April 2015 archive

HSBC is ‘cast-iron certain’ to breach banking rules again, executive admits

by Harry Davies and James Ball, The Guardian

Thursday 2 April 2015 14.50 BST

A senior HSBC executive has privately admitted that the bank is “cast-iron certain” to have another major regulatory breach in the future, and is struggling on multiple fronts to clean up its worldwide operations.

Global head of sanctions Lee Hale – whose recorded comments appear to contrast with public statements from HSBC’s chief executive that the bank has fundamentally transformed itself after recent scandals – said gaps remained in the bank’s compliance with sanctions policies and the screening of certain financial transactions.

…

Hale was meeting with independent lawyers monitoring HSBC as part of a controversial 2012 deal with the US Department of Justice, in which the bank avoided prosecution over sanctions-busting and money-laundering in its Mexican branch in exchange for paying a $1.9bn fine and receiving additional regulatory scrutiny for a period of five years. The deferred prosecution agreement was signed by the then US attorney for the eastern district of New York, Loretta Lynch, who is now Barack Obama’s nominee for US attorney general.

…

Explaining the past difficulty of overhauling sanctions standards at the bank, Hale said HSBC staff were not used to providing the required level of detail for compliance to sign off dispensations. He said: “I think it’s really the first time where we’ve looked to do this with the right level of rigour … the quality of the initial submissions was not great.”

The monitor is required each year to file a lengthy report to the Department of Justice, which in turn files a much shorter summary update to a court in New York. As the agreement was signed in December 2012, the head of the DoJ’s criminal division said HSBC had the “sword of Damocles” over its head should it not follow through on its commitments.

HSBC Violates its Sweetheart Deal and Lynch Praises It

by William Black, New Economic Perspectves

April 2, 2015

HSBC got a sweetheart deal from the Obama administration.  It laundered vast amounts of money for Mexico’s murderous Sinaloa cartel, helped bust sanctions for terrorists and mass murderers, and did not cooperate with the investigation.  The U.S. Attorney in charge of the case, Loretta Lynch, refused to prosecute any of the HSBC bankers or even sue them individually.  Instead, there was a pathetic non-prosecution agreement limited to HSBC.  Lynch is accused of not contacting either of the primary whistleblowers in the case.  The failure to contact one of the whistleblowers has already blown up in Lynch’s face as it became public a few months ago that the governments of the U.S. and Europe were provided many years ago with data on HSBC’s Swiss affiliate that show it was helping terrorists, genocidal leaders, the most violent drug gangs, and tens of thousands of wealthy people evade taxes.  Lynch failed to bring that case or use any of the invaluable data provided by the whistleblower who copied the files from the Swiss bank.

Now comes word that, like Standard Chartered, HSBC is failing to abide even by the pathetic sweetheart deal Lynch gifted HSBC’s criminal managers with.  In the case of Standard Chartered, NY authorities came down on Standard Chartered with at least one foot on the neck.  Lynch is made of considerably less stern stuff.  She failed even to do the most obvious move of extending the agreement with HSBC.

…

HSBC’s violations were a heaven sent opportunity for Lynch to undo the massive embarrassment of the shameful deal she gave HSBC – one of the world’s largest and most destructive criminal enterprises.  She could use the “watchdog” report damning HSBC to state the reality – HSBC’s managers have acted in bad faith and violated the deal that would have got them off with no real prosecution.  Lynch could now prosecute HSBC and its senior managers for all the frauds – including the vast frauds she missed last time because of her failure to talk with the whistleblowers.  And the chances of that happening closely approach zero because Obama chose Lynch to continue Holder’s shameful policies of refusing to prosecute bankers rather than change those policies.

…

Holder’s refusal to prosecute the bankers has led to “repeat offenses on Wall Street.”  Ponder that which DealBook religiously refuses to ponder – if fraudulent bankers find they grow wealthy from the “sure thing” of fraud with no risk of prosecution or even being sued, why wouldn’t they respond with “repeat offenses” that would create a “pattern of corporate recidivism?”  DealBook is very sympathetic to Holder and Lynch.  They are portrayed as “grappling” with the thorny problem that because senior bankers realize that under Holder and Lynch they can grow wealthy and powerful by leading “repeat offenses” they will do so even though they promise “dad” (Holder) or “mom” (Lynch) that they’ll never do it again.  (DealBook hates to use the “f” word to describe elite bankers’ frauds.)

