• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1109
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы435
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации56
      • Показать ещё
      Формат10
      Компании1112
      • Показать ещё
      Издания158
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели20
      • Показать ещё
      Разное528
      • Показать ещё
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
24 марта, 01:11

Obama's Top Civil Rights Official Takes Over 'Nerve Center' Of Trump Resistance

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― The former top official at the Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is taking over the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a 67-year-old organization sometimes described as the lobbying arm of the civil rights movement. Vanita Gupta, who ran the Civil Rights Division for the last two-plus years of the Obama administration, was named the next president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Thursday. Later this year, she will succeed Wade Henderson, who has served as president and CEO since 1996 and helped grow the organization into a coalition of more than 200 civil and human rights groups. Gupta, 42, began her legal career at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where she fought for dozens of people in a tiny Texas town who had been locked up on the lies of a racist rodeo cowboy paid by police to conduct drug stings. She served as deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.  In October 2014, just months after the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, Gupta was named acting head of the Civil Rights Division. On her watch, the Justice Department issued a damning report on the operations of Ferguson’s police department and municipal court in early 2015 and later released other critical reports on the Baltimore and Chicago police forces. The Justice Department reached deals with officials in Ferguson and Baltimore to improve their law enforcement practices, while a potential agreement with Chicago remains in question under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Gupta said initiatives that the Civil Rights Division championed during the Obama administration are “quite vulnerable” in the Trump era. The groups that make up the Leadership Conference, she said, are at the “heart of the resistance” fighting rollbacks of civil rights protections. “We’re going to have to use the power of the field operation here at the Leadership Conference and the member organizations to mobilize an American public that right now is really eager to fight back and to resist assaults on the very values that we all hold dear,” Gupta said. She sees the Leadership Conference as a “nerve center” for both defending civil rights on the federal level and pushing forward to advance civil rights on the state level. The member organizations of the Leadership Conference have a crucial role to play during the Trump era in her view. “We can’t rely on Congress to be a check on the executive branch right now,” Gupta said. It was gratifying, she added, to see people “of all stripes, religions and races coming together” in response to the Trump administration’s travel ban. “I think this is a time of unprecedented solidarity among the groups that make up the Leadership Conference to recognize that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us,” said Gupta. “For me, this opportunity could not come at a better time, because I think we all know very well, and all too well, what’s at stake.” Several civil rights leaders applauded Gupta’s appointment. Former Attorney General Eric Holder praised her “fearless advocacy for the rights of all Americans.” Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, called her a “once-in-a-generation leader.” Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said Gupta was at the “forefront of bold, imaginative and uncompromising civil rights leadership.” Gupta, who worked closely on policing issues at the Justice Department, said she was troubled by the Trump administration’s indications that the department will pull back from the broad reform efforts pursued by the Obama administration.    “It is a huge, radical departure for this Justice Department to step away from that work,” Gupta said. But “even if this Justice Department is out of step with what’s happening around this country,” she said, civil rights advocates and policing organizations have an important role to play in pushing reform forward. “The role of local community input in holding local officials accountable to enforcement has always been really important, and there will be a role for the Leadership Conference to play in lifting up those community voices and the member organizations that are really engaged on that,” Gupta said.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 марта, 21:59

Senators press Sessions on drug policy changes

The Democrats urged the attorney general not to return to policies that urge prosecutors to pursue long mandatory-minimum prison sentences against low-level drug offenders.

20 марта, 20:16

Clinton camp unloads on Comey

Former top officials for Hillary Clinton’s campaign vented their frustration with both FBI Director James Comey and congressional Republicans on Monday as he testified on Capitol Hill. Five months after Comey stepped into the 2016 election fray in the campaign’s closing days to talk about investigations into Clinton’s email use — which Clinton herself has said was a cause for her loss to Donald Trump — many Democrats are still seething at his role. Noting that Comey acknowledged receiving Department of Justice approval to publicly reveal his agency’s investigation into potential collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia, Clinton’s former press secretary Brian Fallon tweeted, “An approval he did not care to obtain in Clinton’s case." Fallon — who was a former senior official in the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder — joined other former Clinton aides in also grumbling about the revelation that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign as of late July, but that Comey didn’t disclose it until now. “Russia probe that Comey confirmed was, as best we can tell, in effect before Nov. 8,” he wrote, referring to Election Day. “Fair to ask why he didn’t think voters deserved to know." “Doing some jobs right requires being in the news everyday, becoming a household name, enraging everyone,” wrote longtime Clinton aide Philippe Reines, who played Trump during her debate prep, tapping into Democrats’ pool of anger with Comey. “FBI Director isn’t one of them." But the operatives’ frustration also extended to the talk of Russia’s meddling in the election more generally — and Comey’s acknowledgment of the country’s intent, now that Trump is president. Noting that Comey said it is “correct” to say that Russia preferred Trump to Clinton in the election, former Clinton communications staffer Tyrone Gayle, now the press secretary for California Sen. Kamala Harris, wrote, “That sound you just heard was every ex-Clinton staffer banging their heads on the wall from California to DC." Nearly a year and a half after Clinton herself testified in front of Congress over the 2012 attack in Benghazi, they also had little patience for House Republicans. “Focus on leaks meant to serve same purpose as Trump allegation about wiretapping: distract from possible collusion,” Fallon wrote in response to GOP lawmakers’ lines of questioning about leaks to the media. “To Members of House Intel deflecting real questions on Russia hack for partisan purposes: this threat isn’t partisan,” added former campaign manager Robby Mook, who has raised the alarm about Russia’s election meddling across the world since November. “Anyone could be next."

15 марта, 20:03

A Convicted CIA Leaker Talks WikiLeaks (And Trump, Of Course)

