buzzfeed--2020-09-21--Deadly Terror Networks And Drug Cartels Use Huge Banks To Finance Their Crimes. These Secret Documen

Deadly Terror Networks And Drug Cartels Use Huge Banks To Finance Their Crimes. These Secret Documents Show How The Banks Profit.

Thousands of secret “ suspicious activity reports ” offer a never-before-seen picture of corruption and complicity — and how the government lets it flourish .
A huge trove of secret government documents reveals for the first time how the giants of Western banking move trillions of dollars in suspicious transactions , enriching themselves and their shareholders while facilitating the work of terrorists , kleptocrats , and drug kingpins .
And the US government , despite its vast powers , fails to stop it .
Today , the FinCEN Files — thousands of “ suspicious activity reports ” and other US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global financial corruption , the banks enabling it , and the government agencies that watch as it flourishes .
BuzzFeed News has shared these reports with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and more than 100 news organizations in 88 countries .
These documents , compiled by banks , shared with the government , but kept from public view , expose the hollowness of banking safeguards , and the ease with which criminals have exploited them .
Profits from deadly drug wars , fortunes embezzled from developing countries , and hard-earned savings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to flow into and out of these financial institutions , despite warnings from the banks ’ own employees .
Money laundering is a crime that makes other crimes possible .
It can accelerate economic inequality , drain public funds , undermine democracy , and destabilize nations — and the banks play a key role .
“ Some of these people in those crisp white shirts in their sharp suits are feeding off the tragedy of people dying all over the world , ” said Martin Woods , a former suspicious transactions investigator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop financial crime have instead allowed it to flourish .
So long as a bank files a notice that it may be facilitating criminal activity , it all but immunizes itself and its executives from criminal prosecution .
The suspicious activity alert effectively gives them a free pass to keep moving the money and collecting the fees .
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network , or FinCEN , is the agency within the Treasury Department charged with combating money laundering , terrorist financing , and other financial crimes .
It collects millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARs .
It makes them available to US law enforcement agencies and other nations ’ financial intelligence operations .
It even compiles a report called “ Kleptocracy Weekly ” that summarizes the dealings of foreign leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin .
What it does not do is force the banks to shut the money laundering down .
In the rare instances when the US government does crack down on banks , it often relies on sweetheart deals called deferred prosecution agreements , which include fines but no high-level arrests .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold executives personally accountable , under guidance by former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein that warned government agencies against “ piling on.
” But the FinCEN Files investigation shows that even after they were prosecuted or fined for financial misconduct , banks such as JPMorgan Chase , HSBC , Standard Chartered , Deutsche Bank , and Bank of New York Mellon continued to move money for suspected criminals .
Suspicious payments flow around the world and into countless industries , from international sports to Hollywood entertainment to luxury real estate to Nobu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies that make familiar items from people ’ s lives , from the gas in their car to the granola in their cereal bowl .
The FinCEN Files expose an underlying truth of the modern era : The networks through which dirty money traverse the world have become vital arteries of the global economy .
They enable a shadow financial system so wide-ranging and so unchecked that it has become inextricable from the so-called legitimate economy .
Banks with household names have helped to make it so .
Information from millions of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through which law enforcement officers can summon detailed financial information with a few keystrokes .
The FinCEN Files opens a rare window into this vast system of financial intelligence , unmatched in the world but all but unknown to the public .
The SARs themselves are so closely held that members of the public can not obtain them through records requests or subpoenas , and banks are not allowed even to confirm their existence .
Prior to this reporting , very few SARs had ever been revealed .
The FinCEN Files encompass more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , BuzzFeed News and its partner news organizations across the world mined the information on these tens of thousands of pages to map more than 200,000 transactions .
( Here ’ s an explanation of how we did it . )
In all , suspicious activity reports in the FinCEN Files flagged more than $ 2 trillion in transactions between 1999 and 2017 .
Western banks could have blocked almost any of them , but in most cases they kept the money moving and kept collecting their fees .
Suspicious activity reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime watchdogs , or compliance officers , who are often parked in remote offices and left to make sense of a vast number of transactions with very few resources , writing SARs with little research or verification .
