All the Plenary’s Men – Video

for all the talk about an oligarchy running America there's hardly a damn thing known about how it actually operates it's not like you can open a civics textbook and see the chain of command what you get instead are sermons about how the corporate elite or the New World Order is running things through the corpse of democracy that all may be true but it's about as actionable as a nursery rhyme what you don't see is hard evidence the cabinet members carried out treasonous orders from overseas to help a criminal cartel wage an all-out war on Americans but every once in a while yeah in late 2012 the US Justice Department stunned the world by settling its huge criminal money-laundering case against British bank HSBC for a fine in the four years since the financial crisis had hit the DOJ had never prosecuted a too-big-to-fail bank always claiming there wasn't enough evidence to prove criminal guilt with HSBC though the DOJ finally had a big bank by the balls prosecutors had obtained a confession the same holy grail of evidence that is punch Bernie Madoff ticket to federal prison four years earlier HSBC and admitted its guilt to the four account information filed today which sets forth two violations of the Bank Secrecy Act a violation of the international emergency economic Powers Act or IEEPA and a violation of the trading with the enemy Act instead of winning the biggest criminal trial in US history though the DOJ balked when asked why later that day Lanny Breuer the head of the criminal division unveiled a brand-new excuse having nothing to do with the law we don't want to make a decision that is going to have all kinds of horrible collateral consequences when the DOJ used the same excuse again one week later in a second case of uncontested crimes Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that the DOJ had been assessing collateral consequences all along let's be honest yeah I mean that's a factor I'm not talking about just this case but in others that we have resolved the impact on the stability of the financial markets around the world is something that we take into consideration we thought we reach out to experts outside of the Justice Department to talk about what are the consequences of actions that we might take by announcing that big banks get special dispensations which are never extended to people or their businesses the Justice Department openly repudiated the rule of law which had stood for centuries without challenge the principle that no one is above the law's authority or beneath its protection had driven debates about the laws application for generations it was never perfectly executed of course but the ideal of laws the supreme authority applied equally to everyone had time and again proved more powerful than mortal forces it had always stood as America's undisputed king even when the consequences of equal enforcement included the risk of tearing the country apart until the hsbc case that is where the DOJ had once summoned the rule of law to throw fire hoses off children it now resurrected separate but equal only without the equal part all because anonymous astrologers had adumbrated doom though these prophecies had failed to make the cut as fortune cookies for lack of detail the DOJ found them so compelling that it flushed several centuries of anglo-american legal precedent down the toilet in a photo op in response the media set a new low standard for itself and then failed to achieve it by ducking the most obvious questions first who are these so-called collateral consequences experts vested as they are with the power of Absolution this question was addressed at length by the veneer of justice in a kingdom of crime where we found that the crimes of Goldman Sachs had been absolved by Goldman Sachs second as to HSBC why weren't its ex bankers ever indicted after all collateral consequences doesn't apply to individuals only to corporations lanny breuer moreover confirmed that every hsbc executive who'd been legally responsible for the bank's crimes had been fired there by sterilizing hsbc from the effects of their prosecutions the most senior people at HSBC I should say none of them none of them who were involved in the underlying conduct is still at HSBC now the failure to indict any ex bankers is conclusive proof to collateral consequences like the DL J's prior excuse about insufficient evidence is a false cover story something stopped the prosecutions of ex HSBC bankers and it wasn't collateral consequences and it wasn't the law what was it this remained a mystery until the House Financial Services Committee released a report in July of 2016 following a three-year investigation of the DOJ s failure to prosecute Wall Street not only do the reports exhibits answer the HSBC question they answer the much bigger question of why the DOJ doesn't prosecute any too big to fail banks as it turns out the problem with answering the 64 trillion dollar question is the question itself Goldman made false and misleading representations and its mortgage-backed securities false and misleading that's fraud who commits FRA crooks is anyone at Goldman Sachs going to jail finish no why does this keep happening as we shall see that question puts the cart before the horse the first question is what keeps happening once that's answered the why is easy what keeps happening is the cabinet members including the Attorney General enforce foreign legal immunities instead of US law so that a global banking cartel can commit crimes on American soil without restraint these immunities come from the Bank for International Settlements in Basel Switzerland where a list of cartel members has been kept for over five years prosecutors were actually planning to indict HSBC when a mole inside the Justice Department tipped off the cartel which dispatched the US Treasury Secretary to the DOJ with a stand down order the resulting deferred prosecution agreement contains four bis immunities including one that specifically shields Ex bankers when we ask what keeps happening to bank prosecutions bees immunities are the answer and they not only ripen the question of why they answer it