By Emma Grey Ellis for WIRED. John Kiriakou knows a lot about leaking classified information. He went to prison for it. A former CIA agent who said too much about the Bush-era torture program, he’s also the first CIA leaker to go to jail for his trouble. Kiriakou served just under two years in federal prison, though before the Department of Justice offered a plea deal, it seemed more likely he’d serve as many as 45. History has frowned on the “enhanced interrogation techniques” Kiriakou helped expose, but he’s still a controversial guy. Leakers usually are. They operate in gray areas. Kiriakou isn’t a cheering squad for loose-lipped aides and intelligence agents everywhere, but does see whistleblowing as essential. He’s critical of the way the CIA (and the White House, and the Department of Justice) deal with leakers, but holds national security sacrosanct. He’s got beef with President Trump, and with former President Obama as well. RELATED: How the CIA Can Hack Your Phone, PC, and TV (Says WikiLeaks) So how does the intelligence community’s current predicament — from the Vault 7 dump to WikiLeaks generally to their fraught relationship with President Trump — look to a guy like Kiriakou? Basically, a mess. One that could nudge the Trump administration’s “deep state” paranoias closer to reality. Vault 7 and Trump No question: The most recent WikiLeaks data dump — a horde of CIA documents outlining their hacking capabilities, codenamed Vault 7 — dealt a body blow to national security. “There are three holy of holies: sources and methods, liaison relationships, and anything having to do with NSA. Never ever talk about stuff like that,” Kiriakou says. “That said, I personally would call whoever did this a whistleblower.” Kiriakou invokes the federal government’s legal definition of whistleblower here: anybody who discloses illegality, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a danger to public health and safety. And considering Vault 7 contained evidence of the CIA withholding known security vulnerabilities from tech companies and the public, that seems a fair assessment. RELATED: Don’t Let WikiLeaks Scare You Off of Signal and Other Encrypted Chat Apps That doesn’t, though, mean that whomever leaked should expect any sort of free pass. “The law exempts national security whistleblowers from protection,” Kiriakou says. “If you’re from the NSA, CIA, or Department of Defense, you’re on your own, and they’re going to ruin you.” Which is what will happen to the Vault 7 leaker if the FBI investigation President Trump requested turns up a culprit. Trump’s request is totally routine. The FBI fields hundreds of such requests from the executive branch per year — basically every time an outlet quotes an anonymous intelligence source. But the President’s laser focus on leaks may mean this one won’t fade away. “It’s too early to tell, and so far he’s been very conventional, but reportedly Trump has the same Nixonian obsession with leaks as George W. Bush and Obama,” Kiriakou says. Yep, Obama. Despite commuting Chelsea Manning’s sentence and getting plenty of flack for it, President Obama and former Attorney General Eric Holder showed an unprecedented willingness to prosecute leakers. “A good friend at the White House said the only time he ever saw President Obama lose his composure was in response to a leak,” Kiriakou says. “And Eric Holder recommended the only way to stop leaks was by prosecuting.” Which is how the Obama administration ended up invoking the Espionage Act — a law criminalizing the exposure of national security documents — a total of eight times in as many years. Government officials had called on it only three times in the previous century. How Even Good Leaks Get Stopped Up Still, so far President Trump hasn’t prosecuted leaks more aggressively than his predecessors. Seems like good news for transparency. But according to Kiriakou, the current state of affairs remains way too harsh on whistleblowers. “The CIA, NSA, FBI and DoD use predictive software to determine when employees might be thinking about blowing the whistle, and the FBI and NSA encourage employees to rat each other out,” Kiriakou says. “And since the Congressional oversight committees are really just cheerleaders for the agencies, it’s become harder and harder to operate.” Plus, even if your computer or the person sitting next to you doesn’t whistleblow your whistleblowing, there’s that pesky legal problem: The Department of Justice will come for you, hard. “In the eyes of the law, leaking is leaking is leaking. There’s no difference between Ed Snowden and the person who told the Washington Post President Trump hung up on the Australian prime minister,” Kiriakou says. READ MORE: Psst, Silicon Valley. WikiLeaks Wants to Help You Fight the CIA And according to Kiriakou, the Department of Justice will routinely pile on the felony charges, force you to defend yourself until you go broke, and then offer the plea deal. “Everybody takes the deal,” Kiriakou says. “I’d already spent a million dollars I’ll never pay off, and I have five kids at home. Was I going to risk 18 years in prison? Nope.” With the examples set by Kiriakou and Thomas Drake (who went bankrupt defending himself), it’s hard to blame people for eyeing their pensions before they blab. Even if a leaker takes the plunge anyway, it’s hard to know where to turn. “Few traditional media outlets have the budget for investigative journalism, and you can’t just take a leaker’s word for it,” Kiriakou says. “A lot of whistleblowers and would-be whistleblowers have told me they were ignored by the Washington Post or The New York Times and said, well, there’s always WikiLeaks.” Not that Kiriakou is any fan of how WikiLeaks handles information. “WikiLeaks published my social security number in the Chelsea Manning leak,” he says. “Did they need to do that? I think not.” He admits that some of his trepidation towards WikiLeaks could be generational — Kiriakou is in his fifties, and still reads his news in print — but he ultimately thinks they can become part of the solution only when they adopt more vigorous vetting practices. But only a small part: “We need a national security whistleblower protection law,” Kiriakou says. “There has to be somewhere to go legally in the system, not just WikiLeaks.” The Case for Leaks Kiriakou’s ultimate advice to leakers? Lawyer up, but trust the system. “My chain of command created the torture program, so I went directly to the media. But that’s illegal. Don’t do that,” he says. “Going through the chain of command up to the Congressional oversight committee will make your argument for that better whistleblower protection law stronger.” Failing the ability to shed light on unsavory government practices, things start to look a bit 1984 to Kiriakou. “We’d have to take the government at its word,” he says. “Then we really could develop a deep state — a grotesque, untouchable permanent bureaucracy.” The Trump administration sees America on its darkest timeline. If it takes more whistleblowers to keep that a fiction, Kiriakou’s inclined to let them leak. More from WIRED: Obama Talks AI and the Future of the World America’s Electronic Voting Machines Are Easy Targets Google’s Unknown Campaign To Track the World’s Hottest Startups What Happens When You Talk About Salaries at Google Hackers Trick Facial-Recognition Logins With Facebook Photos A Hacking Group is Selling iPhone Spyware to Governments -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