BuzzFeed News ’ research went much further , including reams of internal bank data , thousands of pages of public records , hundreds of interviews with sources across the globe , dozens of Freedom of Information Act filings , five public records lawsuits , and requests for three federal courts to unseal records — all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial system that is largely hidden .
BuzzFeed News is not publishing the SARs in full because they contain information about people or companies that are not under suspicion , but who were swept up in the banks ’ searches .
A subset of the documents is being published , with redactions , to support reporting in specific stories .
After the Treasury Department received detailed questions about the FinCEN Files investigation , the agency released a statement saying that it was “ aware that various media outlets intend to publish a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Activity Reports ( SARs ) .
” It continued , “ the unauthorized disclosure of SARs is a crime that can impact the national security of the United States , compromise law enforcement investigations , and threaten the safety and security of the institutions and individuals who file such reports.
” The agency announced that it was referring the matter to the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department ’ s Office of Inspector General .
In a subsequent letter , FinCEN ’ s general counsel said that disclosure of SARs can make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which “ could mean law enforcement has fewer potential leads to stop crimes like human trafficking , child exploitation , fraud , corruption , terrorism , and cyber-enabled crime.
” FinCEN did not respond to repeated invitations to discuss security concerns .
Sen. Ron Wyden , a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee , which requested some of these SARs , said the FinCEN Files investigation “ reinforces the fact that we now have two systems of law enforcement and justice in the country.
” Drug cartels move millions through US banks ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If you 're wealthy and well-connected , you can figure out how to do an enormous amount of harm to society at large and ensure that it accrues to enormous financial benefit for all of you.
” Robert Mazur , a former federal special agent and an expert in money laundering , said that making this material public `` could enhance national security , aid future investigations , and encourage institutions to more consistently adhere to SAR filing requirements , ” and `` will hopefully get people who are in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic failure.
” Based in the United Arab Emirates , Mazaka General Trading presented itself to the world as a wholesaler .
But between March 2013 and April 2014 , the company received nearly $ 50 million from five companies involved in a Russian money laundering ring that manipulated international stock trades .
In May and June 2014 , it received more than $ 4 million from a Singapore company that appears barely even to exist .
It was also sending and receiving money from British firms located at 175 Darkes Lane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addresses for shell companies , which are a common tool to hide ownership .
These transactions by Mazaka General Trading — which the Treasury Department later declared to be a part of the Khanani money laundering network , a group that has financed terrorism and drug cartels around the globe — involved businesses and people far from the shores of the United States .
But as the money pinged around from one bank to another , it was all being tracked and it would all be reported to the Treasury Department .
Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international finance , the common denominator between the world ’ s disparate currencies , banking customers around the world need access to it .
But only select banks are licensed to conduct dollar transactions .
So smaller banks in other countries partner with larger institutions , which exchange their customers ’ pesos , yuan , or dirham for greenbacks .
For a fee , the arrangement , known as correspondent banking , helps keep the global economy humming .
As they pass through US banks , these transfers give the Treasury Department a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It shares some of that information through the Egmont Group , a little-known coalition of financial intelligence units from more than 150 countries and territories .
SARs have provided Egmont members with financial details that would be otherwise unattainable , such as those concerning former Olympic Committee member Lamine Diack , who has been sentenced to prison for crimes connected to the Russian doping scandal , and the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska , who was sanctioned by the US two years ago .
( Deripaska has sued the US government , maintaining that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
But if the database is a powerful asset to law enforcement investigations , to privacy advocates , it is a nightmare of overreach .
Congress created the current SAR program in 1992 making banks the frontline in the fight against money laundering .
But Michael German , a former FBI special agent who is a national security and privacy expert , said that after 9/11 , `` the SAR program became more about mass surveillance than identifying discrete transactions to disrupt money launderers.
” Today , he said , `` the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other mass surveillance programs .
Find someone you want to get for whatever reason then sift through the vast troves of data collected to find anything you can hang them with . ''
In 2017 , when US congressional committees began investigating the last presidential election and other matters , they , too , turned to the Treasury Department database .
They requested SARs on Deutsche Bank , which had loaned Trump money ; Christopher Steele , the former MI6 agent who wrote the so-called Trump dossier ; an array of Russian oligarchs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul Manafort ; and even a small casino in the Pacific run by a former Trump employee .