prosecutions are toothless because high-ranking government officials have extracted a nation's teeth with these amenities all of which contradict US law while most of this is lost on the house its criminal charges against the DOJ and the Treasury for covering up their acts in the HSBC case are a hundred percent correct but any notion that the new presidential administration won't continue the crimes of the last one is dead wrong you're going to spot them and you're going to hear them up in July of 2016 the House Financial Services Committee released a report running 33 pages in over 200 pages of exhibits the report chronicles the DOJ settlement of money-laundering charges against HSBC from 1.9 to billion dollars despite the bank's case-dispositive admissions of guilt no individual was ever prosecuted nor was the bank itself the report explains a Justice Department prosecutors had actually planned to indict HSBC but that Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer interceded on the bank's behalf in an internal meeting on September 4 2012 the prosecutors shared their plan to indict HSBC with other government agencies remarkably one of these agencies the financial services authority was from the United Kingdom the FSA alerted UK Treasury Chancellor George Osborne who promptly sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on September 10th the letter warned Chairman Bernanke and secretary Geithner to prosecuting a systemically important financial institutions such as HSBC could lead to contagion and pose very serious implications for financial and economic stability particularly in Europe and Asia two months later Brewer and holder met personally with HSBC and offered the Bank a deferred prosecution agreement the DPA reflected their decision to abandon all plans of indictment the House report concludes that the FSA s intervention in the HSBC enforcement matter appears to have played a significant role in ultimately persuading DOJ not to prosecute HSBC while that limited conclusion is correct the house is breathtaking lack of curiosity about various anomalies in the exhibits crippled its broader investigation the report observes for instance that the UK FSA was being particularly problematic on enforcement and adopting a light touch approach in industries request but the house number wants questions what British officials were doing in American law enforcement meetings to begin with as revealed by another exhibit HSBC status as a large British bank fails to explain why the FSA was in attendance the FSA has been on all of the recent interagency calls regarding HSBC it has not been on any interagency calls regarding SCB because the prosecutors have opposed its participation Standard Chartered Bank like HSBC is a huge British financial institution and yet this wasn't enough for the FSA to get in the side American law enforcement meetings about SC be something other than size and nationality allow the FSA to monitor the do J's internal meetings about HSBC but what this sales right by the house likewise the DOJ agreed to significant alterations to the deferred prosecution agreements terms during the negotiations with HSBC that took place between November 14th and December 11th but the house never explains why the DOJ caved in the DOJ s concessions were huge and included insulating HSBC and its employees officers and directors from prosecution and allowing executives to get their bonuses despite failing to meet compliance standards while the house right Police says the FSA played a role in the DOJ is refusal to prosecute the bank it never explains what that role was or its connection to specific modifications of the settlement agreement it was the FSA after all the prompted Chancellor George Osborne to send a letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury secretary Geithner warning of possible financial calamity if DOJ were to prosecute HSBC the very same excuse the doj used months later when rationalizing its refusal to indict worst of all the house quotes extensively from Osborne's letter without ever understanding its very essence George Osborne wasn't offering friendly advice about HSBC he was ordering Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner to intercede on its behalf as he was doing himself every one of the DOJ s concessions to HSBC in the final settlement agreement comes from that order bernd dilly-dally before communicating both a threat and a ransom on page 2 for a systemic liam portent financial institution this could lead to contagion contagion Azaz burns threat for prosecuting hsbc to emphasize his threat he claims he doesn't want to overstate it and then repeats the threat not once but three separate times with unintended consequences potential market stability risks and very serious implications for financial and economic stability for his ransom Osborn cleverly avoids the word ransom and uses next steps instead in a bold-faced header he then announces apropos of nothing but his own duplicity that it's not his intention to interfere in the HSBC case as a display of chumminess he warmly recalls the good old days of anglo-american teamwork in Iran and Syria it is here though the George Osborne's ham-fisted verbosity is cleaved by very sharp contrast with a legal masterpiece of brevity and subtlety the barrister who actually wrote the next two sentences all but draped his wig over them note how they parallel each other across the Atlantic and begin with the air of command it is for you and your partners in other departments and agencies to decide how best to supervise regulate and enforce compliance within your jurisdiction by itself the first sentence conveys next to nothing that's because our barrister left its two key terms compliance and jurisdiction open to interpretation jurisdiction is the official power to make legal decisions or judgments but comes in many stripes the question is always what it is that best a decision-maker with the power to decide territorial jurisdiction for example is decision-making power that's limited by location and is what most people associate with jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction