Skip to comments.How Attorney General Eric Holder Colluded With Bank Of America To Destroy Wikileaks
Posted on 03/01/2011 9:12:45 AM PST by FromLori
When we wrote a few weeks ago about Eric Holder, Wikileaks and Bank of America, we focused on the irony of the U.S. Attorney General threatening to prosecute an organization (Wikileaks) that possibly holds the very information on which he might draw up his very first indictment of a major bank or Wall Street executive.
Why hasn't Eric Holder asked to see the evidence, which Wikileaks claims to have, that executives at one of our largest banks may have committed serious crimes?
Let's be honest, Holder doesn't really give a rip about financial crimes, but the media should at least be asking him why he doesn't want to see the evidence. We know he'd love to get his hands on Julian Assange's hard drive -- why doesn't he want to see Brian Moynihan's (or Ken Lewis's)?
For some reason, Holder and the rest of the Obama administration would rather endanger our Constitutional rights to due process and a free press by persecuting journalists on specious charges, than to actually do their job and enforce the law.
These are valid questions -- ones for which we really didn't have good answers other than the usual corruption, cowardice and ineptitude when it comes to prosecuting large financial institutions.
However, new information has surfaced that shines a whole new light on the situation. By now, most of you have heard about Bank of America's plans to go after Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald. Until they were caught, Bank of America was working with a group of law and cyber security firms to draw up plans for destroying Wikileaks, the hacker group Anonymous, as well as Wikileaks supporters in the media (like Greenwald). The slide here is from a presentation by one of the firms involved:
(Excerpt) Read more at dailybail.com ...
This is a post I saw yesterday, that I can’t help thinking about here as well:
I think Bank of America already practices Sharia Law with its credit card holders - they declined me (female) anytime I went to buy food or gas even though I have perfect credit and no income issues, ever! Same with my mother.
11 posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 8:46:42 PM by MissMack99 (Mitt Romney is a FRAUD, he RUINED Mass. Don’t let him finish Obama’s job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I’m sure Assange has enough leaks on both Holder and BOA to take them both out anytime the mood strikes him
In this case, Holder might be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I have no problem with Wikileaks getting hosed.
Wow. Was BOA at the center of the run on the bank in Sept 2008?
I wonder if BOA is keeping the data hidden so we don’t know who made the run on the bank? I don’t understand why that hasn’t been fully investigated.
But I guess it’s sort of like the 3 breaches of Obama’s passport in early 2008; as far as I can tell none of the investigations even sought to find out whether his records had been altered. Crazy.
I don’t know how collusion by the justice department could be the right thing but in any case I think it’s more likely the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, see post #12
Excellent someone who is starting to get it yes BOA had a $20 Billion withdrawal and they didn’t even subpoena to find out who took it out!
BOA was also a huge lender to illegal aliens even gave them credit cards and as you mentioned they are big in Sharia financing and they also funded Acorn.
Editorial: Bailed-out banks should stop funding ACORN
Bank of Illegal Aliens in America
Shariah Finance Watch Has a List of Shariah Compliant Banks
See, the thing that strikes me about this - putting it altogether with my addled brain - is the shariah-compliant thing. I’m thinking the September 2008 run on the bank was orchestrated by Soros and his communist-Islamist allies. Finding out the role of BOA is critical, because didn’t BOA get big bail-outs? If
If so, Soros could have made a deal with BOA. BOA would let them make a run on BOA if Soros made sure that BOA got their money back through bail-outs and/or big executive bonuses. BOA would agree to make sure nobody knew who made the run on the bank. So after the run Soros had to get the politicians to pass TARP so that BOA could get paid off for their part of the deal. The Islamist gained from the deal because BOA agreed to shariah-compliant financing; the week after GWB gave his speech saying that the entire western/capitalist economy would collapse unless they passed TARP, Paulsen and Bernanke started doing seminars on shariah-compliant financing.
So now Holder has to use illegal tactics to protect BOA from possible exposure by Wikileaks.
How much money did BOA get from the bailout? What kind of bonuses did their people get? Did BOA benefit from the stimulus slush fund?