All told , they were looking for information on more than 200 entities .
FinCEN unearthed tens of thousands of pages of documents .
Those documents , along with a few additional SARs requested by federal law enforcement authorities , make up the majority of the FinCEN Files .
Some were never turned over to the committees that requested them .
A person familiar with the matter blew the whistle to multiple members of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARs about Trump ’ s finances .
( A source familiar with the matter told BuzzFeed News that FinCEN ’ s database did not contain SARs on either Trump or the Trump Organization . )
And though the documents show suspicious payments to people in Trump ’ s orbit before and after key moments in the 2016 presidential campaign , they do not provide direct information on any election interference .
Because the searches were so broad , however , they revealed something that most in Congress hadn ’ t even been looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s biggest banks kept doing business with clients that they themselves suspected were facilitating terror and corruption .
The information was laid out in transaction by transaction .
And it had been there all along .
FinCEN received more than 2 million SARs last year .
That number has nearly doubled over the past decade , as financial institutions have faced mounting pressure to file and the volume of international transactions has grown .
Over the same period , FinCEN ’ s staff has shrunk by more than 10 % .
Sources there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , let alone acted upon .
Meanwhile , experts say , some banks treat SARs as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card , filing alerts about a huge array of transactions without actually moving to halt them .
In some cases , banks filed numerous reports on the same clients , detailing their suspected crimes over the course of years while continuing to welcome their business .
By December 2013 , JPMorgan Chase had filed at least eight SARs on accounts and companies controlled by Manafort , flagging more than $ 10 million , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manafort , who went on to become Trump ’ s campaign chair , was convicted of bank and tax fraud in 2018 .
Paul Pelletier , a former senior Justice Department lawyer who once led the agency ’ s fraud unit , said that approach makes a mockery of the system .
“ You ca n't just file SAR after SAR after SAR without eventually violating the money laundering laws , ” he said .
“ You cut them off and drop them as clients .
But you do n't keep taking their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sweeping powers to investigate account holders , the FinCEN Files investigation reveals that major financial institutions often fail to perform the most basic checks on their customers , such as verifying where a business is located when someone opens a new account .
The lapses allow criminal groups to hide behind shell corporations , registered with no identifying details about their ownership , and slide the proceeds of their crimes into the global financial system .
In many cases , the banks appear to have no idea whatsoever whose money they are moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American operations asked their colleagues in Hong Kong for the name of the person who owned Trade Leader , a company that had moved more than half a billion dollars through the bank in less than two years , the answer they got was “ None available.
” The company would reportedly emerge as an important hub in the so-called Russian Laundromat , a sprawling scheme in which wealthy Russians , facilitated by banks , secretly moved their money into the West .
After scandals like the Russian Laundromat , federal prosecutors have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Addressing an anti–money laundering conference in 2015 , Leslie Caldwell , then the head of the Justice Department 's criminal division , said that when it came to getting banks to clean up their acts , deferred prosecution agreements , which typically involve a fine and a probationary period , “ can often accomplish as much as , and sometimes even more than , we could from a criminal conviction.
” But the FinCEN Files investigation shows something very different .
Banks often get to the end of their agreement without actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of getting the prosecution that they had been threatened with , they just get another chance .
And sometimes another .
In 2012 , HSBC faced a historic crisis .
After permitting narcotraffickers to launder money and conducting business in off-limits countries such as Sudan and Myanmar , the bank was fined $ 1.9 billion .
It promised to change its ways , and to hold it to that promise , the government installed an independent monitor to keep close watch .
But the FinCEN Files investigation shows HSBC continued banking , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers that got it in trouble in the first place , such as a Panamanian import-export firm that the Treasury Department later said was laundering money for drug kingpins .
JPMorgan Chase got a deferred prosecution deal of its own .
For years , it was the primary bank of the world ’ s biggest Ponzi schemer , Bernie Madoff .
Despite multiple warnings from its own employees , the bank never filed a suspicious activity report on him and allegedly collected $ 500 million in fees .
For punishment , the bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion fine and promise to improve its money laundering defenses .