is the power to decide a case based on its nature or type in personam jurisdiction is the power to decide based on the common geographical region of the parties and the decision-maker the first sentence doesn't indicate what Bernanke and Geithner's jurist is based on it's worth noting here that our barrister declined to say within the US which is not only shorter than within your jurisdiction but unambiguous as well from this we may surmise that within your jurisdiction means something other than within the US the term compliance is likewise vague since we don't know what must be complied with once again the first sentence simply doesn't say these are virtues and not vices however our barrister put the cues for interpretation in the second sentence where he resolves both terms definitively this ensured consistency on both sides of the Atlantic and ultimately minimizes verbiage the second sentence tells us that a dare Turner Mervyn King and George Osborne must ensure that UK financial institutions are fully compliant with global standards and rules compliance thus means compliant with global standards and rules will identify these rules in due course for now it's worth noting the highly curious claim the British officials must enforce global rules rather than British ones notable as well is the invocation of three British officials rather than two as the head of the UK's Exchequer Osborne was the equivalent of US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner Mervyn King was the head of the Bank of England and thus the equivalent of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Adair Turner is the odd man out seemingly Turner was the head of the Financial Services Authority which had been monitoring to do Jay's meetings about HSBC as for jurisdiction the allocation of decision-making authority is an eye-opener it is not based on where a bank operates instead since Turner King and Osborne ensure the full compliance of UK financial institutions jurisdiction is based on a banks nationality what Bernanke and Geithner are being told is that the enforcement of global rules in the HSBC case is for Turner King and Osborne to decide the parallel power of Bernanke and Geithner to decide on how to enforce global rules extends only to American banks when it comes to enforcing global rules whatever the DOJ does with HSBC puts the money-laundering case in Brooklyn under British jurisdiction thus our surmise that within your jurisdiction does not mean within the US was indeed correct the next question of course is what global rules operon is referring to and that in turn depends on which global rulemaking entity he's referring to it's almost certain that Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly which entity he meant based simply on the five names mentioned but George Osborne's fists of ham bludgeoned them with the dead giveaway just in case the giveaway is the phrase systemically important financial institutions less than a year before Osborne's letter the Financial Stability Board in the Bank for International Settlements published for the first time a list of banks under this exact rubric and was the only global entity to use this phrase the list is a who's who of the biggest bailout recipients from the 2008 meltdown and formally identifies the global banking cartel under the FSB s protection HSBC appeared on the 2011 list Standard Chartered Bank notably did not the FSB also maintains a membership list it's anglo-american members separately confirmed that Osborne was referring to the Financial Stability Board Turner king and Osborne account for the entire UK delegation Bernanke and Geithner for an American majority DFS b's mandate moreover describes the function of Osborne's letter to perfection like the FSB s mandate Osborne's letter assesses vulnerabilities affecting the global financial system and identifies and reviews the regulatory supervisory and related actions needed to address them including the outcomes of those actions George Osborne was supervising the outcome of the HSBC case which he did by ordering Bernanke and Geithner to enforce global standards and rules this is what the FSB is really all about using global rules to supersede national laws Osmonds letter is a prime example even though he's writing under crown letterhead provided by British taxpayers Osborne doesn't even mention bird claiming instead that he and other British officials must enforce global standards and rules as for why global rules enforcement fell to British and non-american government officials the 2012 annual report of the BIS notes that the FSB has a standing committee on supervisory and regulatory cooperation chaired by Adair Turner chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority cooperation is an FSB Orwellian ISM as we shall see for using coercion if necessary to enforce its will but in any case the FSA's function is the financial stability boards cooperation supervisor explains why British officials were monitoring internal DOJ meetings about HSBC which was a cartel member but not Standard Chartered Bank which in 2012 was not at bottom George Osborne's letter carried both the authority and jurisdiction to decide how to enforce the FS B's mandate on these grounds this letter is unmistakably ordering American FSB members who had neither Authority nor jurisdiction to enforce the FSB so-called global standards and rules in the HSBC case this not only stopped American prosecutors in their tracks it led to every concession the DOJ granted to HSBC in the final settlement agreement – before highlighting the FS B's rules throughout that agreement a few words about the FSB itself or an order first George Osborne is just one of many cabinet-level officials who can be tasked with carrying out the FSB s mandate of fixing outcomes responsibility for these orders lies first with the standing committees and ultimately with the head of the FSB on this score the FSB was chaired until November of 2011 by Mario Draghi and has been shared by Mark Carney ever since both men are former Goldman Sachs executives Carney was chairman of the FSB when Osborne sent a letter that led to the DOJ z' decision