15 марта, 13:01

Trump takes steps toward undoing Obama’s auto emissions limits

President Donald Trump will tap the brakes Wednesday on the Obama administration’s tightening of future vehicle emissions limits, in yet another strike at his predecessor’s energy and climate agenda.The auto industry has made it a top priority to review the Obama administration’s 11th-hour attempt to lock in tough standards for years, and Trump will deliver on a trip to Michigan Wednesday. He will direct EPA to reconsider its recent conclusion that automakers would be able to meet strict limits strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would have vehicles getting more than 50 miles per gallon on average by 2025.However, the president is leaving in place a waiver that lets California and other states enforce stricter rules within their borders — sidestepping, at least for now, an all-out climate change battle with blue states. Wednesday’s announcement is part of a series of steps the Trump administration has taken to unwind Obama’s climate change programs. The president is expected to continue that effort in the coming days with an executive order directing EPA to begin rolling back its rules on power plant carbon emissions, among other steps, along with a budget proposal that aims to slash EPA’s purse by more than 25 percent.“We’re going to pull back the EPA’s determination because we don’t think it’s right,” a senior White House official told reporters on Tuesday. “We’re going to spend another year looking at the data in front of us, making sure everything is right, so that in 2018 we can set standards that are technologically feasible, economically feasible, that allow the auto industry to grow and create jobs, that’s very important for the president.”Trump is expected to make the announcement during a trip to Ypsilanti, Mich., about 30 miles outside Detroit, where he will speak with auto executives and workers.The president’s order is the first step toward relaxing the emissions rules, although the White House official cautioned that Trump’s order only directs EPA to continue studying the issue, not necessarily to weaken the standards.They were set by the Obama administration in 2012 as part of a sweeping plan to encourage automakers to produce more hybrid and electric vehicles and reduce carbon emissions from transportation. However, formal changes to the standards would take years to implement, and the Trump administration would encounter fierce resistance from environmental groups and states that have struggled to reduce air pollution.Automakers implored Trump to revisit the standards just days after his election. In a more recent February letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers wrote that the Obama administration's decision to lock in the standards "may be the single most important decision that EPA has made in recent history."Obama’s EPA signed off on the 2022-25 vehicle rules in January, just one week before Trump took office — and more than a year before it was scheduled to complete its midterm review of whether cars and light trucks would be able to comply with the targets for those years.EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is in charge of setting the sister fuel-efficiency regulations, began their midterm review last summer and were not required to complete it until April 2018. But three weeks after last year’s election, the Obama administration proposed keeping the standards and gave the public just 30 days to comment before cementing that policy.Agency officials at the time insisted there was nothing wrong with acting 14 months early, but critics said the decision was a political one, rushed across the finish line in an effort to tie the Trump administration’s hands.EPA estimated in January that the 2022-25 standards would save 1.2 billion barrels of oil and 540 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions over those vehicles' lifetimes. However, the agency acknowledged that because of heavier-than-expected sales of big vehicles like SUVs, the U.S. would fall short of the much-heralded 54.5 miles-per-gallon goal that automakers and the Obama had agreed to in 2011. The Auto Alliance argues the standards would cost up to 1.1 million jobs because of lower vehicles sales, citing a 2016 study from the Center for Automotive Research, which is funded by government and corporate grants.While the White House downplayed the notion that it necessarily will weaken the standards, the official did indicate the administration sees major problems with the regulation.“The numbers just don’t add up,” the official said. “They may be making it in California, but overall the industry is concerned because consumers are not going to buy those vehicles if you have” low gas prices.Environmentalists are already pushing back.“This is no time to shift cleaner car standards into reverse,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters. “These commonsense clean cars standards are already doing their job to protect consumers, protect our health and climate, and reduce our oil consumption.”Meanwhile, Securing America’s Future Energy, a group focused on reducing dependence on oil, called for all sides to come to the table. "There's no reason for environmentalists, automakers, and conservatives to risk a nuclear war over these rules, which will result in zero progress for all sides," said president and CEO Robbie Diamond.Trump will direct EPA to put the midterm review back on the original schedule and make a new final determination by April 2018. NHTSA has not yet completed mileage standards for 2022-25. It will start writing a new mpg rule, which must be finished by April 2020 and is meant to harmonize with EPA’s standards. NHTSA will be “much more of a partner” on the auto standards than it was under the Obama administration, the White House official said.Rumors swirled in recent weeks that the Trump administration would seek to revoke a 2012 waiver granted by EPA to California to regulate vehicle emissions at a stricter level than the federal rules, but the administration decided against it, at least for now.The White House official said the California standards, which are also followed by a dozen other states, are a bridge the administration will cross when it gets to that point, in 2018.“The hope is that as you go through this process, California will be a partner and we’ll figure this out,” the official said. “If at that point California decides they want to go in a different direction, or we decide to go in a different direction, we’ll have to deal with it at that point. But that’s really down the road.”Federal law since 1967 has given the Golden State special consideration under the Clean Air Act because of its history of high pollution and attempts to regulate emissions. California can apply for waivers from EPA to set stricter standards, which other states can then adopt as their own.California routinely received its waivers until 2007, when the Bush administration announced it would deny California a waiver to set greenhouse gas emissions limits on cars and other vehicles, in what would have been the first such program in the nation. That program became the template for the nationwide rules the Obama administration adopted five years later, after determining that EPA had to regulate carbon emissions. California eventually received its waiver, but agreed that it would consider any vehicles that met the EPA standards set in 2012 to be in compliance with state requirements.A dozen states — representing 40 percent of the U.S. population — have adopted all or most of the California program, meaning that they could enforce stricter rules if the state waiver remains in place, even if EPA eventually relaxes the national requirement.Democrats and environmentalists say there is no clear authorization in the law for EPA to revoke California’s waiver once it has been issued, meaning the state may have the upper hand over vehicle emission standards through 2025. Federal courts have never considered the issue, but Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said an “extremely strong case” could be made that the waiver must remain in place.But California is raring for a fight. State lawmakers have hired former Attorney General Eric Holder in preparation for battles with the federal government on a variety of issues. And Gov. Jerry Brown has vowed to keep in place state policies to reduce emissions. “We can do much on our own and we can join with others — other states and provinces and even countries, to stop the dangerous rise in climate pollution,” Brown said in his State of the State address in January. “And we will.”

13 марта, 19:10

Here's What Will -- And Won't -- Happen Next Time A Cop Kills An American

WASHINGTON ― In the coming days or weeks or months, a police officer will kill an American, and a controversy will erupt. Maybe the person will be shot while walking away or holding a toy gun, or strapped to a chair and hit by a Taser, or the person’s spine will be severed in a police wagon. There will be questions about who the victim was and what role she played in her own death, and whether the department is being upfront with the public about what really took place. Protests will bring out hundreds — perhaps thousands — of citizens demanding police transparency and accountability. The media will dig into the officers’ history, looking for allegations of racism or a record of excessive force complaints. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Under the national spotlight, the focus will shift to how the department interacts with the citizens they’ve sworn to protect and serve. It’ll become clear that the protests are about more than this one tragic incident. Perhaps the police department turned into a revenue-collection agency, with officers targeting black citizens for minor offenses while top city officials traded racist emails. Maybe officers were abusing the constitutional rights of civilians through routine stops, frisks and arrests that targeted black residents. “We know that we have Americans with cell phones. We know that some tragedy is going to be captured on video. And we know that hashtag activism will bring it forward to public consciousness,” says NAACP President Cornell William Brooks. What we don’t know, Brooks says, is what will happen next. How will the Justice Department respond? How will the attorney general respond? How will the president respond?  Just a few months ago, the answer to those questions were relatively straightforward. Under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama’s attorneys general, the Justice Department made a habit of launching broad investigations of police departments following controversial shootings. It’s rare for the Justice Department to bring charges against an individual officer in connection with a shooting. The standard for bringing federal civil rights charges against an individual officer is high. Under federal civil rights law, prosecutors must prove an officer used excessive force willfully, and in all but the most egregious cases, it is extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer intentionally violated an individual’s civil rights. And even successful excessive-force prosecutions don’t always expose underlying problems and often fail to improve the climate within a police department or prevent abuses.  That’s where the Justice Department’s broad probes, also known as pattern-or-practice investigations, or 14141 probes, come in. Under a provision of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act passed in 1994 in the wake of the videotaped beating of motorist Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers, the Justice Department can investigate systemic problems within law enforcement agencies to identify “a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers” that “deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” These sorts of independent federal investigations allowed the healing process to begin in cities that were “in real pain because of a gulf in trust between the police and certain segments of that community,” says Jonathan Smith, a former DOJ Civil Rights Division official. But under the Trump administration, the future of broad investigations into police departments is in doubt. On the campaign trail, Trump frequently pledged to back law enforcement. The Trump administration has vowed to eliminate America’s “anti-police atmosphere.” And the nation’s new top cop, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has long been a skeptic of broad civil rights investigations of police departments.  Sessions is leery of consent decrees, in which police departments agree to change their practices, and believes “bad apples,” as opposed to systemic failings, are the cause of police violence. He went further in prepared remarks for a recent speech to the nation’s attorneys general, arguing that police felt the political leadership of the country had abandoned them. The federal government should not be in the business of “dictating to local police how to do their jobs” or spending “scarce federal resources” to sue cities in court, he argued. And Sessions said the DOJ would “pull back” on investigations that he believed had diminish the effectiveness of police departments. “We’re going to try to pull back on this, and I don’t think it’s wrong or mean or insensitive to civil rights or human rights,” Sessions said. Speaking with reporters the day before his speech, Sessions said he believed the DOJ reports released during Obama’s presidency — which he hadn’t read — were “anecdotal” and not based in science.  Conservative news outlets got the message. “Jeff Sessions Signals That Obama’s War on Cops Is at an End,” declared RedState. Another conservative website said Sessions would “End Federal Harassment of Local Police.” There’s no evidence that the Obama administration waged a “war” on cops. Only a couple dozen of the more than 18,000 police departments in America came under DOJ scrutiny during the Obama administration. And supporters of the Obama administration’s approach to police reform say the investigations benefit police officers as well, because effective policing requires the trust of the community. “Fundamentally, you can’t fix the public safety problem in Chicago until you fix the police department. Those things have to go hand and hand,” says Smith, the former Civil Rights Division official. “I’m worried that without this tool available that you will see increasing frustration and growing mistrust.” When a Huffington Post reporter asked Sessions how he thinks the Justice Department should respond after the next policing controversy, the attorney general focused on DOJ’s role in investigating individual incidents. But federal criminal investigations in excessive force don’t look at the whole department and miss broader issues inside law enforcement agencies that need to be addressed, argues Christy Lopez, a former deputy chief in the Special Litigation Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. “That officer, even if he did willfully do this thing, why was he hired in the first place? Why was he allowed to stay on? How many other officers have done that and escaped accountability at this department?” Protecting the reputation and effectiveness of police departments, said Lopez, requires making sure they are abiding by the rule of law. Backing off of police department investigations, she said, “is not friendly to the police any more than it’s friendly to your children to let them run amok in the streets.” “Obviously I get it, there are a lot of people in the FOP and line officers who feel under attack by the fact that these decrees exist,” Lopez added. “But it’s a narrative I wouldn’t buy into because there are a lot of people in law enforcement who recognize that this is a legitimate part of law enforcement, to make sure that law enforcement officers are abiding by the law just like everybody else.” All the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest police organization, wants from the Trump administration is “fairness and due process,” says Jim Pasco, the senior adviser to the FOP president. “Police officers deserve and are entitled to the same due process that anyone is ― and they should receive it…. Police are not perfect, but neither is anybody else, and we’re hopeful that all American citizens will benefit from evenhanded justice in a Trump administration.” But most activists and experts who favor broad investigations of police departments concede they’re unlikely under Trump. “There’s not going to be an Attorney General Holder, who’s flying down to Ferguson to shake hands with people at a coffee shop,” says Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “There’s not going to be an Attorney General Lynch to go to Baltimore and sit with community leaders around the table in the midst of the unrest.” Lopez is even blunter: “I think we’re more likely to see the National Guard go in than the Civil Rights Division.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