But after it settled the Madoff case , the bank ’ s own investigators said they suspected it had opened its accounts to an alleged Russian organized crime figure who is known for drug trafficking and contract murders , as well as businesses tied to the repressive North Korean regime , which the US has placed off-limits .
It happened at Standard Chartered , too .
Last year , the government amended its 2012 deferred prosecution agreement after the bank was found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and businesses in off-limits countries , primarily Iran .
The bank paid fines totaling $ 1.1 billion to US and UK authorities , and extended the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement for the sixth time in the space of seven years .
The bank apologized for its “ violations and control deficiencies ” but promised that none had occurred after 2014 .
The FinCEN Files documents show Standard Chartered processed hundreds of millions of dollars for companies it suspected were circumventing sanctions against Iran until at least 2017 .
Since 2010 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deferred prosecution agreements for anti–money laundering or sanctions violations , according to an analysis by BuzzFeed News .
Of those , at least four went on to break the law again and get fined .
Twice , the government responded to this kind of repeat offense by renewing the deferred prosecution agreement — the very tool that failed the first time .
If the government wanted to , experts in financial crime say , it could stop the dirty money coursing through the big banks , as well as the vast array of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be to require companies to disclose their owners to the Treasury Department , rather than allowing people to hide behind a shell company .
Lawmakers are debating a bipartisan bill that could address that for small companies .
The National Federation of Independent Business has opposed it , saying it raises privacy issues and would increase costs .
Sen. Sherrod Brown , who cosponsored the bill , told BuzzFeed News , “ Congress must act soon because criminals have long been revising , adjusting , and amending their tactics to circumvent our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a difference .
HSBC has fought to keep secret the final report by the monitor that the government installed to watch over the bank during the years of its deferred prosecution agreement .
It even took the unusual step of weighing in on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit , when BuzzFeed News sued the Justice Department to release the report .
The knowledge that negative reports could become public , and potentially damage share prices , could impel wayward banks to clean up their acts .
Others say the SARs themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former FBI special agent , called the idea behind them `` naive '' because `` the largest money laundering operations occur with the cooperation of the financial institutions , or at least some officers within those institutions .
The lack of money laundering enforcement had nothing to do with a lack of evidence of suspicious transactions , but a lack of interest by political and law enforcement leadership.
’ ’ The most powerful way to fix the problem might be the simplest : Arrest the executives whose banks break the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until you start putting silver bracelets on people , '' Pelletier said .
`` Think of the message you 're sending to repeat offenders . ''
`` These guys know what they 're doing , ’ ’ said Thomas Nollner , a former regulator with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency .
“ You break the law , you should go to jail , period . ''
That approach was once the norm .
“ Back in the 1980s and 90s and even into the early 2000s , the government went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said US District Judge Jed Rakoff , who has been an outspoken critic of weak penalties for white-collar criminals .
In the past , the CEOs of Enron , WorldCom , and Tyco were all sent to jail for what they did , he pointed out .
“ Now that ’ s deterrence.
” Rakoff went further : “ Under US law , a bank that engages in money laundering can literally be forced out of business by the government , and it is kind of surprising that government hasn ’ t taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect it would have.
” Ultimately , the power to keep criminal profits from being laundered through the US financial system may not reside in the actions of a bank ’ s compliance office or its computer systems or even its executive tier .
It may not reside with banking regulators or federal prosecutors or FinCEN .
It may not even be a matter of national policy alone .
Shutting down wayward banks could have an impact on the whole economy — for the US , its major trade partners , and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under US scrutiny , they step in .
In 2012 , Standard Chartered and HSBC were facing criminal prosecution .
George Osborne , at that time the UK ’ s chancellor of the exchequer , wrote to the chairperson of the US Federal Reserve , Ben Bernanke , and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to discuss his “ concerns ” that a heavy-handed response could have “ unintended consequences.
” He warned of a “ contagion.
” The implication : Close one bank and the whole economy could suffer .
Mazur , the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , says there are a “ mosaic ” of reasons why US authorities let the money keep running , but one of them may just be that it finds its way into too many pockets .
“ Even if it 's bad wealth , it buys buildings , ” he said .
“ It puts money into bank accounts .