not to prosecute HSBC that was more than half a year before he joined the Bank of England as its governor as governor Carney was asked by Parliament in 2016 if he and Osman had discussed the HSBC case before the DOJ decided not to prosecute in 2012 there are three possible answers to Andrew Tyrese yes no question yes no and I don't recall no and I don't recall or easy and harmless to yes is easy as well but yes would mean that Carney discussed HSBC with Osborne in its capacity as head of the Financial Stability Board not the Bank of England which he would join until the following year tellingly Carney chooses door number four which is he basis babbling it seemed included there was some kind of indication what are you wearing it did the chance to discuss this with respect to I know I'm not aware of I mean we have discussions with when trustees in general terms this person well we have a drubbing spoke on specific what I want to know is have you discussed this case with the Chancellor's inspection prior to the decision being taken by the attorney the specific case prior on which decision is that we discussed when a decision being taken not prosecuted HSBC Carney never does say whether or not he and Osborne discussed the case before the DOJ decided not to indict testifying only that they didn't discuss meddling in the case a qualifier so elastic that this testimony is meaningless what Carney undoubtedly wants to know from counsel is whether he can avoid answering yes to the unqualified question on grounds that when he did discuss the HSBC case Carney wasn't yet the Bank of England's governor in which capacity he's now offering his testimony not getting the answer he wants Carney tries his first ruse again of testifying in general terms but doesn't repeat his earlier mistake of telling Tyree that this is his strategy he thus succeeds in deceiving Parliament on two key points from my perspective my experience the judgments of the Department of Justice and other US judicial authorities and there are many they are black box black boxes they make their decisions based on their information we will have and the Bank of England and the PRA we will have discussions on their request with UX Financial Stability authorities in general terms about some of these issues Carney's testimony that the Department of Justice's the black box sealed off from outside influence is both false and deceptive what Carney fails to mention is that FSB representatives were inside that black box the entire time not only threatening the destruction of both hemispheres over indictment but relaying internal DOJ Intel back to the FSB which succeeded in getting the DOJ to abandon its prosecution plans once that happened in fact George Osborne couldn't even wait three weeks to announce that none other than Mark Carney would become in July of the following year the first non-british governor of the Bank of England in its 318 year history Carney's testimony that the DOJ makes decisions in a black box is simply ludicrous so is his testimony that American authorities initiate discussions with British officials it was George Osborne who wrote to Geithner in Bern a key not the other way around an FSB chairman Mark Carney damn well knew it indeed the FSB set up its initiative on cooperation and information exchange so it can reach out to national authorities for Intel and bring non-compliant countries to heel the so-called information exchange in fact is openly regarded as a tool of coercion even by one of the FSB s most notorious members when the International Monetary Fund was invited for FSB membership it was this information exchange that made the IMF hesitate over full participation the IMF itself put it this way of particular concern was that it contemplates the imposition of coercive measures in certain circumstances against jurisdictions that are found to be taking insufficient action to bring their frameworks for financial regulation into line with international standards this is simply astonishing as the IMF s own history of shaking down non-compliant countries on behalf of private bankers is very well documented for it to be given pause by the coerciveness of the FSB thus reveals far more about the FSB than it does about the IMF the IMS reaction is no different than mobsters glancing over the compliance methods of a colleague [Music] for those countries found to be non-compliant one can only wonder what actually goes on when the FSB hurts on website enters into a confidential dialogue with the government authorities concerned in order to further evaluate their compliance and improve their adherence to standards this brings up the one thing that makes the FSB uniquely dangerous among global entities and that's its mix of high-ranking government officials with cartel bank executives not only do the plenary chairman come from goldman sachs the FSB charter expressly allows the chairman and no one else to invite representatives of the private sector to plenary meetings which are closed to the public and have no published transcripts or minutes by having cabinet-level officials answer to former goldman sachs executives and their friends in secret meetings the FSB provides perfect cover for the criminal banking cartel to control Western governments under the amorphous heading of financial stability Osborne's letter demonstrates only in part how the chain of command works a 2013 Senate hearing and a 2014 New York Times Magazine article suffice for the rest three months after the HSBC case settled the Senate wanted to know if the DOJ had sought Treasury's advice about the projected economic impact of indicted HSBC speaking to David Cohen its Under Secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence who've been involved in the HSBC case Treasury said that while the DOJ had in fact sought such an assessment Treasury had refused to provide one answer when the Justice Department is making the decision about whether or not to make a criminal prosecution do they ask you about the impact on the economy for one of these large banks so I can't speak to every instance whether that occurs that did occur in the HSBC matter we told