FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Senator Elizabeth Warren's first Banking Committee Hearing

Senator Elizabeth Warren's first Banking Committee Hearing

(7:39) Senior US Senator from Massachusetts and Democratic Elizabeth Warren quizzes the banking panel over the last time a major Wall Street bank was taken to trial.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1760 days ago)
Senator Warren asks some questions which may make some high level people uncomfortable. How long before some 'dirt' from her past is uncovered by an anonymous source that will get her removed from the scene?
ReplyVote up (110)down (104)
Original comment
Senator Warren asks some questions which may make some high level people uncomfortable. How long before some 'dirt' from her past is uncovered by an anonymous source that will get her removed from the scene?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1760 days ago)
She says you can use profits to pay settlements but she didn't mention that you usually lose money in a foreclosure so you would have to use profits from another part of your business to support that loss. The settlement process is not illegal so there is no need to take the bank to trial for doing this. Just a couple months ago, i know of someone who was being foreclosed on and was given a couple thousand dollars to walk away from the house. It could have been more costly for the bank to go to court and they eventually would have won and he would have found himself on the street anyway. This guy would prefer to have the cash so it was a win-win for everyone involved. "Too big to fail has become too big for trial." This is also not true. This is why there are class action suits against large companies and sometimes the consumers win. Even the bank I work for is involved in class action cases. The only two reasons she knows of why banks are being traded below book value is 1) The books are not honest and 2) Nobody believes that the banks are not manageable. She was clueless about the real reason. It's a supply and demand trading process and people saw that banks made a huge loss due to the housing market crash and the new government requirements on cash reserves forcing banks to accept TARP money. Few people want to invest in a bank that is not as profitable now as when it was a couple years ago. Daniel Tarullo even states it was economic uncertainty as part of the cause.
ReplyVote up (93)down (109)
Original comment
She says you can use profits to pay settlements but she didn't mention that you usually lose money in a foreclosure so you would have to use profits from another part of your business to support that loss. The settlement process is not illegal so there is no need to take the bank to trial for doing this. Just a couple months ago, i know of someone who was being foreclosed on and was given a couple thousand dollars to walk away from the house. It could have been more costly for the bank to go to court and they eventually would have won and he would have found himself on the street anyway. This guy would prefer to have the cash so it was a win-win for everyone involved. "Too big to fail has become too big for trial." This is also not true. This is why there are class action suits against large companies and sometimes the consumers win. Even the bank I work for is involved in class action cases. The only two reasons she knows of why banks are being traded below book value is 1) The books are not honest and 2) Nobody believes that the banks are not manageable. She was clueless about the real reason. It's a supply and demand trading process and people saw that banks made a huge loss due to the housing market crash and the new government requirements on cash reserves forcing banks to accept TARP money. Few people want to invest in a bank that is not as profitable now as when it was a couple years ago. Daniel Tarullo even states it was economic uncertainty as part of the cause.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1760 days ago)
tl;dr I suck bankster cock and spend all day online writing deflection propaganda for my them so that they might relieve my desperate need to have my face *******
ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment
tl;dr I suck bankster cock and spend all day online writing deflection propaganda for my them so that they might relieve my desperate need to have my face *******
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Captmike35 (1758 days ago)
The government bailed out AIG which insured Fanny and Freddie. The banks had no reason to work with homeowners, as they would absorb no loss....and after foreclosure, they could sell the houses at any price, which is why the housing market crashed!