It enriches the nation.
” ● Sophie Comeau , Waylon Cunningham , Sam Feehan , Nancy Guan , Kristy Hutchings , Kylie Storm , Felicia Tapia , Karen Wang , Abby Washer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School for Communication and Journalism contributed reporting .

Paul Pelletier, a former senior Justice Department lawyer who once led the agency’s fraud unit, said that approach makes a mockery of the system. “You can't just file SAR after SAR after SAR without eventually violating the money laundering laws,” he said. “You cut them off and drop them as clients. But you don't keep taking their money."
Despite the banks’ sweeping powers to investigate account holders, the FinCEN Files investigation reveals that major financial institutions often fail to perform the most basic checks on their customers, such as verifying where a business is located when someone opens a new account. The lapses allow criminal groups to hide behind shell corporations, registered with no identifying details about their ownership, and slide the proceeds of their crimes into the global financial system.
In many cases, the banks appear to have no idea whatsoever whose money they are moving.
When investigators for HSBC’s American operations asked their colleagues in Hong Kong for the name of the person who owned Trade Leader, a company that had moved more than half a billion dollars through the bank in less than two years, the answer they got was “None available.” The company would reportedly emerge as an important hub in the so-called Russian Laundromat, a sprawling scheme in which wealthy Russians, facilitated by banks, secretly moved their money into the West.
After scandals like the Russian Laundromat, federal prosecutors have made big pronouncements about forcing meaningful change.
Addressing an anti–money laundering conference in 2015, Leslie Caldwell, then the head of the Justice Department's criminal division, said that when it came to getting banks to clean up their acts, deferred prosecution agreements, which typically involve a fine and a probationary period, “can often accomplish as much as, and sometimes even more than, we could from a criminal conviction.”
But the FinCEN Files investigation shows something very different. Banks often get to the end of their agreement without actually fixing the problems. Then, instead of getting the prosecution that they had been threatened with, they just get another chance. And sometimes another.
In 2012, HSBC faced a historic crisis. After permitting narcotraffickers to launder money and conducting business in off-limits countries such as Sudan and Myanmar, the bank was fined $1.9 billion. It promised to change its ways, and to hold it to that promise, the government installed an independent monitor to keep close watch. But the FinCEN Files investigation shows HSBC continued banking, and profiting from, the same kinds of customers that got it in trouble in the first place, such as a Panamanian import-export firm that the Treasury Department later said was laundering money for drug kingpins.
JPMorgan Chase got a deferred prosecution deal of its own. For years, it was the primary bank of the world’s biggest Ponzi schemer, Bernie Madoff. Despite multiple warnings from its own employees, the bank never filed a suspicious activity report on him and allegedly collected $500 million in fees. For punishment, the bank was required to pay a $1.7 billion fine and promise to improve its money laundering defenses. But after it settled the Madoff case, the bank’s own investigators said they suspected it had opened its accounts to an alleged Russian organized crime figure who is known for drug trafficking and contract murders, as well as businesses tied to the repressive North Korean regime, which the US has placed off-limits.
It happened at Standard Chartered, too. Last year, the government amended its 2012 deferred prosecution agreement after the bank was found to have continued clearing transactions for individuals and businesses in off-limits countries, primarily Iran. The bank paid fines totaling $1.1 billion to US and UK authorities, and extended the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement for the sixth time in the space of seven years. The bank apologized for its “violations and control deficiencies” but promised that none had occurred after 2014.
The FinCEN Files documents show Standard Chartered processed hundreds of millions of dollars for companies it suspected were circumventing sanctions against Iran until at least 2017.
Since 2010, at least 18 financial institutions have received deferred prosecution agreements for anti–money laundering or sanctions violations, according to an analysis by BuzzFeed News. Of those, at least four went on to break the law again and get fined. Twice, the government responded to this kind of repeat offense by renewing the deferred prosecution agreement — the very tool that failed the first time.


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--We Got Our Hands On Thousands Of Secret Documents. Let’s Break Them Down.

Twenty-two thousand pages of never-before-released government documents .
Hundreds of thousands of transactions .
More than $ 2 trillion .
A close accounting of BuzzFeed News ’ unprecedented trove .