I’m really ignorant when it comes to finances so I’ve pretty much ignored the financial end of things so please excuse me if my ignorance is showing. But my gut makes me question whether BOA is Ground Zero for Soros’ fusion of Islamism and communism - the two forces that worked together to put Obama the illegal usurper into the White House.
Obama - the lawyer whose only acts as a lawyer were to implement the communist Cloward-Piven Plan to destroy America (via the motor voter law and forcing subprime lending through racial quotas), and the guy who told Egypt’s ambassador that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda and would work on the worldwide Muslim agenda once he got domestic issues like the healthcare takeover done. Obama, the fusion of communism and Islamism. Just like Soros. Just like BOA.
Somebody correct me if I’m mixing things up. I’ve got a lot of big stuff on my mind right now so I could very well be mixing things up.
See post #12 for more on BOA
We had a big discussion about soros way back when this all happened and it still could be something to do with him through BOA or who knows they wouldn’t even subpoena to find out but holder’s collusion on BOA and the suppression of the Wikileak’s material is certainly fishy.
For those older discussions see
Citigroup, JP Morgan, and BOA are all shariah-compliant, foreign-owned banks that got bailed out big-time through TARP and contribute to ACORN.
Gotta run, but I really wonder if the reason GW Bush said the western world would be destroyed if they didn’t pass TARP was because Soros needed that money to pay off what he promised to BOA and other communist-Islamist-allied banks.
Kanjorski said (IIRC) that it would have taken a couple trillion dollars to make any real change in the toxic assets out there, so TARP wasn’t necessary because it actually did anything to toxic assets. It was needed for some other reason. Probably because it was buy-off money. Soros had to pay off the people who helped the run to have worldwide impact without the people committing the economic terrorism being traced.
The financial alliance between communism and Islamism. The 2 beasts of Revelation, set to require the mark of the religious beast before a person can buy and sell. Babylon, from whom all the nations drink of the wine of her adulteries - to come falling down with a crash, while the world looks on in horror because all their comforts will go down with her. Maybe Babylon is world capitalism that is going to be brought down by the government beast (communism) and the religious beast (Islam).
If that last paragraph doesn’t make sense to you don’t worry about it. Just thinking out loud. But I do hope that somebody who has the time and knows about the financial world does some checking on these connections.
I seriously think Soros threatened GW Bush with another run on the bank - aided by BOA, the Islamists, etc - if he didn’t get TARP passed, and that threat was also used to coerce Fox News into silence and the eligibility judges into giving Obama a free pass, against their will. Used to coerce Roberts into giving Obama the oath of office, and to coerce Cheney into acting as though the electoral certification was done legally (although Cheney refused to do it legally; refused to ask for objections as required by statute).
Holder’s covering for BOA opens up a whole new realm of possible collusion - that definitely warrants serious legal investigation.
Wikileaks releases classified national security info. I have no problem with them being taken down. Do you?
I have a problem with Holders collusion and as far as Wikileaks I have mixed feelings since they showed the world how the Arabs really feel about Iran not to mention much to the liberal’s dismay they said 9/11 was not a conspiracy theory. It wasn’t until they said they had information on the banks that the liberal’s wanted him not before and given the new information on our financial system I can see a connection.
You are clueless. I could care less about that stuff when Wikileaks is releasing classified information that jeopardizes American lives. So if Holder's actions are dinging Wiki, I don't have a problem with that. Right thing for the wrong reason.
yea I'm the one who's clueless lol
Uh, yeah, you are when it comes to Wikileaks.
And please show me where that report had diddly to do with Wikileaks. Next time, if you are trying to make a point, do try to post something relevant to the discussion.
If you read through the links on this post and the others I provided you would know and wouldn’t have to ask. Obviously that’s too much trouble so you can just stay in the dark.
You’re quite impressed with yourself for no good reason, apparently. I guess that link was relevant to the discussion in your mind, even though it makes no mention of Wikileaks. If that’s what constitutes proof in your world, enjoy debating yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.