the Justice Department's that we weren't in a position to offer any meaningful assessment of what the impact might be of whatever in criminal disposition they may take senator Warren is was stupefied by Cohen's disclosure that the DOJ even requested such an assessment did she interrupts him to make sure she heard his testimony correctly I want to make sure I understand what you just said the Justice Department in making its decision whether or not to pursue a criminal prosecution checked with the Department of Treasury to determine your views on whether or not there would be a significant economic impact if a large Bank were prosecuted is that what you just said cohen confirms that the DOJ did in fact request an assessment he then puts on a short clinic of cya disclaimers before confirming the Treasury did not provide the DOJ with any assessment at all we were not in a position to offer any meaningful guidance Justice Department in that matter despite this testimony Pulitzer prize-winner Jesse Eisenberg one year later that someone from Treasury had in fact provided exactly such an economic impact assessment to the DOJ according to Eisinger a top Treasury Department official told brewer and carefully couch that an indictment could cause broader problems in the financial system this conflict between Treasury's Senate testimony and eisenerz revelation appeared to be irreconcilable at least it did before Osborne's letter to Bernanke and Geithner surfaced now we know that the top Treasury official was Tim Geithner only Geithner wasn't wearing his Treasury hat when he intervened with the DOJ he was wearing his stability hat instead as he carried out the order from fellow FSB member George Osborne so while Treasury's testimony that had never warned the DOJ might be technically accurate it's fundamentally false through its omission namely that the FSB member who privately warned the DOJ was at the same time holding down a government moonlighting gig as the United States Treasury secretary Geithner's behind-the-scenes swap of his public hat for his cartel hat works in Reverse – as we saw from Carney's testimony before Parliament and Osborne's letter under British letterhead FSB members are nothing if not adept flashing the right badge at the right time to conceal the criminal cartels hands on the very levers of government cartel minions unlike members have only one had to hide their deceptions which makes them easier to spot Brewer survey of Washington and London regulators and policy hands about the ramifications of an HSBC indictment for instance wasn't a survey at all it was an order from Geithner in the FSB to record a flock of parrots mimicking osmond song and dance about an indictment in Brooklyn that causes financial disasters from Munich to Beijing Brewer himself erased any doubt about this by asking rog cohen for his opinion cohen was HSBC's lead attorney on the very case at issue and couldn't possibly have been any more biased yet he's the only person named in Brewers so-called survey put in regrettably on fashionable terms the outcome of the HSBC case was dictated by the Financial Stability Board to a handful of traders who betrayed their country's trust to advance the only Allegiance they have to a global criminal banking cartel that has nothing but contempt for the nations that had systematically loots as Osborne's letter shows moreover the only thing that ever propped up the cartels claimed an indictment would cause a meltdown was a chicken little story totally devoid of evidence it's telling that Osborn didn't address Carbon Copy or even mentioned US Attorney General Eric Holder the one American cabinet member to whom his letter about a criminal prosecution should have been sent in the first place this wasn't a diplomatic gas by Her Majesty's treasurer at all it simply reflects to do J's menial status on the cartels global plantation where America's top law enforcers recite children's stories to the victimized public instead of actual facts to juries as far as what the FS B's orders were precisely its legal status as an adjunct of the Bank for International Settlements points to the BIS as the source of the global rules Osborn ordered to be enforced the IMF is again insightful when considering reopening its membership in 2013 the IMF noted that the FSB was not originally established as a legal entity and it did not have a separate legal personality thus the FSB is piggybacking on the BIS its host the IMF took special note of the FSB s motives for organising this way the FSB should adopt a gradual approach towards its institutionalization and at this stage obtained the needed immunities by operating as an association under the BIS headquarters agreement these are the immunities to DOJ extended to HSBC and are the global standards and rules that Osman was referring to in his capacity with the FSB despite contradicting US law these immunities have controlled the do J's disposition of every criminal case involving cartel members since 2011 including HSBC the first immunity is the only one the media talks about though not in that language and that's the immunity of banks as corporate entities this is why HSBC wasn't prosecuted at the company level as shown in the veneer of justice this immunity is void under US law since only the sitting president enjoys criminal immunity the second immunity concerns documents under the BIS agreement all documents in any data media belonging to the bank or in its possession shall be inviolable at all times and in all places this immunity is void under US law as well as we know from the Supreme Court's decision in United States against Nixon following the Watergate break-in the special prosecutor filed a motion for a subpoena of White House Records Nixon tried to satisfy the subpoena by picking and choosing documents so as to withhold damaging segments of audio tape recorded in his White House Office Nixon asserted executive privilege as his legal basis for this documentary immunity the Supreme Court rejected his claim of executive privilege the courts ordered to turn over the tapes in their entirety lead President Nixon to resign two weeks later and yet