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
The government bailed out AIG which insured Fanny and Freddie. The banks had no reason to work with homeowners, as they would absorb no loss....and after foreclosure, they could sell the houses at any price, which is why the housing market crashed!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Be objective! (1757 days ago)
The main point of the argument is that banks have significant financial leverage and legal expertise over consumers. This creates an imbalance for consumers who do not necessarily have the same resources. Let's not forget that this is the same country with a health insurance industry known for denying coverage to people for the most spurious of reasons, and we already know about Goldman Sachs, Enron, Merrell Lynch... what else is there that we don't know about? This creates a dilemma in terms of fairness before the law. Your banking system has a huge number of problems that in my view actually prevent it from being as profitable as it could be. As with any sector, there's corruption, but rather than deal with it, it seems many of your kind would rather use legalese and sophisticated banking jargon to shut down any argument that supports proper, thorough scrutiny of what the banking sector does. Yes, it would be an annoying and frustrating process for those involved. If it would prevent, or at least limit damage from any future recession, it's surely worth it. Every post you make on banking is skewed. You seem to have a stance that supports scrutiny of citizens, but when it comes to banking you seem to favour a laissez-faire approach. The evidence shows the banks have significant levels of corruption in the boardrooms. Based on the evidence - not on political grandstanding, not on party politics, not on anything else other than the evidence - more questions need to be asked about the inner workings of large financial institutions. Let's see if you can answer some of them. 1. How many charges of fraud have been brought against Wall St. financial institutions in the last 20 years? 2. How many charges of insider trading have been brought against Wall St. financial institutions in the last 20 years? 3. How much money is spent by Wall St. financial institutions on lobbying politicians annually - and how has this figure changed in the last 20 years? 4. How much money is spent by ordinary citizens (not connected to any financial institution or other special interest group) in lobbying politicians annually - and how has this figure changed in the last 20 years? 5. How many employees, from trader level up to the boardroom, have been charged with any criminal offence over the last 20 years? How many of these charges have resulted in trial, and how many of those resulted in conviction? 6. Even since 2008, how many Wall St. executives have served jail time for crimes that caused the financial crash? 7. Since 2008 how many ordinary US citizens served jail time for drug possession? 8. Since 2008 how many ordinary US citizens have served jail time for being part of a protest movement? The USA's laws and constitution are not being used as they were intended. They are now a tool for the rich to exercise control over the poor - and according to the system, everything they're doing is fair and legal. Step outside of the system and look at it objectively from the outside. There are honest and dishonest people in ALL walks of life. The objective of every free society must be to ensure that honesty and integrity reign in all insitutions.
ReplyVote up (100)down (100)
Original comment
The main point of the argument is that banks have significant financial leverage and legal expertise over consumers. This creates an imbalance for consumers who do not necessarily have the same resources. Let's not forget that this is the same country with a health insurance industry known for denying coverage to people for the most spurious of reasons, and we already know about Goldman Sachs, Enron, Merrell Lynch... what else is there that we don't know about? This creates a dilemma in terms of fairness before the law. Your banking system has a huge number of problems that in my view actually prevent it from being as profitable as it could be. As with any sector, there's corruption, but rather than deal with it, it seems many of your kind would rather use legalese and sophisticated banking jargon to shut down any argument that supports proper, thorough scrutiny of what the banking sector does. Yes, it would be an annoying and frustrating process for those involved. If it would prevent, or at least limit damage from any future recession, it's surely worth it. Every post you make on banking is skewed. You seem to have a stance that supports scrutiny of citizens, but when it comes to banking you seem to favour a laissez-faire approach. The evidence shows the banks have significant levels of corruption in the boardrooms. Based on the evidence - not on political grandstanding, not on party politics, not on anything else other than the evidence - more questions need to be asked about the inner workings of large financial institutions. Let's see if you can answer some of them. 1. How many charges of fraud have been brought against Wall St. financial institutions in the last 20 years? 2. How many charges of insider trading have been brought against Wall St. financial institutions in the last 20 years? 3. How much money is spent by Wall St. financial institutions on lobbying politicians annually - and how has this figure changed in the last 20 years? 4. How much money is spent by ordinary citizens (not connected to any financial institution or other special interest group) in lobbying politicians annually - and how has this figure changed in the last 20 years? 5. How many employees, from trader level up to the boardroom, have been charged with any criminal offence over the last 20 years? How many of these charges have resulted in trial, and how many of those resulted in conviction? 6. Even since 2008, how many Wall St. executives have served jail time for crimes that caused the financial crash? 7. Since 2008 how many ordinary US citizens served jail time for drug possession? 8. Since 2008 how many ordinary US citizens have served jail time for being part of a protest movement? The USA's laws and constitution are not being used as they were intended. They are now a tool for the rich to exercise control over the poor - and according to the system, everything they're doing is fair and legal. Step outside of the system and look at it objectively from the outside. There are honest and dishonest people in ALL walks of life. The objective of every free society must be to ensure that honesty and integrity reign in all insitutions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: cengland0isonhilday (1756 days ago)
Are you on holiday ? Your silence on these points are deafening.
ReplyVote up (98)down (102)
Original comment
Are you on holiday ? Your silence on these points are deafening.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1756 days ago)
I'm still here. I've just become bored with the users on this site so I have adopted an "I don't care" attitude. Why should I attempt to educate when the users don't want to learn?
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
I'm still here. I've just become bored with the users on this site so I have adopted an "I don't care" attitude. Why should I attempt to educate when the users don't want to learn?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1756 days ago)
And finally, "Where is the boundary between the archer and the target?"