As DealBook (hilariously) portrays the matter, Holder and Lynch “grapple” with this intractable and apparently inconceivable (in the Princess Bride sense of the word made famous by Vizzini) problem that the elite bankers keep on committing massive felonies helping terrorists and the world’s most violent drug gangs even after they look Holder and Lynch (dad and mom) straight in the eyes and solemnly promise to never hit their little brother and steal his toy truck again.  Five minutes later, dad and mom hear a smack followed by the little brother breaking into tears and find big brother with little brother’s toy truck.  Big brother, of course, solemnly says he never hit his little brother and the truck in his hand is not his little brother’s truck.  Big brother, being sophisticated, even pleads in the alternative that if he is holding little brother’s truck it is because little brother gave him the truck.  Except, that we’re not talking about toy trucks, but senior bank officers knowingly funding mass murder and terrorism.

…

The truth is that Holder and Lynch are taking no meaningful efforts against what even DealBook now admits is “the pattern of corporate recidivism” by our most elite bankers.  The only thing they “grapple” with is the bad publicity arising from the stench of that “pattern” of the most despicable and harmful elite financial frauds in history.

There can be no more incriminating indictment of the Nation’s leading federal prosecutors than the fact that even the sycophantic DealBook admits that on Holder and Lynch’s watch a “pattern” of recurrent frauds by our most elite CEOs has emerged – and those frauds commonly involve profiting from the banks aiding the funding of mass murderers.  The administration has managed to turn into reality all those bad novels they sell in airport book stores that describe networks of criminal elite bankers financing terrorists, drug gangs, and venal and brutal kleptocrats with impunity from the laws.

Of course the proximate issue is whether the prospective deal with Iran is ‘another Munich’.

Now I’ll leave aside some minor contemporary details like the fact that as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran is perfectly within its rights to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes in any way they see fit, and that Ayatollah Khameini “has also issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.”, and that Pakistan (Sunni) is a non-participant that openly has nuclear weapons and Israel (another non-participant) almost certainly has them but will not admit it, or that Saudi Arabia (participant) has stated that they will purchase them if they deem it desirable.

Let us think instead about Munich.

The logic (in so far as it can be called logic and not simply Islamophobic bigotry or resentment that a popular revolt replaced a US puppet regime of despots and torturers) of those who cry ‘appeasement’ is that it was clear by 1938 that Hitler was a monster who could only be stopped by War.

Well, duh.

That was clear from March 1936 when the Rhineland was re-militarized.

The two Western Allies, Britain and France, immediately launched crash re-armament programs that were none too popular with the war weary taxpayers.  The recently consolidated Soviet Union was understandably deeply suspicious of them since they had just spent the last 10 years trying to roll back the Revolution and restore the Romanovs (or some other non-Communist regime).  In any event its military was in no shape for offensive action against Germany and while it did start a re-armament program (partly for its economic effects) it was made even less effective by Stalin’s paranoia and purges.

I would ask, what makes you think that military action by France and Britain in 1938 supporting an isolated ‘Ally’ a thousand miles away would have been any more effective than when it was actually attempted in 1939 in ‘defense’ of Poland?

May I remind you the result of that was the fall of all of Western Europe with the exception of Britain who barely survived?

Now it is true that several members of the German General Staff thought annexation of the Sudetenland was too ambitious and would result in defeat, but there was opposition in that quarter throughout the War to many of Hitler’s more aggressive plans including the Invasion of France.

There is a body of evidence, not conclusive to be sure but not easily dismissed, that Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier understood the weakness of their militaries and the strategic difficulties of operating so far from their lines of supply.  In any event they didn’t (contrary to popular belief) simply throw Czechoslovakia under the bus.  They got a commitment from Hitler to respect the border of the Czech and Slovak majority areas.

The fact that Hitler ignored it makes it seem worse in 20/20 hindsight, however I once again ask- how could they have achieved better results in 1938 than they ultimately got in 1939?

