When I was in high school studying history and government, my friends and I used to laugh at the Latin American Banana Republics. A “Banana Republic” is one in which the ruling class of elites exploit Governmental power for their own benefit at the expense of the rest of the population. Rule of Law is replaced by Rule of Those in Charge. The leaders rake in massive amounts of illegal wealth and stand completely immune from prosecution. (click to enlarge)
The saga of Hillary Clinton is the saga of the United States’ descent into Banana Republic status. I knew when it was announced that she was “voluntarily” meeting with FBI Director James Comey that the fix was in. I knew it before that. I knew it when Bill Clinton illegally and unethically met with Loretta Lynch. A meeting she knew better than to coordinate. But that told me the fix was in. Interestingly there’s a deep connection between Lynch and Comey.
I had my good friend and colleague, John Titus of Best Evidence Productions, write a guest commentary about the latest step into Banana Republic Hell taken by the U.S., led by Hillary Clinton…
Back in April, I went on record stating that Hillary Clinton would be completely exonerated:
Given their [Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey’s] prior associations with HSBC, they’re in on this whole game, they’re in on letting banks run the whole economy—the whole country. [The banks] are in full control of the the government. They’re in full control of the DOJ. They are in full control of prosecutorial decisions. And nothing is going to happen to Hillary Clinton, and I mean zero.
Coup D’etat: The Banks Rule The U.S. (25:16 mark if link goes to wrong timestamp)
This post explains that statement. Hopefully it can be used as a means of fast-forwarding to the end of ludicrously protracted episodes of Kabuki legal theater like the one we just witnessed.
Once you understand that the rule of law is dead in the U.S., that it’s been replaced by a small network of readily identifiable agents operating on behalf of criminal banking enterprises headed by Goldman Sachs, there’s no need to waste any time on stories like Hillary selling state secrets out of her basement, or whatever it is she does down there. You’ll spare yourself the embarrassment of ever believing that the outcome of cases like Clinton’s are ever in doubt.
In March of this year, I released a video called “The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime,” which shows that the rule of law is a dead letter in the U.S. It also explains that the only alternative to the rule of law is the rule of men, and that in the U.S. that means Goldman Sachs: Video Link
Goldman Sachs is a criminal enterprise. It perpetrated massive criminal frauds and got away with all of them. The worst of these was Goldman’s Hudson deal. The Senate and the media fixated on Abacus and Timberwolf. Those cases, though bad, are at least arguable. Hudson is not. It is black letter textbook criminal fraud.
Goldman pooled residential mortgages sitting on its books based on their high likelihood of failure. To dupe its customers into buying the doomed Hudson pool, Goldman put $6 million of its own money into Hudson and touted this fact in marketing materials. Secretly, though, Goldman bet $2 billion that Hudson would fail, and concealed its huge downside bet from investors. Goldman’s bet paid out $1.7 billion, which came directly from the pockets of the investors it deceived. It was a $1.7 billion theft, end of story.
The facts of Abacus and Timberwolf weren’t nearly as clean, which is probably why we heard about those instead of Hudson, which was a slam dunk.
But Goldman Sachs, which runs the Justice Department, exonerated itself of all wrongdoing. The two highest-ranking DOJ officials responsible for Goldman’s exoneration—Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer—came to the DOJ from Covington & Burling, Goldman’s law firm. After the 5-year statute of limitations for criminal fraud ran out, both men returned to Covington. Each makes several million dollars a year.
During their temp assignments at the DOJ, both men formally declared the rule of law to be dead. That’s a big deal. It’s one thing for officials to disregard the law as a matter of factual opinion. What Breuer and Holder did was another matter altogether: they openly announced that the rule of law is dead in principle too. It’s a very big and very dangerous difference.
This happened in late 2012 and early 2013—not long after the DOJ exonerated Goldman. Both Breuer and Holder went on record and repeatedly stated that criminal laws would not be enforced against certain banks because doing so would destabilize the financial system. They didn’t cite any authority for this radical position because there isn’t any. The lack of any legal authority isn’t surprising since the rule of law dates back to the year 1215, and no law since that time would be premised on the notion that the law itself can be freely ignored.
Instead of citing any law, Breuer and Holder both claimed that “experts” were making decisions about financial destabilization. Here’s the problem. The only “experts” who appear in the record are Wall Street lawyers and CEOs generally and Goldman Sachs in particular. In other words, the TBTF banks tell the DOJ that criminal prosecution will destabilize the financial system, and the DOJ obeys. The law comes second, which in a 2-way race means it’s dead last.
So the rule of law has been dead in the U.S. for some time now, and it’s been supplanted by Goldman Sachs, which rules by edict. The “Veneer” video drills into how we know it’s Goldman in granular detail.
Of course, Breuer later lied and said that his destabilization “experts” came from the government. The problem for Breuer is that both houses of congress investigated his claim and couldn’t find any such regulators. That’s because there aren’t any. Lanny Breuer is just a liar.
Again: the only financial stability experts of record are Wall Street banks themselves, whom Breuer freely admitted came to his conference to tell him that they’d destroy the economy if he prosecuted. Goldman Sachs is the only bank in that regard that’s been disclosed by name so far.
Now, Goldman’s candidate in the presidential race is Hillary Clinton. This is how it was easy to set the odds of a Hillary Clinton indictment at zero from day one.
But what about Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, and James Comey? Couldn’t they indict (Lynch) or at least recommend indictment (Comey)? After all, they’re not from Goldman’s law firm.
True, but both were very carefully vetted by the financial criminals at—interestingly enough—HSBC. HSBC is an admitted criminal money launderer for drug dealers and terrorists. It was the money-laundering case against HSBC, in fact, where Eric Holder announced that he wouldn’t prosecute due to fears of destabilization. This happened in December 2012.
Lynch and Comey both played a role at HSBC.
Loretta Lynch was HSBC’s “prosecutor.” When Holder punted on the HSBC case, Lynch did something highly unusual: she kept the case open on Judge John Gleeson’s docket. Gleeson was openly puzzled by the move, but saw no reason not to go along with the procedure, however odd, since Lynch and HSBC had both agreed to it.
What Judge Gleeson didn’t know was that the HSBC case, having been held open like it was, would be used as a pretext for the DOJ to claim that it couldn’t identify regulators on active cases (like HSBC). That’s exactly what Mythili Raman claimed when asked by Congress in May of 2013. It was a way for her to duck the fact that Breuer had been lying through his teeth, and that all of the DOJ’s financial destabilization experts were, in fact, the banks themselves. Less than a year after that hearing, Raman ended her 17-year DOJ career and went to…. Breuer and Holder’s law firm. See how this works?
This brings us to James Comey. In early 2013, Comey joined HSBC’s board of directors. Only then was Comey’s name floated as a replacement for FBI Director Robert Mueller. By accepting blood money from HSBC, Comey signaled the financial criminals that he’d play ball and ignore the law, as he did today when he focused on intent rather than gross negligence, which is sufficient by itself for indictment and conviction.
Lynch sent the same signal to the financial criminals in charge by entering into a screwy settlement agreement that flummoxed a long-standing judge but that provided cover for Lanny Breuer’s preposterous lies about government regulators assessing the financial impact of criminal prosecutions.
Whenever you want to know how a high-profile case like Clinton’s will turn out, just turn off the TV and throw the New York Times and other mainstream piles of misinformation into the trash can. Just spend 10 minutes or so on google looking at the bios of the key decision makers, and the clues will hit you in the face harder than Earnie Shavers, I promise.