13 марта, 12:19

Holder, Pelosi, McAuliffe start redistricting fundraising

Before they get to redistricting reform, they’ll need cash. Democrats leading the party’s new effort to coordinate political and legal resources to redraw state legislatures’ and House of Representatives’ maps will kick off the first phase of fundraising next weekend, heading to San Francisco on Saturday and Los Angeles on Sunday to make their case to some of California’s biggest donors. Former Attorney General Eric Holder — who’s chairing the National Democratic Redistricting Committee — will be joined by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. “Together, we will rebuild from the ground up outside of Washington — and give voters a more representative government,” Holder said. One person who won’t be joining them: former President Barack Obama, who’s committed to the group but is so far remaining out of direct political activity as he continues setting up his foundation. Obama is expected to do fundraising for the group eventually, though no events have been scheduled. In the meantime, in private conversations, he’s been pointing donors and others asking him how to get involved to the NDRC. The NDRC plans to target select statehouse races in key states, raising Democratic attention around them and consolidating outside groups’ spending and work in the hopes of flipping seats to combat the Republican advantage in setting maps after the next census. They’re also getting active in governors’ races, and prospecting for new lawsuits that could challenge existing maps. “The American people deserve confidence in their democracy,” Pelosi said, calling the NDRC an “important effort to undo Republican gerrymandering and build a fairer map for the decade to come.”More joint events for Holder, Pelosi and McAuliffe are being scheduled in New York, Washington, Chicago and Boston, according to people familiar with the planning. “We'll be crisscrossing the country meeting with supporters and ensuring that the NDRC can help lead the effort to win critical governors races in 2017 and 2018,” McAuliffe said, “and give Democrats a seat at the table in the 2021 redistricting process.”

13 марта, 12:17

Pelosi retools communications shop to battle Trump

Like everyone else in Washington, House Democrats have been struggling to keep up with President Donald Trump — or the continuing revelations about his administration. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is hoping a revamped press operation will help. Monday, she’ll announce the hiring of Ashley Etienne as communications director and senior adviser, calling her “uniquely equipped to lead House Democrats’ efforts to expose the dangerous and incompetent agenda of the Trump administration.”Etienne will have three main focuses: oversight, ethics and Russia. She’ll be charged with trying to keep up a consistent, coordinated line of attack for House Democrats while others handle the daily fray. That will include sharpening Democratic messaging, and collaborating with the various Democratic caucuses and the Senate Democrats. Trump, said Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill, is “always going to be a challenge because he’s scattershot,” and so the question is “figuring out what are those core things that we want to continue to build a narrative on.”“Few people are better at being able to start a narrative than Ashley,” Hammill said, explaining why he recruited Etienne for the position. Hammill, meanwhile, will shift to a role centered on determining how best to deploy Pelosi herself and guiding the Democratic minority toward going on the offensive on issues. Pelosi is also promoting her deputy communications director, Caroline Behringer, to be senior communications adviser. Behringer will be the point person for the Republican majority’s efforts on Obamacare repeal and tax issues. Etienne is returning to Pelosi’s shop after spending the past two years in the Obama White House, running Cabinet press operations. Before her first tour in the minority leader’s office, which included being one of the point people on the 2013 government shutdown, she worked on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee for Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), leading the response against then-Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) ahead of the 2012 election on the Benghazi investigation, Fast and Furious, holding then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, the claims of an IRS scandal and Solyndra. She also helped shape the “war against women” rhetoric that was a significant theme of the Democrats’ 2012 campaigns.

12 марта, 00:00

Memo to Jeff Sessions: It's Time to Clean House

John Hinderaker, PowerLineOf all the Obama administration scandals, what Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch did to the Department of Justice is one of the worst. Two manifestations of the depths to which DOJ has fallen emerged today. First, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, the highly partisan Democrat who selectively prosecuted Dinesh D'Souza for a felony and tried to send him to jail because he contributed too much to a Senate campaign,