So what is the position we are in today?

Even the most optimistic war hawks concede that should they decide to do so, conventional military action (and I’m talking full on ground assault and pounding their cities to dust) will prevent the Iranians from acquiring nuclear capability for at best 5 to 10 years after we end our occupation (Iran is roughly 4 times the size and twice the population of California and, if we sent every single member everywhere of our Armed Forces and Reserves including Generals, would only outnumber us 35 to 1).

But the truth is much, much worse than that.  They will kick our ass.

The latest Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles are no joke and Carriers are big targets that have no business in a confined space like the Straights of Hormuz.  The Straights are literally carpeted in mines and our Mine Sweeping capability is a joke because no one good wants to Captain a Minesweeper and no Admiral wants to budget for it.  While it might not have the commodity shock it once did it will only take a single hit to close the Straights to commercial traffic.

Should we somehow struggle ashore, how long could we stay?  Hard to say, we’re still in Iraq after all but then again Iraq is almost exactly the size and population density of California.

Nuke ’em from orbit?  Admirable sentiments Ripley and effective against aliens on a planet far, far away.  In the real world nuclear attacks of the level necessary to achieve “victory” would be globally environmentally damaging and probably not something the Russians and Chinese would let pass without some kind of response.  I suspect that even Europe might be a tad upset and if you think the future of US Hegemony is to be found in an alliance with Sunni Muslims led by Saudi Arabia and Israel I might advise you to seek professional help for your delusions.

Creating your own reality is a symptom of severe mental illness you know.

It took a couple of day longer than expected but cool heads prevailed. An agreement on a framework for a permanent accord on Iran’s nuclear energy program was reached this afternoon in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Iran and the world powers said here Thursday that they had reached a surprisingly specific and comprehensive general understanding about the next steps in limiting Tehran’s nuclear program, though Western officials said many details needed to be resolved before a final agreement in June.

Both Germany’s foreign office and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran said that the major parameters of a framework for a final accord had been reached, after eight days of intense debate between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif.

There was no mistaking the upbeat mood surrounding the announcement. “We have stopped a cycle that is not in the interest of anybody,” an exuberant Mr. Zarif said at a news conference after the announcement. [..]

According to European officials, roughly 5,000 centrifuges will remain spinning enriched uranium at the main nuclear site at Natanz, about half the number currently running. The giant underground enrichment site at Fordo – which Israeli and some American officials fear is impervious to bombing – will be partly converted to advanced nuclear research and the production of medical isotopes. Foreign scientists will be present. There will be no fissile material present that could be used to make a bomb.

A major reactor at Arak, which officials feared could produce plutonium, would operate on a limited basis that would not provide enough fuel for a bomb.

In return, the European Union and the United States would begin to lift sanctions, as Iran complied. At a news conference after the announcement, Mr. Zarif said that essentially all sanctions would be lifted after the final agreement is signed.

In spite of all the efforts of the war crazed right wing and Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahou to derail the talks, the P5+1 have moved toward a full agreement that will make the Middle East just a little safer and life better for the Iranians.

On Wednesday, the Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, refused to sign the religious freedom act, mainly citing his own son’s objection to the bill but, also, wishing to avoid the chaos that a similar bill in Illinois caused.

“I ask that changes be made in the legislation, and I’ve asked that the leaders in the General Assembly recall the bill so that it can be amended,” the Republican governor said, so it more precisely mirrors the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

“In the alternative,” he said, “it can simply have some language changes so that those accommodations and changes can be made.”

Hutchinson had previously said he would sign the bill into law. [..]

In a sign of what he called the generational gap, the Republican governor said his son told him he could tell the press that he signed a petition asking him to veto the bill.

While the media, companies, like Walmart, and politicians, like Hillary Clinton praised Gov. Hutchinson for his courage, they have all overlooked one very important fact, that was pointed out by Karoli at Crooks and Liars:

Gov. Hutchinson didn’t veto the bill. He sent it back unsigned to the legislature. As per the Arkansas Constitution, the bill will become law in five days.

So they can dither for five days, the bill becomes law and Asa walks away with his hands clean blaming the state legislators for failing to “fix” the bill.

