Warren: Drug possession warrants jail time but laundering cartel money doesn’t?
By Stephen C. Webster
The Raw Story
March 7, 2013From the article: Appearing at a Senate Banking Committee hearing Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled officials from the Treasury Department over why criminal charges were not filed against officials at HSBC who helped launder hundreds of millions of dollars for drug cartels.
The HSBC scandal resulted in the Department of Justice and Treasury announcing a record $1.92 billion fine after finding that the international bank repeatedly helped the world’s most violent drug gangs move at least $881 million in ill-gotten gains through numerous countries the U.S. has economic sanctions against.
“HSBC paid a fine, but no one individual went to trial, no individual was banned from banking, and there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States,” Warren said. “So, what I’d like is, you’re the experts on money laundering. I’d like an opinion: What does it take — how many billions do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate — before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?”
[…]
“You know, if you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail,” Warren said. “If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night, every single individual associated with this. I think that’s fundamentally wrong.”
Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren pledged to lead the Democratic effort on filibuster reform in the “first week in January” and suggested a new filibuster should look more like the traditional motion: A lawmaker should be required to defend his or her opposition to a bill on the Senate floor.
“On the first day of the new session in January, the senators will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition,” she writes in a blog post published on the Huffington Post.
Send her your Support
(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)
Her victory proved that Democrats can stick to their core values and still win over Independents
(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)
I can’t believe that the Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren race is still uncomfortably close. Do the people of Massachusetts realize that Scott Brown took $20 billion of taxpayer money and handed it straight to the banks? How could anybody vote for the guy who basically asks the big banks, “What can Brown do for you?”
VOTING IS TUES NOV 6 no matter WHAT you hear
URGENT PLEASE REPOST:
Robocalls are occurring in Massachusetts saying to vote Warren/Obama WEDNESDAY due to Sandy:
LIES. WE VOTE TUESDAY NOV 6
#RomneyLiarLiarLiar #Fraud #Desperate #Disgusting
Not privilege, but REBLOG IT FOR YOUR MASS FOLLOWERS, BLAST IT.
(via mommapolitico)
Saw this on Facebook today. If you didn’t know already, Scott Brown is a racist asshole. Lets hope Massachusetts have the conscience to vote this asshole out.
Wow. Just fucking wow.
This shit is not cute.
THE FUCK IS THIS
(via recall-all-republicans)
an unquiet mind: Senator Scott Brown’s illusion fades
Go ahead and stick a fork in the image — or, more accurately, the illusion — of Scott Brown as the affable everyman, the consummate good guy who folds laundry before pointing…
I don’t see Warren as dry or “mouthing platitudes”. There are some simple truths in her campaign and they don’t need a lot of rhetorical embellishment. Brown, on the other hand, effortlessly proves his turdsmanship at every opportunity.
Thanking volunteers at our Grove Hall office in Roxbury. (Taken with Instagram)
Elizabeth Warren’s New Opponent: Paul Ryan
Elizabeth Warren is taking aim at a new opponent: Paul Ryan.
The Democrat, who is running to unseat Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, has been invigorated by the injection of Ryan into the presidential contest — an opportunity that allows her to play to the strength of her financial background after a long summer of tight polls and an extended flap over her Native American ancestry.
Ryan’s emergence onto the 2012 scene might just give Warren a new wedge against Brown’s claims of independence from his party as he seeks to duplicate his upset 2010 special election win in the blue state state. Expect the Warren camp to keep pounding away at Brown’s ties to Ryan and his controversial budget plan, regardless of what distinctions Brown draws.
We face a real choice in this country between the Republicans’ “I’ve got mine” approach and the belief that, as a nation, we reward success and hard work — keeping the playing field level so that everyone with a good idea, a dream of making it big and plenty of determination has a chance to make it.
I was amazed by how ambivalent the article was. It’s sort of a misfired madlib. I has all the usual, generic stuff Republicans say about every Democratic candidate. (Her election would be a disaster. She’s radical.) But the writer, Kevin Williamson, was supposed to put the…
#INFP - so true. Who knew? #NoH8 #ProChoice #fem2 #ChildAbuse #AnimalAbuse
Contrarian by nature; Democrat by choice. #p2 #p21 #CTL #Obama2012
Together we MUST take back the power wrongfully seized by banks, corporations, and the corrupt politicians they fund. #OWS #99
#Justice4Trayvon is the other tumblr I branched from this one so I could track the developments in the #Trayvon Martin case.