11 марта, 08:30

California Girds To Battle Feds To Save The Environment

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); California officials aim to guard some of the toughest environmental standards in the nation against the Trump administration’s plan to cut clean air and water regulations. But it’s probably not going to be easy. California has set the standard in many areas of environmental protections, including the toughest regulations for car emissions and fuel economy. The state, with its population of 39 million, is large enough to wield significant clout in the market. “For the past 50 years, California has led the country and the world when it comes to clean cars,” Margo Oge, who once directed the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency, told The Washington Post. But its progressive environmental standards rely on a kind of special dispensation from the federal government. The Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority to grant a waiver of national emissions standards to California if it enacted tougher regulations. Waivers were later granted to other states that adopted California’s standards instead of the less-stringent federal ones. California’s cutting-edge rules helped buoy a national agreement by the Obama administration and the automobile industry that calls for cars to achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.  The state has several other waivers for tougher environmental rules. In testimony last month before the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Richard Frank, director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center, called the arrangement an example of “cooperative federalism.” But California leaders fear that the administration of President Donald Trump, who leads a Republican Party that typically champions states’ rights, will move to yank California’s waiver on fuel economy — even though it’s supposed to be valid until 2025. The auto industry is already pressing for fuel-efficiency standards to be eased. Trade groups sent letters asking new EPA chief Scott Pruitt to review the fuel economy standards. Pruitt said at his confirmation hearings that he would review the standards — and California’s waiver. California is expected to head straight to court if the Trump administration calls for easing the standards in the state. It’s unclear when that clash might happen. The state has placed former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on retainer to take on court cases California expects to file against the federal government at some point. One environmental rule that the administration swiftly dropped was the ban on using lead ammunition and fishing tackle in national parks and wildlife refuges. Lifting the ban was one of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s first actions. California plans to stick to its state ban, passed in 2013, a spokesman for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife told KQED Science. The law phases in a complete prohibition on lead hunting ammo in the whole state by 2019.  Lead bullets left in the environment or in carrion and prey can be ingested by other animals, causing neurological damage and death. Among those most at risk are eagles and the endangered California condor. As many as 20 million birds and other animals die of lead poisoning nationally each year because of the nearly 100,000 tons of lead that sportsmen use, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.  Earlier this month a bald eagle was brought into the Blue Mountain Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Oregon suffering from the telltale loss of body control linked to lead poisoning. Despite treatment, the eagle died. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58b1db2ee4b0a8a9b782d0a7,58af4c75e4b02f3f81e4453e,58a71504e4b07602ad53f023 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

11 марта, 08:30

California Girds To Battle Feds To Save The Environment

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); California officials aim to guard some of the toughest environmental standards in the nation against the Trump administration’s plan to cut clean air and water regulations. But it’s probably not going to be easy. California has set the standard in many areas of environmental protections, including the toughest regulations for car emissions and fuel economy. The state, with its population of 39 million, is large enough to wield significant clout in the market. “For the past 50 years, California has led the country and the world when it comes to clean cars,” Margo Oge, who once directed the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency, told The Washington Post. But its progressive environmental standards rely on a kind of special dispensation from the federal government. The Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority to grant a waiver of national emissions standards to California if it enacted tougher regulations. Waivers were later granted to other states that adopted California’s standards instead of the less-stringent federal ones. California’s cutting-edge rules helped buoy a national agreement by the Obama administration and the automobile industry that calls for cars to achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.  The state has several other waivers for tougher environmental rules. In testimony last month before the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Richard Frank, director of the California Environmental Law & Policy Center, called the arrangement an example of “cooperative federalism.” But California leaders fear that the administration of President Donald Trump, who leads a Republican Party that typically champions states’ rights, will move to yank California’s waiver on fuel economy — even though it’s supposed to be valid until 2025. The auto industry is already pressing for fuel-efficiency standards to be eased. Trade groups sent letters asking new EPA chief Scott Pruitt to review the fuel economy standards. Pruitt said at his confirmation hearings that he would review the standards — and California’s waiver. California is expected to head straight to court if the Trump administration calls for easing the standards in the state. It’s unclear when that clash might happen. The state has placed former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on retainer to take on court cases California expects to file against the federal government at some point. One environmental rule that the administration swiftly dropped was the ban on using lead ammunition and fishing tackle in national parks and wildlife refuges. Lifting the ban was one of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s first actions. California plans to stick to its state ban, passed in 2013, a spokesman for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife told KQED Science. The law phases in a complete prohibition on lead hunting ammo in the whole state by 2019.  Lead bullets left in the environment or in carrion and prey can be ingested by other animals, causing neurological damage and death. Among those most at risk are eagles and the endangered California condor. As many as 20 million birds and other animals die of lead poisoning nationally each year because of the nearly 100,000 tons of lead that sportsmen use, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.  Earlier this month a bald eagle was brought into the Blue Mountain Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Oregon suffering from the telltale loss of body control linked to lead poisoning. Despite treatment, the eagle died. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58b1db2ee4b0a8a9b782d0a7,58af4c75e4b02f3f81e4453e,58a71504e4b07602ad53f023 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

11 марта, 06:15

Sessions Considering "Outside Special Counsel" To Review "Highly Politicized" Actions Of Obama DOJ

Even though Obama spent the waning days of his administration boasting about how he had managed to spend 8 years in the White House without a single 'scandal', current Attorney General Jeff Sessions seems to have a slightly different view of how to define 'scandal'.  But perhaps Obama just "did not recall" some of the highly controversial efforts of his administration including the intentional IRS targeting of conservative political groups, Eric Holder's "Fast and Furious" gun running program which ultimately resulted in him being held in contempt of Congress and, of course, that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix just as the DOJ and FBI were contemplating whether or not to press charges against Hillary Clinton over her email scandal. Appearing on the air with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Sessions was asked if he would consider designating an outside counsel "not connected to politics" to take a second look at Justice Department actions that provoked Republican ire over the last eight years. Hewitt contended during his radio interview that the department had become "highly politicized" during the Obama administration and floated the idea of a special review by an attorney with the authority to bring criminal charges and "just generally to look at how the Department of Justice operated." While Sessions was somewhat noncommittal, he did leave the door open, saying he would do everything he could to "restore the independence and professionalism of the Department of Justice." According to the AP, Sessions said that "generally, a good review of that internally is the first step before any such decision is made" but continued on to say that he "would have to consider whether or not some outside special counsel is needed." Hewitt:  Now let me switch to the Department itself, Mr. Attorney General.  It has a bad eight years.  I'm a proud veteran of the Department of Justice as you are, but the IRS case, the Fast and Furious case, Secretary Clinton's server.  The Department of Justice came under great criticism.  How about an outside counsel, not connected to politics, to review the DOJ's actions in those matters with authority to bring charges if underlying crimes are uncovered in the course of the investigation, and just generally to look at how the DOJ operated in the highly politicized Holder-Lynch years.   Sessions:  Well, I'm going to do everything I possibly can to restore independence and professionalism of the DOJ, so we're going to have to consider whether or not some outside special counsel is needed.  Generally, a good review of that internally is the first step before any such decision is made. <   Sessions went on to say the outcome of the IRS case, in particular, remained "of real concern." The Justice Department in 2015 found mismanagement at the tax agency but no evidence that it had targeted a political group based on its viewpoints or obstructed justice. But we're sure this is just all 'much ado about nothing' as they say...after all Loretta Lynch already said Bill just stopped by her plane to chat about his grandkids for 30 minutes...surely she wouldn't attempt the mislead the American people just to protect her administration, right?