More than a year ago , BuzzFeed News received a remarkable collection of secret government documents .
This huge trove had been assembled at the request of law enforcement agencies and congressional committees investigating the 2016 presidential election and other matters .
The documents contained private banking information about public figures and senior government officials around the world — along with suspected criminals and organizations tied to terrorism .
Among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity reports , or SARs , which banks and other financial institutions submit to the US Treasury Department ’ s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network , or FinCEN , when they observe transactions that suggest money laundering or other illegal activity .
Such reports can support investigations and intelligence gathering — but by themselves they are not evidence of a crime .
These documents are so closely protected that they are never supposed to be available to the public .
You can ’ t get them through Freedom of Information requests and you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Banks are not supposed to admit the existence of a SAR — even to other banks .
Prior to this reporting , very few SARs are known ever to have been revealed .
BuzzFeed News has thousands .
Mostly dating from 2011 to 2017 , although describing some transactions that occurred as early as 1999 , the documents provide an unprecedented glimpse into global money laundering .
To analyze them and crunch the numbers , BuzzFeed News teamed up with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and more than 100 partner news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a yearlong data analysis collaboration that required thousands of hours of manual data entry , the creation of custom-built digital tools , machine learning , and specialized validation software .
But it all came down to those suspicious activity reports .
The Anatomy of a SAR — and How We Dissected Them All SARs have two parts : a set of data tables and a narrative .
Some narratives are bare bones , while others are in-depth accounts including individual transactions , additional parties , and what the money was purportedly being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these narrative elements alone came to more than 8,000 pages — or about 3 million words .
We tried writing computer programs to automatically extract this crucial information , but we quickly discovered that it was not possible .
So with no other choice , we did it the old-fashioned way : We read every last page .
With the help of ICIJ ’ s document-collaboration platform , BuzzFeed News and the partner newsrooms divided the task among more than 80 reporters .
For each document , the reporters captured every set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICIJ submitted each “ extraction ” to multiple rounds of validation .
It was a massive effort , but it allowed us to map out more than 200,000 of the transactions in the SARs .
This effort gave reporters access to a greater level of structured , searchable detail than FinCEN itself provides to investigators .
In addition to the written SARs , BuzzFeed News received hundreds of spreadsheets that banks had sent to FinCEN .
Although those files often lack the context of the written reports , they list more than 100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly different way of producing these files .
So ICIJ undertook an effort to standardize the field names and address formats to make them more useful to our partners .
More Than $ 2 Trillion — Yes , With a “ T ” In total , these reports flagged more than $ 2 trillion in transactions .
Here ’ s how it broke down .
The Banks : The FinCEN Files contain reports submitted by nearly 90 banks and other financial institutions .
This particular collection of documents is not a representative sample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this subset , by far the greatest number of SARs come from Deutsche Bank .
Here are the top 10 banks represented in the FinCEN Files , plus the total value of suspicious transactions they flagged : One report , filed in August 2014 by JPMorgan Chase , identifies more than $ 335 billion in suspicious activity , relating to more than 100,000 wire transfers “ sent , received or processed ” over the course of a decade-plus by MKS , a Switzerland-based company that trades precious metals .
“ We can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a half decade ago of which we have no knowledge , ” a spokesperson for MKS told BuzzFeed News and ICIJ .
“ We note , however , that referencing $ 335 billion in purported wire transactions over a twelve-year period creates a false and misleading impression about the scale and scope of our precious metal operations.
” MKS is “ proud of our record of maintaining an industry-leading compliance program , ” the spokesperson said , “ and our long history of maintaining uninterrupted access to financial markets around the world.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least $ 1 billion to the Treasury ; these big-dollar reports account for more than 90 % of all “ suspicious activity ” in these documents .
When banks first encounter suspicious transactions , they are supposed to file a report within 30 days .
But that doesn ’ t mean all of the information is timely : SARs often refer to much older transactions , even some that occurred more than a decade before .
This frequently happens when banks receive new information about old transactions or clients , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but other times , the reason is unclear .
The Objects of Suspicion : The documents provide information on more than 10,000 people and organizations spanning more than 170 countries and territories .
They also touch almost every state in the US .