Cowardice of the first order.  

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

New York Times Editorial Board: The Scrambled States of Immigration

A country that has abandoned all efforts at creating a saner immigration policy has gotten the result it deserves: not one policy but lots of little ones, acting at cross purposes and nullifying one another. Not unity but cacophony, a national incoherence – one well illustrated in a recent report in The Times on the various ways the states, forsaken by Congress, are adjusting to the millions of unauthorized immigrants living outside the law. [..]

Depending on how the Fifth Circuit rules on the lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s executive actions, his valiant effort to repair some of the damage to the immigration system could well be undone, and everybody, families and felons, may get put back in the shadowy line of potential deportees. Meanwhile, the Army is expanding and fast-tracking a program to give citizenship to unauthorized immigrants with special language or medical skills.

Who is on the right side of this argument – the Army, Mr. Obama, Gov. Jerry Brown of California, Mr. de Blasio? Or Texas, Alabama, Arizona and the Republicans whose resistance to reform has left the nation in this mess? Those die-hard opponents fail to remember that laws and policies that deny rights and promote exclusion have been the source of shame and regret throughout American history. Integration and assimilation are the core values of a country that is in danger of forgetting itself.

Will Rogers: Our Land, Up for Grabs

A BATTLE is looming over America’s public lands.

It’s difficult to understand why, given decades of consistent, strong support from voters of both parties for protecting land, water and the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic benefits these resources make possible.

Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments.

If the measure is ever implemented, hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and historic sites will revert to the states or local governments or be auctioned off. These lands constitute much of what’s left of the nation’s natural and historical heritage. [..]

Rather than selling off the lands we all own, or looking for other uses for the money approved at the ballot box for conservation, our leaders should listen to voters and find ways to protect more of the places that make America special.

This is your morning Open Thread. Pour your favorite beverage and review the past and comment on the future.

Find the past “On This Day in History” here.

April 2 is the 92nd day of the year (93rd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. There are 273 days remaining until the end of the year.

On this day in 1513, Ponce de Leon discovers Florida. Near present-day St. Augustine, Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon comes ashore on the Florida coast, and claims the territory for the Spanish crown.

Although other European navigators may have sighted the Florida peninsula before, Ponce de Leon is credited with the first recorded landing and the first detailed exploration of the Florida coast. The Spanish explorer was searching for the “Fountain of Youth,” a fabled water source that was said to bring eternal youth. Ponce de Leon named the peninsula he believed to be an island “La Florida” because his discovery came during the time of the Easter feast, or Pascua Florida.

First voyage to Florida

Ponce de Leon equipped three ships with at least 200 men at his own expense and set out from Puerto Rico on March 4, 1513. The only contemporary description known for this expedition comes from Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, a Spanish historian who apparently had access to the original ships’ logs or related secondary sources from which he created a summary of the voyage published in 1601. The brevity of the account and occasional gaps in the record have led historians to speculate and dispute many details of the voyage.

The three ships in this small fleet were the Santiago, the San Cristobal and the Santa Maria de la Consolacion. Anton de Alaminos was their chief pilot. He was already an experienced sailor and would become one of the most respected pilots in the region. After leaving Puerto Rico, they sailed northwest along the great chain of Bahama Islands, known then as the Lucayos. By March 27, Easter Sunday, they reached the northern end of the Bahamas sighting an unfamiliar island (probably Great Abaco).

For the next several days the fleet crossed open water until April 2, 1513, when they sighted land which Ponce de Leon believed was another island. He named it La Florida in recognition of the verdant landscape and because it was the Easter season, which the Spaniards called Pascua Florida (Festival of Flowers). The following day they came ashore to seek information and take possession of this new land. The precise location of their landing on the Florida coast has been disputed for many years. Some historians believe it occurred at St. Augustine; others prefer a more southern landing at a small harbor now called Ponce de Leon Inlet; and some argue that Ponce came ashore even further south near the present location of Melbourne Beach.