09 марта, 16:42

Sessions open to using outside counsel to investigate DOJ under Holder, Lynch

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday that he would be open to bringing in an outside counselor to investigate the practices of his Department of Justice predecessors under former President Barack Obama.Sessions was asked about such an arrangement during an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who suggested that Sessions might ask outside counsel to look into the department under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.That counsel, Hewitt suggested, would have “authority to bring charges if underlying crimes were uncovered.” He pointed to controversies including alleged bias within the IRS against conservative political groups and the “Fast and Furious” scandal, in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed guns to be sold illegally in the hopes of tracking them to Mexican drug cartels.“Well, I’m going to do everything I possibly can to restore the independence and professionalism of the Department of Justice,” Sessions replied. “So we’ll have to consider whether or not some outside counsel is needed. Generally, a good review of that internally is the first step before any such decision is made.”Although Sessions expressed an openness to an outside investigation into the Department of Justice, he and other officials from the administration of President Donald Trump have been resistant to calls for an outside investigation into ties between the Russian government and individuals close to the president. Amid revelations that he met twice with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. during last year’s presidential campaign and did not disclose those meetings during his Senate confirmation hearing, Sessions announced last week that he would recuse himself from all Justice Department investigations related to the 2016 election.

09 марта, 11:29

Uber не пройдет: в каких сферах маркетплейсы не сработают и почему

Что мешает «уберизации всего мира»: недостаток контроля со стороны агрегаторов и сложность логистических моделей

09 марта, 03:12

Sessions: Changes coming to policies on drug charges

His statement suggests a reversal of Eric Holder's policies.

Выбор редакции
08 марта, 15:56

DID ERIC HOLDER COMMIT PERJURY? So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he h…

DID ERIC HOLDER COMMIT PERJURY? So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search […]

08 марта, 13:27

Democrats planning first cattle call for 2020 contenders

Speakers are being told to bring ideas — not just political attacks on Trump.

07 марта, 19:56

DOJ No. 2 pick: No need to recuse from Russia probes 'at this time'

'Any investigation conducted by the Department of Justice is an independent investigation,' Rod Rosenstein says.

07 марта, 02:45

Sessions' No. 2 in waiting faces heat on Russia probe

Democrats will use a confirmation hearing for a deputy attorney general to keep the spotlight on Donald Trump's Moscow problem.

05 марта, 20:56

Special elections spark Democratic hopes

Recent contests have been marked by high turnout and unusually strong performances by local Democrats.

27 мая 2013, 11:26

Простым языком об организованной преступности финансового бизнеса. Тема: ставки Libor

