If there’s anyone in the senate who understands the underlying corruption inherent in the US banking system it’s Elizabeth Warren. She rose to prominence because she’s competent and well intentioned. It’s refreshing to see a politician who is not beholden to corporate interests and who is not only genuine in their proposed mission, but effective and knowledgeable when addressing the issues.
Warren questioned senior Treasury Department officials Thursday about why there was no criminal prosecution for alleged money laundering by British bank HSBC and no effort to shut it down. HSBC agreed last December to pay a forfeiture and penalties totaling $1.9 billion to settle charges it helped Mexican drug traffickers, Iran and Libya move money around the world.
“What does it take, how many billions of dollars do you have to launder from drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution?” Warren asked at a Banking Committee hearing on money laundering. [ huffingtonpost.com ]
The HSBC scandal was epic. A $1.9 billion dollar settlement is hardly a damning punishment to a bank the size of HSBC when it comes to dealing in money laundering for Al Qaeda and drug cartels. People should be put in prison for that. We have small time players in the drug trade being put away into prison and churned out as hardened criminals as the status quo, but these are not the same rules the powerful play by.
Below is a must see video of Elizabeth Warren grilling bank regulators on the fact they’re not doing their jobs. Have a watch, it’s entertaining and satisfying to see a member of the senate actually asking these direct and necessary questions in a calm, assertive demeanor. You can see the shame in eyes of the regulators as they deliver, to put it lightly, less than satisfactory answers.
At this point Hillary Clinton seems the front runner for the democratic party’s front runner for a Presidential bid. Maybe she’d do an alright job. Perhaps. But from my observations, Elizabeth Warren is not nearly as ‘part of the establishment’ as Hillary Clinton.
Would Elizabeth Warren Run For President In 2016?
Elizabeth Warren has made no indication that she’s looking to run on the democratic ticket in 2016 for President, and though it might be difficult for her to raise the big dollars evidently necessary to make a bid for the White House, she has four years to endear herself to a jaded electorate who are desperately seeking for someone who not only promises change, but delivers it.
I’m not auguring in any crystal ball that she’s going to stake a claim to become the first female President of the United States in 2016, but by then she’ll have four years experience as a senator, and will have the credentials. If by some marvelous turn of events she does run, she’ll have my vote.