LORETTA LYNCH DOESN’T WANT TO DISCUSS “TOO BIG TO INDICT” SCANDAL
|| By FITSNEWS || The “Republican-controlled” U.S. Senate is likely going to roll over for Barack Obama‘s new attorney general nominee … so this post is pretty much pointless.
Still, it’s worth pointing out that Obama’s choice – Loretta Lynch – was at the forefront of a 2012 scandal involving a company that was “too big to indict.”
We’re referring to HSBC – a London-based bank determined by the U.S. Congress to have exposed the American financial system “to money laundering and terrorist financing risks.” Specifically, the bank allowed Mexican and Colombian drug cartels to launder nearly $1 billion. Not only that, it allegedly facilitated the financing of terrorist organizations.
“For some reason the mainstream media is not covering the issue, and the American public doesn’t understand that these banks are literally financing the next 9/11,” HSBC whistleblower Everett Stern told Newsmax last year.
The mainstream media never took it quite that far … but did do its share of hand-wringing over the issue.
“It is a dark day for the rule of law,” The New York Times wrote in December 2012, deploring the fact that HSBC’s “vast and prolonged money laundering” would be dealt with less harshly due to “fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.”
The company paid a big fine, to be sure, but none of its executives were criminally charged …
“Some would say that the message is if you break all the laws you can until you get caught, you may have to pay a lot of money but you’re not going to go to jail,” CBS reporter John Miller asked Lynch at the height of the HSBC scandal.
Her response?
“That’s a very shortsighted view, I think, because in this case they’re obviously paying a great deal of money, but they also have had to literally turn their company inside out,” Lynch responded.
Well then … we guess that’s “something.”
Of interest? The CBS interview archive – found HERE – wasn’t included in Lynch’s filing with the U.S. Senate judiciary committee (a.k.a. the panel currently considering her nomination).
“I do not see this interview listed in her questionnaire response,” a researcher familiar with Lynch’s filings told FITS.
Hmmmm … guess she didn’t want to answer questions about it.
Again, we don’t expect “Republican” lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to do anything but roll over for Lynch’s nomination, but it would seem this issue – and Lynch’s obvious reticence to discuss it – ought to be a factor in the conversation surrounding her appointment.
UPDATE: Well, well … once again, our sources were correct. Lynch’s omission of this interview in her filing before the judiciary committee is now being picked up by the national media.
17 comments
This is the best you can do? Nominee faces scrutiny.
Like Fits would support anybody Barack Obama nominated for AG.
Nor would I.
Maybe they can get Alberto Gonzales or Johnny Ashcroft to come back.. pinnacles of legal knowledge, fairness and gravitas if there ever was one..
Hopefully whoever gets the job will cover up those dirty exposed titties on Lady Justice.
Oh well…same song, same dance.
A couple of my favorites are —
Lyin’, Cheatin’, Woman Chasin’, Honky Tonkin’,
Whiskey Drinkin’ You
&
When the Tingle Becomes a Chill
I’ve read this three times and can’t figure out her role. I’ll agree that it’s generally true that financial institutions operate with impunity in our current environment, but that’s something Dems and Repubs exhibit bipartisanship about.
The banksters are untouchable. They are in a different class than the rest of us – they will never go to prison for their crimes. Instead they just buy their way out it with a month or so worth of profits and then continue to break the laws. It is not just the US, the Brits are letting them get away with it too.
Her ties to the NAACP and Holder should be a red flag for anyone with a 1/16th of a brain.
Just another fucked up joke.
“… stories of her grandfather, also a pastor, who in the 1930s helped people move to the north to escape persecution under the Jim Crow laws of the time. …” ??, but that’s what wikipedia says.
Look out Carolinas, BOHICA.
Lindsey is probably creaming in his jeans at the prospect of voting to approve her for his boss, Obama.
It’ll be interesting to see if Obama nominates anybody but black people in his final two years. You’d think he’d be angry at black people since his black old man took off and left his white mother to raise him. But maybe he realizes if he had white skin he’d still be on the street corner trying to community organize.
He is running out of “progressive” black caucus types … soon none left except maybe Carson and West.
Do not vote for anyone who votes to confirm her. I’ve already expressed my opposition to Lynch to my two Senators. One makes a living thumping her chest for servicemen and women, but will look the other way when banks launder money for terrorists.
IMOP: The US Capital should be moved to Colorado Springs into that little used SAC HQ mountain hideaway, the bomb proof doors should then be closed and welded shut …
Maybe then we all could get a good nights rest …