among human rights campaigners.
According to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone strikes killed between 474 and 881 civilians – including 176 children – in Pakistan between 2004 and last year.
Criticism within the US has focused on the implications for terror suspects who are also US citizens, after Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric born and educated in the US, was killed in Yemen in 2011.
The administration claims it has the legal authority to assassinate Americans provided that they are a senior al-Qaeda operative posing an imminent threat and it would be "infeasible" to capture them.
This justification emerged only last month in a leaked memo from Mr Holder's department of justice. Mr Obama this week agreed to give Congress his full set of classified legal memos on the targeting of Americans.
Civil liberties campaigners accuse the president and his aides of awarding themselves sweeping powers to deny Americans their constitutional rights without oversight from Congress or the judiciary.
Mr Holder stressed in his letter that the prospect of a president considering the assassination of an American citizen on US soil was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur".
Yet "it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorise the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," he wrote.
Appearing in front the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, Mr Holder reiterated that "the government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States".
Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, told him his reference to "extraordinary circumstances" such as September 11 or the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour were "extremely concerning".
"It is imperative that we understand the operational boundaries for use of such force," Mr Grassley said. "American citizens have a right to understand when their life can be taken by their government absent due process."
Daphne Eviatar, a senior counsel at Human Rights First, said: “It’s hard to see how authorities could not be in a position to arrest someone yet be able to kill them.
“The administration should publish all its legal memos on targeted killing. Classified information can be redacted if necessary. There is no reason for legal opinions justifying ongoing US programmes to be kept secret.”
Share
8K
Facebook
8K
Twitter
729
LinkedIn
8