despite the fact that not even the US president enjoys documentary immunity this is exactly what we see enforced throughout the HSBC case the DOJ never had access to HSBC's documents because it allowed the bank to pick and choose what to disclose exactly as President Nixon had tried to do lanny breuer let this slip the very day – HSBC case settled why isn't anybody going to jail well look Eric when you look at these cases you have to look very hard at what the underlying conduct is and you have to look at how long it occurred for an institution like HSBC the real story here is that for ages maybe for decades they had no compliance program at all managers mid-level managers and others probably would tell work on the bottom line cut money wherever you can and so the institution here is really responsible what forces Brewer to invent entire conversations out of thin air was the do Jay's lack of access to the bank's internal documents by choosing not to disclose emails and other documents HSBC left lanny breuer playing blind man's bluff on national television likewise the house report complains that the DOJ decided on HSBC is fine before the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control had completed its investigation into how much tobacco while that's true the house again missed the far more disturbing fact that HSBC controlled the entire investigation by selectively disclosing documents through its attorneys from OFAC's point of view HSBC was still in the process of providing us with a list of all of the alleged violations so these moves by the other agencies seem premature that said we are working with HSBC's counsel Sullivan & Cromwell to get the information and voluntary disclosure language as quickly as possible this is corroborated by the recollection of HSBC whistleblower John Kruse who worked as a vice president at the bank for two years and witness money laundering firsthand when I gave all my documents to district attorneys they said we will like we will contact a bank and have them do an audit on your complaint what does that mean you are saying to the criminal please investigate yourself and let us know if you find out if you did anything wrong the report also shows the HSBC's control over Oh PACs investigation cap the total fine imposed at less than its full amount DOJ had in fact disseminated D settlement dollar figure to HSBC on August 24th without waiting to hear whether OPEX investigation would have resulted in HSBC having to pay a higher total amount this led oh fak employees to complain that we weren't consulted we were told what the fine would be despite the fact that we still don't have what we need from the bank including promised data on on Iranian transactions Treasury officials further confirmed that the information they did have was extremely limited because HSBC was selectively disclosing documents through its law firm Sullivan & Cromwell o FAC was not able to review a sample of a very large number of the alleged violations in the Burma context I believe approximately 700 out of about 1,100 transactions because Sullivan and Cromwell has provided only very limited information documentary immunity wasn't just enforced in HSBC but in all cartel cases the DOJ itself confirmed as much in fact years after HSBC settled fittingly it was the DOJ zom contempt he promised to enforce the law that exposed its own dereliction this occurred during a new sheriff on Wall Street speech given by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in September of 2015 and they must provide all relevant facts about their misconduct it's all or nothing no more picking and choosing what facts to disclose no more partial credit for less than full cooperation note that the DOJ self-confessed enforcement of documentary immunity again has nothing to do with any risk of financial calamity this is one of the many reasons the DOJ keeps the cartels yarn about the sky falling as far out of court as possible tellingly the DOJ zone documents about the HSBC case enjoy immunity themselves in response to a host of congressional subpoenas the Justice Department refused to turn over so much as a single email even after which charged with crimes it's criminal cover-up has continued to this day with no consequences at all likewise is the Treasury which turned over nothing but a handful of redacted documents that came from a third party lawsuit without those the HSBC report would have amounted to a few bullet points about congressional futility and maybe a cover page for all their bluster Congress members are perfectly content for the DOJ and Treasury to help the global banking cartel systematically fleece their own constituents this takes us to the third vis immunity to DOJ enforces for the cartel immunity of assets this is down in article 4.3 of the BIS headquarters agreement and reveals why the DOJ so-called fine of 1.9 billion dollars is a misnomer the immunity shields the bank's assets from execution which is simply the seizure of property by a government to collect on a judgment but there was neither judgment nor seizure in the HSBC case instead the 1.9 billion dollar figure comes from the deferred prosecution agreement between the DOJ in the bank and was negotiated and consented to by HSBC when ordinary people get fined 50 for a parking ticket they don't get to negotiate the amount down and have the government agree to less that's because ordinary people's assets aren't immune and will be seized if the fine as it paid but HSBC is special and enjoys a separate and higher legal status its assets are immune and thus the 1.9 billion dollar figure couldn't be and wasn't imposed it had to be negotiated this is why the amount was cropped below its legal limit as we already saw but the reports exhibits confirm another crucial aspect of the amount namely that it was nothing but a rote computation when British FSA officials monitoring the do Jai's meetings expressed surprised at the size of the fine their ignorance set off the rights of emails among Treasury employees the FSA they noted was quite taken aback both by the implications of a criminal plea and by the sheer amount of the proposed fines