ReplyVote up (116)down (99)
Original comment
And finally, "Where is the boundary between the archer and the target?"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1756 days ago)
Having taught and trained for quite a few years now, I can say there's no such thing as a bad student - only a bad teacher.
ReplyVote up (131)down (130)
Original comment
Having taught and trained for quite a few years now, I can say there's no such thing as a bad student - only a bad teacher.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1756 days ago)
Then you have led a sheltered teaching career. One of my expertises is in adult learning and one of the businesses that I own is dedicated to providing tools to large companies to assist them with teaching their employees. I can guarantee you that there are students that don't care, don't pay attention, don't show up, etc. Not sure why you were so lucky to have all your students pass courses with flying colors but that's not generally the standard internationally. Besides, your statement about no bad students, just bad teachers is cliche'. In the real world, there are both bad teachers and bad students. I'm not a teacher -- I provide tools to educators. However, I have seen my fair share of students that would rather be home sleeping, watching TV, or being tortured in Guantanamo with a blunt instrument than be in class. My tools have been used in classroom environments where I have visited every day to see how they are used so I can make modifications and improve the products. It is clear from these visits that both teachers and students together are to blame for poor results. Not all teachers are bad and not all students are good.
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
Then you have led a sheltered teaching career. One of my expertises is in adult learning and one of the businesses that I own is dedicated to providing tools to large companies to assist them with teaching their employees. I can guarantee you that there are students that don't care, don't pay attention, don't show up, etc. Not sure why you were so lucky to have all your students pass courses with flying colors but that's not generally the standard internationally. Besides, your statement about no bad students, just bad teachers is cliche'. In the real world, there are both bad teachers and bad students. I'm not a teacher -- I provide tools to educators. However, I have seen my fair share of students that would rather be home sleeping, watching TV, or being tortured in Guantanamo with a blunt instrument than be in class. My tools have been used in classroom environments where I have visited every day to see how they are used so I can make modifications and improve the products. It is clear from these visits that both teachers and students together are to blame for poor results. Not all teachers are bad and not all students are good.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1756 days ago)
That's quite an assumption to assert I have led a sheltered teaching career. It would be an equal assumption for me to comment that your tools must be incredibly dull if your students would rather be tortured in Guantanamo with a blunt instrument than be in class. The gist of my previous comments (and I apologise for not being explicit) is that if you wanted to educate users on Boreme and they don't seem to want to learn - then you cannot divorce yourself from that situation. My question is: what is it you're doing (or not doing) that is eliciting non-learning from Boreme users?
ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment
That's quite an assumption to assert I have led a sheltered teaching career. It would be an equal assumption for me to comment that your tools must be incredibly dull if your students would rather be tortured in Guantanamo with a blunt instrument than be in class. The gist of my previous comments (and I apologise for not being explicit) is that if you wanted to educate users on Boreme and they don't seem to want to learn - then you cannot divorce yourself from that situation. My question is: what is it you're doing (or not doing) that is eliciting non-learning from Boreme users?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1756 days ago)
What I meant by that is, if you think there are no bad students then you are very lucky to have taught classes without any. Kids get kicked out of school all the time for being disruptive and other reasons. In my business with adult learning, people get fired if they do not comply with the learning rules. It happens so you cannot blame the teachers 100% of the time like your "I can say there's no such thing as a bad student - only a bad teacher" comment states.
ReplyVote up (84)down (107)
Original comment
What I meant by that is, if you think there are no bad students then you are very lucky to have taught classes without any. Kids get kicked out of school all the time for being disruptive and other reasons. In my business with adult learning, people get fired if they do not comply with the learning rules. It happens so you cannot blame the teachers 100% of the time like your "I can say there's no such thing as a bad student - only a bad teacher" comment states.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1756 days ago)
A bad student is a student whose focus is somewhere else. A good teacher can redirect that focus. That's how I see it.
ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment
A bad student is a student whose focus is somewhere else. A good teacher can redirect that focus. That's how I see it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1756 days ago)
WalterEgo, you could be right if it was one-on-one training but in a classroom environment with multiple students, you risk keeping other students behind. Also, it is important to stick to the curriculum.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
WalterEgo, you could be right if it was one-on-one training but in a classroom environment with multiple students, you risk keeping other students behind. Also, it is important to stick to the curriculum.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1755 days ago)
You can try and ram knowledge down someone's throat, but much better is to get them to willingly open their mouths and swallow. That's the skill of a great teacher, not the knowledge they have, but the method of delivery. It makes no difference whether teaching one or many students, or following a curriculum or not, the same principles apply.
ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
You can try and ram knowledge down someone's throat, but much better is to get them to willingly open their mouths and swallow. That's the skill of a great teacher, not the knowledge they have, but the method of delivery. It makes no difference whether teaching one or many students, or following a curriculum or not, the same principles apply.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1755 days ago)
Agreed - and "sticking to the curriculum" implies a Henry Ford "any colour as long as it's black" approach. One size does not fit all.
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
Agreed - and "sticking to the curriculum" implies a Henry Ford "any colour as long as it's black" approach. One size does not fit all.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1755 days ago)
Most teachers are paid and the people paying them probably already has a course outlined and requires them to teach to that curriculum. In my adult learning experience, when you are in new hire training for a job, there is a specific list of objectives that need to be taught in a specified period of time. The instructor does not have the option to make it more fun because that would take longer or does not have the ability to teach to the lowest level in the class because the other people will not get all the knowledge they require to do the job. These instructors are held to a higher standard because their performance is rated by the performance of their students when they are doing their job. Their curriculum is tight and they are required to teach specific items on specific days. If students are falling behind, they bring it to the attention of the management team and then the students are sometimes given the discussion of either improving their learning (given a chance) or leaving the company. I've been the unfortunate senior manager to have to be in those conversations and the conversations are not pleasant. We have had to get security to walk people out of the building for not learning. If you have a class of 25 people and 24 of them are getting it, how can you think the instructor is at fault for that one student that's just not grasping it? (rhetorical question please do not answer). If you really thought this was a teacher/instructor issue instead, the instructor would be the one asked to leave the company instead of the new hire.
ReplyVote up (139)down (103)
Original comment
Most teachers are paid and the people paying them probably already has a course outlined and requires them to teach to that curriculum. In my adult learning experience, when you are in new hire training for a job, there is a specific list of objectives that need to be taught in a specified period of time. The instructor does not have the option to make it more fun because that would take longer or does not have the ability to teach to the lowest level in the class because the other people will not get all the knowledge they require to do the job. These instructors are held to a higher standard because their performance is rated by the performance of their students when they are doing their job. Their curriculum is tight and they are required to teach specific items on specific days. If students are falling behind, they bring it to the attention of the management team and then the students are sometimes given the discussion of either improving their learning (given a chance) or leaving the company. I've been the unfortunate senior manager to have to be in those conversations and the conversations are not pleasant. We have had to get security to walk people out of the building for not learning. If you have a class of 25 people and 24 of them are getting it, how can you think the instructor is at fault for that one student that's just not grasping it? (rhetorical question please do not answer). If you really thought this was a teacher/instructor issue instead, the instructor would be the one asked to leave the company instead of the new hire.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1755 days ago)
It's not always about making things more fun, especially when teaching adults. Often it's the simple matter of treating people with genuine respect, maybe smiling a bit more, looking at someone when they are talking to you… things that don't take any extra time. I'm not a teacher, I don't even have kids, but it seems to me that people who want to learn, learn better than people who are forced to - so if a teacher can make it so that his students want to be there, they will learn better. There is definitely something wrong in class if a student prefers Guantanamo.
ReplyVote up (99)down (116)
Original comment
It's not always about making things more fun, especially when teaching adults. Often it's the simple matter of treating people with genuine respect, maybe smiling a bit more, looking at someone when they are talking to you… things that don't take any extra time. I'm not a teacher, I don't even have kids, but it seems to me that people who want to learn, learn better than people who are forced to - so if a teacher can make it so that his students want to be there, they will learn better. There is definitely something wrong in class if a student prefers Guantanamo.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1755 days ago)
I remember seeing a documentary many years ago about Michel Thomas, a French teacher who, as an experiment, was brought into a failing London school to teach French to a class of specifically selected no-hopers for one week. Michel Thomas had developed his own teaching method (predictably called The Michel Thomas Method) that involved armchairs in the classroom, no homework and other counter-intuitive ideas. His ideas came from his experience as an interrogator for US Intelligence in France during WW2, a job that to do well, requires a very good understanding of what makes people tick. At the end of the week in the London school, every student said they had learnt more French in that week, than in the whole of their lives. I think this shows that teachers (and teaching methods) can make an enormous difference to the outcome - hence "you don't get bad students, only bad teachers." Cliches are often based in truth.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
I remember seeing a documentary many years ago about Michel Thomas, a French teacher who, as an experiment, was brought into a failing London school to teach French to a class of specifically selected no-hopers for one week. Michel Thomas had developed his own teaching method (predictably called The Michel Thomas Method) that involved armchairs in the classroom, no homework and other counter-intuitive ideas. His ideas came from his experience as an interrogator for US Intelligence in France during WW2, a job that to do well, requires a very good understanding of what makes people tick. At the end of the week in the London school, every student said they had learnt more French in that week, than in the whole of their lives. I think this shows that teachers (and teaching methods) can make an enormous difference to the outcome - hence "you don't get bad students, only bad teachers." Cliches are often based in truth.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1755 days ago)
The statement "Every student said they had learnt more French" is the lowest level of evaluation -- considered level 1 of the Kirkpatrick's 4 levels of training evaluation. It is not very effective in measuring the ROI, behavior change, or knowledge retention of the students. Did that documentary show a standard teacher in another classroom environment using traditional training where all the students except one passed the course and they explained that the one student that didn't pass was due to the fault of the teacher. Not that the student didn't show up or didn't care or didn't do their homework or any other reason except that the teacher was at fault.