At least 25 of the people named as subjects have appeared on Forbes ' list of billionaires in 2018 , 2019 , or 2020 , according to an analysis by ICIJ and BuzzFeed News .
The SARs , however , are far more likely to mention organizations than people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a where ’ s where of wealth accumulation and management .
More than 400 feature companies with addresses in the British Virgin Islands , and more than 300 include Hong Kong — two popular places for stashing wealth with little scrutiny .
More than a fifth of the SARs in the FinCEN Files include a subject whose “ address ” is effectively blank : no street number , city , state , or even country .
In some cases , the blank addresses are for customers in the bank ’ s own corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous times in the FinCEN Files .
Mayzus Financial Services , an online payment processing company that served clients involved in a bitcoin money laundering ring , sets the record , appearing as a subject of 36 SARs .
Second is Kaloti Jewellery International , a Dubai-based precious metals company that was flagged as a subject in 34 separate SARs by eight different banks .
Here are the five subjects flagged most often : Responding to a request for comment , a representative for Mayzus Financial Services said the company takes compliance seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offline fraudsters , corrupt remittance agents , money launderers , and apprehend hundreds of millions of dollars worth of illicitly gained assets '' and that `` from my perspective MFS has done exactly what it was supposed to be doing . ''
A lawyer for Kaloti said that the number of SARs was `` statistically insignificant '' in the context of its industry .
`` Kaloti vehemently denies any allegations of misconduct , whether those allegations stem from today or a decade ago , '' the company told ICIJ and BuzzFeed News .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bufalo Management did not respond to BuzzFeed News ’ inquiries .
What the Government Doesn ’ t Know Last year , banks and other financial institutions filed more than 2 million SARs .
Government investigators who combat money laundering told BuzzFeed News that the sheer volume of SARs made it impossible to pay close attention to them all .
`` I do n't think that we have enough resources in the government to meaningfully go through them all , '' said Richard Elias , a former federal prosecutor for the Eastern District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARs filed grows every year , FinCEN ’ s staff has shrunk by more than 10 % over the past decade , according to official Treasury reports .
( In addition to full-time staff , FinCEN also employs contractors to analyze SARs . )
In 2017 , FinCEN ’ s acting director testified before Congress that the agency faced hiring issues , in part because of how long it takes to get security clearances .
FinCEN did not respond to BuzzFeed News ’ requests for comment about its investigative findings .
It did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the unauthorized disclosure of SARs is a crime , ” and it announced that it was referring the matter to the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department ’ s Office of Inspector General .
FinCEN makes its database of SARs available to more than 450 law enforcement and regulatory agencies around the country , with more than 13,000 users who query the system millions of times a year .
FinCEN does not require banks to file spreadsheets detailing each individual transaction , although some do so voluntarily .
Yet it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say are most important .
“ There 's nothing of greater value than being able to take a look at a series of wire transfers or a series of deposits or a series of withdrawals , ” said Peter Djinis , a former FinCEN analyst who helped to set up the original SAR system .
“ All of that information is so useful.
” When banks don ’ t attach transaction files , analysts have to comb through each report individually or request those records directly .
The database produced by BuzzFeed News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual filings themselves , and has already helped our international network of reporters examine failures by governments and banks to stem the flow of dirty money across the globe .
●

More than a year ago, BuzzFeed News received a remarkable collection of secret government documents. This huge trove had been assembled at the request of law enforcement agencies and congressional committees investigating the 2016 presidential election and other matters. The documents contained private banking information about public figures and senior government officials around the world — along with suspected criminals and organizations tied to terrorism.
Among the documents were more than 2,100 suspicious activity reports, or SARs, which banks and other financial institutions submit to the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, when they observe transactions that suggest money laundering or other illegal activity. Such reports can support investigations and intelligence gathering — but by themselves they are not evidence of a crime.
These documents are so closely protected that they are never supposed to be available to the public. You can’t get them through Freedom of Information requests and you can’t subpoena them in legal proceedings. Banks are not supposed to admit the existence of a SAR — even to other banks. Prior to this reporting, very few SARs are known ever to have been revealed. BuzzFeed News has thousands.