and forfeitures it seemed like it was the first time they'd taken out their calculator since cartel bank strictly control what information they disclose HSBC unilaterally set its own fee for money laundering in the US and since supporting documentation to the DOJ for relabeling as a fine again this squares with the recollection of HSBC whistleblower John Cruz well they paid a 1.9 without 1.9 billion dollar fee to pay off the government and I don't call it a fine because it was not a fine that fine I told the US government four years prior that they were going to pay that amount and I sitting in a bank accounts the DOJ has padded itself on the back over large settlements for years what it should have been asking what those numbers say about its role as both law enforcer and regulator and Nate errand boy inside closely cooks collect film the immunity of too-big-to-fail bank ATS as opposed to costs is underscored by the DOJ is agreement to remove any conditions on HSBC bonuses from its draft settlement as shown already HSBC modified the agreement to expressly allow executives to get their bonuses despite failing to meet compliance standards as the cartels errand boy the DOJ promptly entered this modification without a peep by allowing HSBC to set its own costs for money laundering and immunizing all of the bank's actual assets the DOJ granted a foreign bank legal privileges that sovereign countries don't have under the foreign Sovereign Immunities act the 4th cartel immunity enforced by the DOJ is personal immunity from prosecution this is why the DOJ refused to indict any bankers or ex bankers from HSBC as well as every other cartel member individual immunity is set forth by article 14 of the BIS headquarters agreement which shields bank employees from the government's jurisdiction by its Express terms article 14 extends immunity to employees even after they leave the bank a provision that was fully enforced in the HSBC case as we saw every high-ranking employee responsible for criminal money-laundering at HSBC had been fired under the DOJ draft agreement it was open season on them as the House report notes the original draft EPA doesn't shield any employees officers or directors who willfully processed illegal transactions a provision that would have allowed the DOJ to indict the ex bankers who perpetrated HSBC's crimes so HSBC revised the draft to comport with article 14 s immunity for ex employees under the revision everyone responsible for all criminal transactions previously disclosed by HSBC would be immune this is what prevented the DOJ from ever prosecuting the bankers or ex bankers who perpetrated HSBC's crimes once again the DOJ is collateral consequences story only explains why the DOJ didn't HSBC the corporation the very source of the DOJ is collateral consequences factor the US Attorney's manual which is a guideline rather than binding law to beginwith explains why the outcome of the HSBC case turns actual law on its head the manual correctly notes that it's legally impossible for a corporation to commit crimes unless individuals first commit crimes themselves a corporation can only act through individuals the very fact that the DOJ is even looking at collateral consequences in other words means the individuals not only committed crimes but crime serious enough to warrant the indictment of the entire company if the DOJ really cared about collateral consequences it would have prosecuted the perpetrators of HSBC s admitted crimes first and then assess the consequences of indict us b/c instead the DOJ immunized the perpetrators and the bank first and only then went picking and choosing to its attorneys manual to gloss over this perverse outcome in short the outcome of the HSBC case had nothing to do with collateral consequences and everything to do with the cartels control of the u.s. executive branch the immunity of cartel individuals of course conflicts with US law since no one is immune from prosecution with the arguable exception of the sitting president moreover we know that ex presidents unlike X cartel bankers are not immune from prosecution which is why Richard Nixon needed a pardon from President Ford once he resigned but X cartel bankers don't need presidential pardons because they're protected instead by the BIS immunity for X Bank employees and again the BIS immunity is controlled not only HSBC but every cartel case in its wake even where the DOJ appears to stray from these immunities in fact its enforcement of the cartels private legal system is stapled to the very letter first for individual immunity to apply a bank has to be a cartel member six cartel banks for example admitted to criminally rigging the LIBOR rate and paid fines ranging from 203 million to nine hundred and seventy five million dollars but the DOJ has yet to convict even a single trader from the cartel Rabobank was the seventh bank that admitted to rigging LIBOR it paid a fine of three hundred and twenty five million dollars the Rabobank is in a cartel member so it's traders lack personal immunity thus the DOJ convicted seven Rabobank traders without compunction a second requirement for individual immunity comes from the Express language of article fourteen which applies only to individuals acts that are accomplished in the discharge of their duties a banker advancing his own interests in other words and not the banks is open to indictment this explains the prosecutions of cartel bankers who engage in insider trading for their own account as well as all other acts not in the bank's interests two cases involving Goldman Sachs or illustrative sergey alain knockoff was a computer programmer who developed high-frequency trading software when he left goldman he took code with him allegedly and was instantly arrested and indicted twice though ultimately acquitted each time allen McCobb illustrates the personal immunity doesn't shield cartel bankers acting for themselves and not the bank the far more revealing case though is that of Rashad Gupta who been a director at Goldman Gupta sin was passing along confidential boardroom information about Goldman to a hedge fund that earn millions of dollars trading on