Организованная преступность финансового бизнесаПора перестать смеяться над любителями теорий заговоров. Может быть, за нитки за кулисами дергают не ротшильды с рокфеллерами, а наемные менеджеры, но суть от этого не меняетсяМеждународная финансовая система, ставшая сегодня основой современной корпоративной свободнорыночной экономики - это мошенничество в особо крупных размерах.Странные порядки царили в советских СМИ. Интересные вещи появлялись в самых неожиданных местах. Журналы «Наука и жизнь» и «Знание сила» писали про политическую философию, рассказы Кафки появлялись где-нибудь в «Сибирских огнях», репродукция Пикассо впервые в СССР была опубликована в сатирическом «Крокодиле», а о Роллинг стоунз впервые написали не в музыкальном обозрении, а в детском журнале «Ровесник».В Америке все скоро будет, как в СССР эпохи застоя. Уже сейчас расследованиями финансовых спекуляций занимаются не солидные «Уолл-стрит джорнал» или «Файненшиал таймс», а журнал «Роллинг стоунз». Финансовый корреспондент журнала Мэтт Тайби практически единственный в мейнстриме, кто пишет о разрегулированном и дисфункциональном американском и мировом финансовом рынке и о том, насколько этот рынок мошеннический.Почему, как в СССР? А потому, что все меньше и меньше реальных хозяев, а делами заправляет цех наемных менеджеров, заинтересованный лишь в высокой зарплате и жирном пакете бенефитов в конце года. Именно менеджеры и финансовые спекулянты, да еще их адвокаты составляют тот 1%, который присваивает себе львиную долю национального богатства Америки. Как заметил ветеран американской журналистики Хедрик Смит, распределение богатства в Америке аналогично тому, что было в Египте в эпоху фараонов. Однако, в отличие от Египта, собственность здесь обезличена, а богатство рассредоточено и перемешано в различных банковских и финансовых продуктах, которые давно уже никто не способен контролировать.На встречу с Мэттом Тайби я шел с большим интересом. Его последняя статья «Все – мошенничество. Крупнейшая финансовая афера фиксирования цен в истории» рассказывает о манипулировании на рынке свопов. Комиссия по торговле товарными фьючерсами недавно начала следствие по делу брокерской фирмы ICAP и 15 банковских учреждений Уолл Стрит. Комиссия расследует их сговор с целью манипуляции скоростью публикации индекса ISDAfix.О ФИНАНСАХ ПРОСТО И ИНТЕРЕСНОЕсли продолжать писать о финансах в том же псевдопрофессиональном духе, зараженном корпоративным новоязом, то даже самые преданные мои читатели скоро потеряют интерес. Потому объясню просто. Что бы вы сказали, если бы результаты скачек объявлялись публике через несколько дней после того, как скачки состоялись? А в это время «умным людям» внутри системы разрешалось делать ставки? Собственно, так и происходит со скоростной электронной торговлей. Комбинаторы внутри системы получают возможность видеть и прогнозировать результаты торгов в конце дня, и на этом основании делают свои ставки, покупают и продают до того, как остальные игроки узнают, что там происходит. Покупают и продают не на свои деньги, а на деньги клиентов, против интересов которых они часто играют. ISDAfix – один из многих индексов, существующих на финансовых рынках. Он служит для определения курса в финансовых сделках. Libor – другой такой индекс, с помощью которого определяют курс практических всех банковских сделок с переменным курсом. Фокус здесь в том, что эти индексы составляются на основе оценочных данных, которые финансовые компании предоставляют добровольно и имеют возможность их поправлять.Самое простое объяснение свопа. Скажем вы – город или компания – заняли деньги под переменный курс и хотите иметь стабильность займа с фиксированным процентом. Тогда  фиксированный процент вы платите банку, а уже он разбирается с переменными процентными ставками. Это выходит дороже, но освобождает от хлопот. Своп – это многошаговая операция,  в ходе которой активы переходят из рук в руки, одновременно продаются и покупаются на заранее договоренных условиях.Сговор был в том, чтобы лишить широкую публику возможности своевременно узнавать об этих условиях. Банки докладывают о своих курсах добровольно, а это прямое приглашение не говорить всей правды.Большинство американского среднего класса слишком озабочено своими растущими долгами,  невозможностью сводить концы с концами, необходимостью выкладываться на двух-трех работах. Лишь мельком они могут услышать о скачках индекса Доу Джонс на Уолл Стрит. В конце дня им по телевизору расскажут, как шутка хакеров о взрыве в Белом Доме завалила на несколько минут финансовые рынки. Уровень торгов  потом восстановится. Вот только самого главного - кто нагрел на этом руки - СМИ не расскажут.Только недавно без лишнего шума закончилось судебной сделкой расследование аферы, в которой мошенники сманипулировали индексом Libor на пятьсот триллионов долларов. Штрафы заплатят, как водится, не виновники, а вкладчики компаний и налогоплательщики. Да еще законодатели дадут проворовавшимся банкирам налоговые скидки.Так случилось в рождественскую ночь, когда для компании, оштрафованной на $750 миллионов за уголовные нарушения, конгрессмены тихонько протащили закон об освобождении от налогов на $500 миллионов. ПОЧЕМУ ЖЕ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛИ РАЗРЕШАЮТ ПОДОБНОЕ?– Раньше это работало или, по крайней мере, ничего не всплывало на поверхность, – говорит Тайби. – Теперь же выясняется, что котировки подправлялись довольно долгое время. Это очень легко сделать. Достаточно одному биржевому маклеру и одному из сотрудников рейтингового агентства вступить в сделку и позвонить по нескольким номерам. И это без преувеличения затрагивает интересы миллиардов людей.На манипуляциях поймали три банка, которые уже заключили судебные сделки, еще четыре - под следствием, но предполагается, что все 16 «первоклассных» банков, определенных в маркетмейкеры индекса, занимались манипуляциями. Тайби говорит, что по его данным, следствие ведется против 15-ти из них:Если там было мошенничество, то во всех 16-ти банках должны были знать о нем? – В деле есть множество косвенных улик, подтверждающих, что руководство знало о мошенничестве, – говорит Тойби. – В деле фигурирует переписка между Bank of England и гендиректором одного из крупнейших в Великобритании и мире финансовых конгломератов – Barklays в разгар глобального финансового обвала 2008 года о том, чтобы установить индекс ниже, чем он был на самом деле.Индекс Libor, по сути, измеряет, как банки доверяют друг другу, и поэтому является показателем благосостояния финансовой системы в целом. Если индекс низкий, банки доверяют и занимают друг другу деньги. Если индекс высокий – значит, банковская система нестабильна.Котировки межбанковского обмена устанавливаются ежедневно, и, вероятно, можно было создать независимую организацию для мониторинга и предотвращения мошенничества?– Да, если бы использовали реальные данные. Однако сегодня никто не обязан подавать реальные цифры о том, сколько денег они заняли вчера и по какому курсу. Предоставляют лишь свои предположения о том, какая котировка будет. Там довольно сложный процесс подсчета, охватывающий разные периоды времени и 16 основных мировых валют.Новый сговор, который расследует Комиссия, влияет на затраты по обслуживанию займов во всем мире и процентные свопы стоимостью в $379.000.000.000.000  – триста семьдесят девять триллионов долларов. Для сравнения – валовой национальный продукт США составляет около 15 триллионов, а совокупное национальное богатство США – 57.4 триллиона (на 2011 г). Эта мошенническая схема затрагивает любого, кто платит по ипотечной ссуде, по ссуде на машину, расплачивается кредитной карточкой. От этого зависит сама цена денег, обменные курсы валют во всем мире. Речь идет о небольшом подразделении внутри ICAP, – говорит Тайби. –  Около 20 человек, которые, по сути, определяли курсы свопов во всем мире. Хотя фирма зарегистрирована в Лондоне, действовали они из Джерси-сити, потому американские регуляторы смогли расследовать их деятельность.По сути же, транснациональные банковские корпорации действуют в сумеречной зоне, с неопределенными юрисдикциями. В афере Lidor все началось с японского биржевика, вступившего в сговор с сотрудником Lidor, тоже находившимся в Японии. Национальные границы не всегда позволяют эффективно расследовать новые виды корпоративной преступности.Это совершенно новый вид преступлений. Нет надобности красть у людей деньги и имущество. Вместо воровства манипулируют стоимостью имущества, которое имеется у людей, манипулируют процентными ставками, которые мы платим.НОВЫЙ ЭТАП МЕЖБАНКОВСКИХ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЙЧто же здесь нового, если Уолл-стрит и банки всегда отличались "творческими" и "новаторскими" подходами к поиску путей, как делать деньги? – Здесь нечто совершенно новое. Во время финансового коллапса 2008 вскрылся огромный объем системной коррупции в финансовых корпорациях, систематической обман в ипотечном бизнесе, укорененные аферы в аудите, мошеннические схемы в банках и компаниях, как в Лэмон Брозерс.Однако раньше мы никогда не сталкивались со случаями коррупции и мошенничества, включавшие сговор между банками. Последние аферы свидетельствуют о том, что корпоративная преступность вступила в новый этап межбанковских международных преступлений. На сцену выходит глобальная институцианализированная организованная преступность, способная безнаказанно подавить конкуренцию и манипулировать международными финансовыми рынками в невиданных ранее масштабах.Речь не идет о группе злоумышленников, ловящих рыбку в мутной воде рынка производных финансовых продуктов - деривативов. Определенные деятели зарабатывают миллиарды потому, что делают бизнес по-блатному, имеют нечестные преимущества. Мощные силы лоббируют политическую систему, и не допускают сделать рынок деривативов и свопов более прозрачным и понятным. Они имеют своих людей в Конгрессе. Они помогли Обаме избраться, а он расставил нужных людей в своей администрации. Громко разрекламированная финансовая реформа Обамы, известная еще как Додд-Френк Акт была без зубов, содержала множество лазеек и исключений, позволявший обойти закон. Даже те скромные меры обеспечения прозрачности рынка, которые содержит закон, администрация Обамы за полтора года так и не провела в жизнь.Разве банки не конкурируют между собой? Разве незримая рука свободного рынка не способна упорядочить рынок? А как же базисные мифы капитализма, которые американцы (а теперь и все остальные) впитывают чуть ли не с молоком матери? Предвидя возмущенные возгласы моих читателей-свободнорыночных энтузиастов "где вы видели свободный рынок", скажу, то, что называет себя свободным рынком, таковым и является, другого - нет.С другой стороны мои читатели-либералы, свято верящие, что американское общество стоит на защите их прав и равных возможностей, возразят, мол, а как же антимонопольное законодательство? Что бы сказал борец с монополизацией Тедди Рузвельт?Я полагаю, что антимонопольное законодательство должно применяться к подобным сговорам, но оно не применяется, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Большие корпорации, контролирующие огромные сегменты рынка и национальных ресурсов, являются монополиями. Тем самым они становятся опасными для общества.Однако, когда появляются доказательства того, что они находятся в сговоре между собой для манипуляций курсами и котировками, это становится чрезвычайно опасным  для общества. Если мы ничего с этим не делаем радикально, то это ведет нас к эскалации.ЧЕМУ БАНКИРЫ НАУЧИЛИСЬ У МАФИИ?И все-таки, что же с конкуренцией. Неужели "Чейс" и "Сити банк" не конкурируют между собой? – Они ведут борьбу за клиентов. Они конкуренты на каком-то уровне, но есть целые сферы в финансовом бизнесе, когда они заодно, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Я проводил журналистское расследование по поводу манипуляций на аукционах государственных облигаций. Мало кто об  этом знает, но если город, штат или даже целая страна хочет мобилизовать средства, то по закону, они обязаны провести торги. Аукцион призван создать конкуренцию между финансовыми корпорациями, и тем самым снизить учетные ставки, которые общество платит. На деле банкиры поделили между собой рынок с целью не допустить конкуренции, мол, мы возьмем облигации этого города, вы – другого.Материал по расследованию торгов облигациями Тайби называется «Чему банкиры научились у мафии». Читателю на просторах бывшего СССР они живо напомнят мошеннические аукционы веселых времен приватизации 1990-х.В Америке власти все же уличили пять крупнейших финансовых корпораций Уолл-Стрит, да еще банковскую компанию «Дженерал Электрик» в махинациях на сумму в $3.7 млрд. Как водится, в тюрьму никто не сел. В Штатах элита выше этого и понятие личной ответственности здесь напрочь отсутствует. Никто не заплатил штрафа из собственного кармана. Откупились многомиллионными штрафами из денег держателей акций. Такие штрафы никого не отпугивают. Когда делаются десятки миллиардов, то многомиллионые штрафы – лишь производственные расходы.Да и не доходят штрафы до пострадавших. Когда американское министерство финансов в рамках судебной сделки оштрафовала банки за нарушения в сфере ипотеки, то пострадавшие получили компенсацию в размере $300 на душу, зато адвокаты банков положили в карман два миллиарда. Прокуратура предпочитает не связываться с финансистами. Уходящий министр юстиции Эрик Холдер заявил недавно, что эти компании слишком большие и не по силам прокуратуре.«Министерство юстиции не провело во время президентства Обамы никаких серьезных расследований ни одного из крупных финансовых учреждений», – говорил мне Уильям Блак, адъюнкт-профессор экономики и права в Университете Миссури, Канзас-Сити. В 1980-х годах он работал следователем в скандале S&L (saving&loans). За 4 года Холдер и его люди не только не завели ни одного дела против крупных банковских воротил, но и тщательно следили, чтобы на местах не появились такие дела. Когда генеральный прокурор Нью-Йорка Эрик Шнайдерман завел было уголовные дела за массовые нарушения законов банками при выселении людей из домов за долги, Холдер и его люди тут же надавили и заставили Шнейдермана подписать сделку с банками. При подготовки статьи, из офиса генерального прокурора штата сообщили, что взамен он добился, чтобы из сделки исключили пункт о предоставлении иммунитета банкирам от дальнейших расследований по ипотечным преступлениям.Обама привел Холдера из адвокатской фирмы «Ковингтон и партнеры», которая обслуживает и представляет худших финансовых нарушителей. Холдер зарабатывал там $2,5 млн. в год. Холдер привел с собой Ленни Брюэра, возглавлявшего в фирме отдел "белых воротничков" по защите финансовых уголовников. В юстиции Обамы, Брюэр возглавил отдел уголовного преследования и всячески заботился, чтобы его бывшие клиенты не стали его подследственными. В одном из интервью Брюер признался, что, прежде всего, его заботит, что финансовые фирмы могут пострадать, если их менеджеры окажутся на скамье подсудимых.Брюэра хорошо вознаградили, и после завершения работы в министерстве юстиции, он получил работу лоббиста с окладом $4 млн. в год. Еще два юриста из Ковингтон заняли при Холдере ключевые позиции в системе правосудия Обамы, а первый заместитель Холдера Джеймс Кол пришел из другой, не менее одиозной юридической фирмы Bryan Cave LLP.Не удивительно, что и расследование аферы Libor, по сути, закончилось пшиком.Первым обвиняемым, с кем заключили сделку, оказался Barclays. Они заплатили относительно небольшой штраф ($450 млн. способны ослепить человека с улицы, но это копейки по сравнению с суммами, которые они оборачивают). Мой друг в правоохранительных органах говорил тогда, что все ожидают, как обычно, что за легкое наказание они сдадут всех остальных и последуют обвинительные иски в уголовных преступлениях. Оказалось, что сделка с Barclays стала эталоном для всех остальных подобных сделок.    СМИ не уделяют большого внимания финансовым аферам. Когда я ехал на встречу с Мэттом Тайби, в поезде пролистал газеты. Первые полосы были заняты сообщениями о том, что Джейон Коллинз стал первым открытым геем в Высшей спортивной лиге, Анджелина Джоли в целях профилактики удалила себе грудь (в качестве рекламной кампании по защите многомиллиардного бизнеса корпорации, запатентовавшей на себя человеческие гены – прим. ред.) в городских джунглях Сиэттла нашлись три женщины, проведшие 10 лет в рабстве в подвале дома в тихом городском районе. Одна из рабынь сумела сбежать, когда ее хозяин отправился покушать в местный МакДональдс.Мэтт Тайби - один из немногих в Америке, кто берется распутать аферы и рассказать о них публике, а «Роллинг Стоунз магазин» - практически единственное издание мейстрима, готовое предоставить свои страницы для расследований на эту тему.Много лет назад я слушал выступление легендарного Бена Бредли, многолетнего главреда «Вашингтон пост», запустившего расследование «Уотергейтского дела» и опубликовавшего знаменитые «Бумаги Пентагона». В русскоязычном мире многие помнят блестящую роль Джейсона Робардса, сыгравшего Бредли в фильме «Вся президентская рать». Бредли тогда спросили, а почему бы ему не заняться финансовыми аферами. Как раз тогда в самом разгаре был кризис S&L, в котором прогорело больше четверти всех кредитно-сберегательных ассоциаций США. Бредли тогда усмехнулся и сказал, что у публики «glaze over» – глаза остекленеют от этих дел. Американская публика способна до остервенения спорить по поводу толкования конституции, гражданских, гендерных или религиозных прав, но совершенно не обучена реагировать, когда задевают ее реальные социальные или классовые интересы. Капиталистический реализм, в котором здесь выросли, не дает необходимого словаря, моделей и понятий.Михаил Дорфман