ReplyVote up (95)down (104)
Original comment
The statement "Every student said they had learnt more French" is the lowest level of evaluation -- considered level 1 of the Kirkpatrick's 4 levels of training evaluation. It is not very effective in measuring the ROI, behavior change, or knowledge retention of the students. Did that documentary show a standard teacher in another classroom environment using traditional training where all the students except one passed the course and they explained that the one student that didn't pass was due to the fault of the teacher. Not that the student didn't show up or didn't care or didn't do their homework or any other reason except that the teacher was at fault.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1755 days ago)
Latest comment: I agree the experiment was not scientific, most documentaries are not, otherwise they would be too boring. I just mentioned about Michel Thomas to illustrate a point - that teachers and/or teaching methods can make an enormous difference to what students achieve. Surely you agree with that? Or do you believe teachers and teaching methods play very little part in the achievements of students? I can't comment directly on your experiences, only to say that if students are regularly opting for Guantanamo over classes, then you have to wonder what the classes are like. I don't think you give enough credit to teachers or to the difference that they can make.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Latest comment: I agree the experiment was not scientific, most documentaries are not, otherwise they would be too boring. I just mentioned about Michel Thomas to illustrate a point - that teachers and/or teaching methods can make an enormous difference to what students achieve. Surely you agree with that? Or do you believe teachers and teaching methods play very little part in the achievements of students? I can't comment directly on your experiences, only to say that if students are regularly opting for Guantanamo over classes, then you have to wonder what the classes are like. I don't think you give enough credit to teachers or to the difference that they can make.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1756 days ago)
Another thing I can say is "As soon as the student is ready, the teacher appears"
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
Another thing I can say is "As soon as the student is ready, the teacher appears"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1756 days ago)
Actually I'm on a roll now. "Where you stumble, you'll find your treasure."
ReplyVote up (89)down (143)
Original comment
Actually I'm on a roll now. "Where you stumble, you'll find your treasure."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: BanksAreCrooksInSuits (1759 days ago)
It was the banks that caused the housing market crash by selling toxic mortgages. It was the banks that caused the economic meltdown by selling loans then taking out insurance policies against the loans going bad knowing full well this was going to be the outcome. Bankers are nothing more than loan sharks and spivs. LIBOR, PPI, Sanction Breaking, Asian Interbank rate manipulation, Mis-Selling Interest rate Hedging funds, Mis-Selling Financial products to small business. The reason they don't want to go to trial is because politicans and other criminals in suits who have the power and influence don't want to get caught up in the scandal.
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
It was the banks that caused the housing market crash by selling toxic mortgages. It was the banks that caused the economic meltdown by selling loans then taking out insurance policies against the loans going bad knowing full well this was going to be the outcome. Bankers are nothing more than loan sharks and spivs. LIBOR, PPI, Sanction Breaking, Asian Interbank rate manipulation, Mis-Selling Interest rate Hedging funds, Mis-Selling Financial products to small business. The reason they don't want to go to trial is because politicans and other criminals in suits who have the power and influence don't want to get caught up in the scandal.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
TYT - Mueller digs into Trump's bank accounts
TYT - Mueller digs into Trump's bank accounts
Is gold the biggest fraud in history?
Is gold the biggest fraud in history?
Who benefits when a business goes cashless?
Who benefits when a business goes cashless?
Exposing economic myths in the 2017 UK election
Exposing economic myths in the 2017 UK election
TYT - Trump owes big money to Deutsche Bank
TYT - Trump owes big money to Deutsche Bank