his tips according to Goldman itself mr. Gupta breached his duties as a director and violated our shareholders and the firm's trust this destroyed his immunity under Article fourteen and led to his indictment what's so revealing about Gupta's case though is the evidence used to convict him Gupta had passed along tips to Raj Rajaratnam who's galleon hedge fund a non cartel member profited from his tips Rajaratnam had already been convicted of insider trading by the time Gupta's case went to trial Wood had cooked rajaratnam scoops were wiretaps of his phone conversations not with Gupta but with his employees now I heard yesterday from somebody who's on the board of Goldman Sachs that they are going to lose two dollars per share the street has been making two dollars and fifty four really yeah now I can get that number you know one they don't report till December they're biting accordant in November way what mom but you know they have these huge marks in ICBC and all of that stuff right almost yes that could absolutely clobbered you know yeah so what he was telling me was that goldman the court is pretty bad they have zero revenues because they're trading 7uu so offset by a classes and today of of 2 per share it just announced a ten percent cut and you know the basic business is okay but you know this is not for them I don't think that's built into the government section stock price so if we get to 105 I'm gonna it's 99 now it was at one or two looking for 105 a racket yeah okay supported it's easy to see how Rajaratnam zone words convicted him what's so telling though is that they convicted Gupta – even though Gupta wasn't part of the conversations Gupta's attorneys argued that the conversations were hearsay but both the trial and appeals courts held that they fell within one of the hearsay exceptions that legal issue aside the takeaway here is that while Roger rottenness phone was tapped Gupta's never was the best dope prosecutors could get on Rashad Gupta was from Rajaratnam phone that's because the data going through Gupta's phone belonged to Goldman Sachs whatever Gupta did to destroy his personal immunity under article 14 in other words never changed Goldman's ownership of his phone calls as a goldman director which remained separately immune under article 3 point to any data media belonging to the back or in its possession shall be inviolable at all times and in all places the DOJ is meticulous enforcement of bis immunities exposes the slipshod collateral consequences doctrine as lipstick on a pig not even law in the first irrelevant to most DOJ failures and cherry-picked for the cartel at any event and this is all been going on for some time now the DL J's enforcement of documentary immunity has been a matter of public record for four years running we spoke to a couple of sources from within the criminal division and they reported that when it came to Wall Street there were no investigations going on there were no subpoenas no document reviews no wiretaps I don't know who you spoke with because we have looked hard at the very types of matters that you're talking about these sources said that at the weekly indictment approval meetings that there was no case ever mentioned that was even close to indicted Wall Street for financial crimes well Maureen if you look at what we and the US attorney community did I think you have to take a step back by itself documentary immunity is a license for the cartel to commit crime since crimes that aren't investigated can't be prosecuted either with this immunity alone the DOJ has left Americans defenseless against the cartels financial crimes and as chilling as that is that's actually the good news the implications of individual immunity are horrifying individual immunity shields cartel bankers for acts accomplished in the discharge of their duties the crimes going unpunished in other words our official bank business which makes those crimes systemic normally systemic crime is the work of mobsters and terrorists but that's not what we have here unlike the mob the banking cartel possesses sovereign powers that exceed the president's there's a word for systemic crime by a sovereign power against the whole country and it is in crime wave or terrorism the correct term is war the fact that no one went to jail after HSBC confessed to crimes on behalf of terrorists and drug dealers shines very bright light on both enterprises and more glaring light yet on America's real rulers the new administration should need all of five minutes to start turning over documents that the last one committed crimes to hide but those documents will never see the light of day when the real sovereign power of a nation wages war against her from within presidents get in line or get eliminated what they don't do is risk hanging their masters who keep her people at war with each other by keeping them in the dark we did it like that and now we do with like didn't like that and how we do it like this yeah clock head got the showcase go tell me if the little kids on Soul Train the better for people my friends or my job they come from humble places that the typically the journalistic is are yellow and then the fourth longest watch channel 0 and that bitch Brown the long-term job you believe documented tracks with resident lizard had before memo with a consistently in Canada yes remember that's when they know it's fucking calm we enough let's come back looking like one on six and box here no job in the car new comma ptosis or depress me you test them are all professional little bracket bill much like whitey cancel all the mourners of mostly white begins along the corner book when Bush whitey gets our Lord the mourners of beds are supported Africa guys neither group action together you to store get high my Carmex boost your sales design files we take back let's take a second think back think back travelling mr. Barney roughly actually pulses that are roughly the name were Lord holds godly you don't know you better ask somebody [Music] not fuckin straws that crust claptrap is regular poor coordinators with backup chain on the corner maintaining don't see flashes kids run a black water keep