07 мая 2013, 00:39

Без суда и следствия - в лучших традициях Линча

В прошедший понедельник американцам доходчиво разъяснили при каких обстоятельствах любого из них могут убить, причем не кровожадные террористы, а собственная, горячо любимая армия, полиция, спецслужбы…Выступая перед студентами и преподавателями Северо-Западного Университета, генеральный прокурор США Эрик Холдер разъяснил, что факт убийства американских граждан их правительством не стоит расценивать как нечто ужасное, а наоборот, как демонстрацию заботы правительства о безопасности американцев. Эрик ХолдерХолдер пояснил, что: «Когда речь идет о национальной безопасности, конституция гарантирует надлежащую правовую процедуру, а не судебный процесс.» Иными слвоами, любого американца теперь могут лишить жизни без суда и следствия, лишь при одном подозрении в намерении совершить противоправные действия (теракт).Так же Холдер подчеркнул: "Мы находимся в состоянии войны с врагом без гражданства, склонного кочевать от страны к стране… Ни Конгресс, ни наши Федеральные суды не ограничили границы применения нами силы…"До недавних лишь группа высших чиновников могла расценивать уровень угрозы для национальной безопасности и принимать решение по ликвидации лиц, от которых эта угроза исходит. Среди таких чиновников были равно как министр обороны Леон Панетта (ныне Чак Хэйгел) так и президент Барака Обама, который, непосредственно и давал окончательное утверждение на ликвидацию.Леон Панетта и Барак Обама еще в январе 2012 публично обсуждали идею ликвидации подозреваемых без суда и следствия.По словам генерального прокурора, это, с недавних пор, уже пережиток прошлого. «Конституция не требует от президента откладывать действия по предотвращению теракта до момента, когда полностью становится известно, что подозреваемый планирует его совершить. Такие действия приводят к нежелательному риску».По словам Холдера отныне решения, о ликвидации граждан являются исключительной прерогативой исполнительной власти, потому что только исполнительная власть обладает "опытом принятия подобных решений и полным доступ к имеющейся.Таким образом, в ближайшее время стоит ожидать появления списков неблагонадежных граждан США, за которыми будет организована слежка. И случайный клик на гиперссылке радикального исламистского сайта может в ту же секунду призвать фею калибра 5.56.