After remaining in the vicinity of their first landing for about five days, the ships turned south for further exploration of the coast. On April 8 they encountered a current so strong that it pushed them backwards and forced them to seek anchorage. The tiniest ship, the San Cristobal, was carried out of sight and lost for two days. This was the first encounter with the Gulf Stream where it reaches maximum force between the Florida coast and the Bahamas. Because of the powerful boost provided by the current, it would soon become the primary route for eastbound ships leaving the Spanish Indies bound for Europe.

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover  we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:30am (ET) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

Breakfast Tune: Ponce De Leon/ Banjo/ Mary Z Cox

Today in History

Highlights of Today in History: Pope John Paul II Dies at 84; President Woodrow Wilson asks Congress to declare war on Germany; Juan Ponce de Leon lands in Florida; Falkland Islands seized from Britain; Hans Christian Andersen Born. (April 2)

Breakfast News & Blogs Below

My mom doesn’t remember much, in fact, she doesn’t know who the hell I am. She likes me, I’m her BFF, but she doesn’t know my name. The one thing she does remember is that she smokes. This has become a problem. A big one. It isn’t enough anymore just to hide all the lighters, she’s at the point where she’s dangerous. She burns holes in her clothes, knocks the cherry off the end of her cig, she’s even put her smoke out right on the tablecloth, a brand new tablecloth, I don’t mind saying. Want to know the best part? She wasn’t enjoying it much. She would make “yukky” faces and even say, “Blech!” while exhaling, but she wanted to smoke. You can’t convince a person with dementia they don’t want to smoke, they think you’re crazy and evil.

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty will help neither workers nor consumers

“China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region … We should write those rules,” President Obama declared in his State of the Union address. To sell Congress on giving him authority to “fast track” consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade and investment treaty with 12 nations that has been under negotiation for five years, the president argues it is vital that “we” write the rules. The real question, of course, is what does he mean by “we”? [..]

How do trade treaties that undermine workers, cost jobs and create a private, corporate global arbitration system get through Congress? The answer, of course, is the corporate lobby that writes the rules mobilizes big money and armies of lobbyists to drive them through. Most Democrats oppose the treaties, but the Wall Street wing of the party tends to support them. Conservatives would naturally oppose secretive global panels that can force taxpayers to pay damages to companies, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable round up votes to get the treaty passed.

So remember, when the president argues that it is vital that “we” write the rules, “we” means not the American people, but corporate and financial interests.

President Obama has dramatically called inequality the defining challenge of our time. But the reason the 1 percent capture virtually all of the income growth in this society, the reason working families are struggling simply to stay afloat, is that the rules are rigged by the powerful to favor themselves. Our trade policies are clear examples of that. America’s middle class will continue to sink until “we” means the American people, not Wall Street and the corporate lobby.

Jessica Valenti: Don’t stress out. Our kids are just fine when their mothers work late

Some welcome news for working moms: you can stay late at the office tonight and your kid will be just fine.

A new study published this April in the Journal of Marriage and Family (pdf) shows that the widely-held belief that young children do better when their mothers spend significant time with them is actually wrong: kids are okay no matter how many hours mom works.

In fact, the stress of trying to live up to unrealistic parenting standards is likely more detrimental to children than a lack of time spent together. The so-called Mommy Wars aren’t just hurting women – they’re hurting kids, as well.  [..]

But, despite the neverending guilt mothers are expected to feel for working outside the home, the results of the study showed that the amount of time parents – mothers, in particular – spend with young children doesn’t have a statistically significant impact on their development or well-being.

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover  we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:30am (ET) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

Today is the First Anniversary Of The Breakfast Club founded by That Group, a bunch of true left wing advocates for democracy and freedom. We are still here pointing out the lies, the absurd, the truth and still having a good laugh. We offer a place for the disenfranchised left to voice their distrust of the government and disgust with the current political system. It’s a  place where we can discuss solutions and ideas. We are here everyday and will be in the future. Our three sites may not garner the attention that they deserve but we aren’t going away. Thank you all for reading and writing and thinking.

This Day in History

Slobodan Milosevic arrested; US forces invade Okinawa during WWII; Nazi Germany begins persecuting Jews; Pvt. Jessica Lynch rescued in Iraq; Marvin Gaye killed.

Breakfast Tunes

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

The first of April is the day we remember what we are the other 364 days of the year.

Mark Twain