*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, December 19th, 2010 4:48pm PST - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

"Rod".

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by ant.

Wikileaks announced in the spring that they had dirt on B of A. They announced a few days before Assange's arrest that they'd be releasing info on a large American bank soon. Given the stretch on that bit of info I doubt the veracity of the rest.

^The smear-scandal technique feels similar to me. Scott Ritter and Valerie Plame got similar treatment. Perhaps efforts were made to keep Assange from releasing his info - blackmail, bribery - and the sudden urgency came about when it was clear that those efforts had failed?

The urgency to get Assange seems to have intensified greatly over the last month. Other than the B of A announcement, there were also a number of embarrassing (but not super damaging) leaks released: Karsai = 'paranoid' Ahmahdinijad = 'Hitler'. I wonder if there is more to that round of leaks than meets the eye. Perhaps the source(s) of those more innocuous leaks are connected to much more dangerous information, sending vulnerable parties into a panic?

December 9, 2008 -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested by FBI agents

Two incidents in 2008 and then one two years later... although BoA is a bank and therefore evil... and still around and strong... meaning superevil... i dont think theres more than meets then eye (greed and paranoia and lies, etc).

^They had a lot at stake in all 3 instances and they've figured prominently in both the bailout and the mortgage fraud scandals. People have been killed for less. I can't wait to read those leaks next month.

@dystopianfuturetoday I noticed a typo in the description, Blagojevich's arrest was on 12/9/2008, not 12/9/2010. You are right this video is from the day before his arrest.

I really can't buy the idea that Bank of America pulled strings to get him arrested, the FBI had been investigating and preparing a case against Blagojevich for 3 YEARS, it's not like they literally threw the charges together overnight.

And the Interpol arrest warrant against Julian Assange was issued on 11/20/2010, 9 days BEFORE Assange's interview with Forbes that lead to all of the speculation about the info he has against Bank of America. So they couldn't have been responsible for the warrant, or obviously for Julian's choice to surrender voluntarily to police custody.

I wouldn't be surprised if both Assange and Blagojevich pissed Bank of America right the hell off. But the dates of their arrest don't even quite rise to the level of coincidence. And motive alone would still be a poor reason to think that B of A was responsible. I'm sure they both have a vast list of enemies, as most politically important figures do.

I don't see this as string pulling. I see this as a singular corporate-governmental beast with two backs bludgeoning anyone or anything that stands in its way.

I just read a wikileak cable in which the USGovernment talks about strong-arming France into weakening their nutritional standards in order to boost profits for Monsonto and the biotech food industry.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html

Here is a related news story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQGg.HOIcKv8

If our government will go to bat internationally for frankenfood distributors, then what makes you so sure they wouldn't do the same at home for the banking industry. It wasn't the will of the people to give Bank of America 20 billion dollars.

Here is another cable in which the USG fights for the international domination of Visa/Mastercard. The same government that denies us healthcare is out in Russia, fighting for leaches in the credit industry. http://213.251.145.96/cable/2010/02/10MOSCOW228.html

I'm standing by my hypothesis.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The same government that denies us healthcare is out in Russia, fighting for leaches in the credit industry.

I don't see anything unusual about the federal government advocating for US businesses in other countries. Obama has specifically done so for american car companies (among others), and I wouldn't classify him as someone who "denies us healthcare".

As far as the correlation between all of the arrests, there is a possible connection, but that's all I can really say from the evidence I've seen. Large businesses can shine a relatively well-funded flashlight on people they don't like, even if through secondary channels, but that's about the extent of it. Even solid evidence can fail in that regard (Blagojevich).

Do people with money/resources try to tie up opponents in unrelated legal matters? Probably. Are these arrests related on a more specific level? Maybe, but I haven't seen enough evidence to support a belief that it is true.

^Assuming my conspiracy theory has any truth to it, how did Bank of America fail with Blagojevich? He was arrested, impeached and removed from office. Was he not successful neutralized?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I see this as a singular corporate-governmental beast with two backs bludgeoning anyone or anything that stands in its way.


I agree. Limit it or get rid of it.

More and more, I find myself thinking that Assassin's Creed is telling the real history of the world.

blankfist,

Reading some of those wikileaks, I notice a lot of similarity in language between yourself and the government. They share your disdain for Marxism, socialism and 'leftists', love 'free markets' and get very angry when foreign countries try to regulate big business. You really aren't that much different from that in which you hate. I'd compile some evidence for you if I were convinced it would change your mind. Or you could do some independent research.

BTW, are you familiar with our foreign policy dealings with Chile, and how Milton Friedman figured into the mix? It's something you might want to look into.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Assuming my conspiracy theory has any truth to it, how did Bank of America fail with Blagojevich? He was arrested, impeached and removed from office. Was he not successful neutralized?


It was very much successful in that regard, but mainly because of what Blegojevich said on tape. The calls themselves were recorded well before his arrest, so at most it would seem that BoA may have accelerated an inevitable process. The "failure" was him only being convicted of lying to the FBI, but you're right that it didn't matter since he was already removed from office.

I think it's fairly common for people/businesses to sit on incriminating evidence when it suits their interests (business partners), but release it if needed. It would be a little different if BoA (or whoever) were fabricating evidence, but Rod and Spitzer were both doing things they knew would result in their removal from office if discovered by the public.

I'm not as familiar with the legality of what Assange has been doing, but most of the hate pointed towards him seems to stem from the government cables rather than corporate leaks. He wasn't exactly trying to be discrete about it and pissed off a lot of well-funded groups besides BoA.

BoA probably had reason to investigate all three guy, and they definitely had reason to use anything they found, but I haven't seen anything indicating there is more to it than that (unless maybe they were using illegal methods to obtain the information).

I'd say they all pissed off the man...

Wonder if all those changes in wiretapping laws had more to do with domestic control than foreign terrorism? There would be no reason to attempt a third rate burglary if you could legally amass volumes of embarrassing private details of the lives of potentially troublesome politicians.

Of course, if you assume everyone's dirty, then "pulling strings" just means getting some due process dropped on someone the law usually turns a blind eye to. Any player with enough connections and patience just needs to wait for something, anything, to come up on any given opponent and then see if they can get the legal system to act on that. Whatever it is that turns up - say, molestation - may well be a valid charge, but the response can be amped up as needed.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Wonder if all those changes in wiretapping laws had more to do with domestic control than foreign terrorism? There would be no reason to attempt a third rate burglary if you could legally amass volumes of embarrassing private details of the lives of potentially troublesome politicians.


My guess is that they were trying to remove some of the more annoying hoops people had to jump through for legit investigations. Label someone as a "possible terrorist" and tracking them becomes less tedious. I suppose it could also make gathered evidence less likely to be thrown out in court, civil liberties be damned.

At the same time, I just assume there is some level of unregulated monitoring going on with or without the changes. It wouldn't be admissible in court, but that isn't a problem if they're trying to hide the monitoring to begin with. Corporations and knowledgeable individuals do it too.

so maybe that 20 million (of tax payers money) that was "needed" for bailout due to the "economic crisis" - did not go in the direction as advertised... hmmz

What? You thought the other 48 govs were innocent?

No. They just know who butters their bread.