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--A Second Republican Senator Said She Won’t Support Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg Before The Election

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is the second senator to announce she won ’ t support replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the 2020 election — narrowing , but not preventing , Republicans ’ ability to push through President Donald Trump ’ s forthcoming Supreme Court pick .
“ For weeks , I have stated I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election , ” Murkowski said in a statement .
`` Sadly , what was then hypothetical is now our reality , but my position has not changed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia , we are now even closer to the 2020 election — less than two months out and I believe the same standard must apply . ''
Murkowski ’ s decision isn ’ t exactly a surprise .
Before Ginsburg died , she had said that she believed that if a new vacancy on the Court occurred , it should not be filled prior to the election because “ fair is fair.
” In 2016 , Senate Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to take up Barack Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee , citing the coming election .
McConnell said Friday night soon after Ginsburg died that the Senate would take up Trump ’ s nominee , which is expected to come this week .
Murkowski ’ s statement came a day after Sen. Susan Collins , a Maine Republican up for reelection , announced she believes the person who wins the presidential election in November should be able to nominate the justice who will replace Ginsburg .
Republicans have 53 votes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote against the confirmation of a new justice for it to fail if all Democrats vote together .
If the Senate ties on a nominee , Vice President Mike Pence would be able to break it .
There are still other Republicans who could still possibly split with their party on the confirmation fight .
Sen. Chuck Grassley reportedly said he “ couldn ’ t move forward ” with taking up a justice before the election , but has not confirmed his stance since the death of Ginsburg .
And it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt Romney , who broke with his party on Trump ’ s impeachment , and other Republicans in close elections like Sen. Cory Gardner will ultimately decide to do .
Many Senate Republicans have already announced they will support Trump and McConnell ’ s decision to move ahead in the confirmation process .

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is the second senator to announce she won’t support replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the 2020 election — narrowing, but not preventing, Republicans’ ability to push through President Donald Trump’s forthcoming Supreme Court pick.
“For weeks, I have stated I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election,” Murkowski said in a statement. "Sadly, what was then hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed. I did not support taking up a nomination before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia, we are now even closer to the 2020 election — less than two months out and I believe the same standard must apply."
Murkowski’s decision isn’t exactly a surprise. Before Ginsburg died, she had said that she believed that if a new vacancy on the Court occurred, it should not be filled prior to the election because “fair is fair.” In 2016, Senate Republicans led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to take up Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, citing the coming election. McConnell said Friday night soon after Ginsburg died that the Senate would take up Trump’s nominee, which is expected to come this week.
Murkowski’s statement came a day after Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican up for reelection, announced she believes the person who wins the presidential election in November should be able to nominate the justice who will replace Ginsburg.
Republicans have 53 votes in the Senate, so four Republicans would need to vote against the confirmation of a new justice for it to fail if all Democrats vote together. If the Senate ties on a nominee, Vice President Mike Pence would be able to break it.
There are still other Republicans who could still possibly split with their party on the confirmation fight.
Sen. Chuck Grassley reportedly said he “couldn’t move forward” with taking up a justice before the election, but has not confirmed his stance since the death of Ginsburg. And it’s currently unclear what senators like Sen. Mitt Romney, who broke with his party on Trump’s impeachment, and other Republicans in close elections like Sen. Cory Gardner will ultimately decide to do.
Many Senate Republicans have already announced they will support Trump and McConnell’s decision to move ahead in the confirmation process.


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death Increases The Likelihood That Obamacare Is Repealed Next Year

WASHINGTON — The fight to replace the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court could determine whether Obamacare is repealed next year , potentially stripping tens of millions of people of their health insurance during a global pandemic .
After Republicans in Congress failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 , 20 red-state attorneys general led by Texas launched a lawsuit to have the law overturned by the courts .
The case is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court for oral arguments on Nov. 10 , one week after the election .
A decision could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Obamacare defenders had hoped that the four Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices along with Chief Justice John Roberts would quash the Republican suit .
Roberts previously voted with the liberal wing to uphold the ACA in 2012 .
But Ginsburg ’ s death Friday changes that calculus dramatically .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said he will put forward a Trump nominee to replace Ginsburg on the court .
If Republicans are successful , the ACA ’ s fate could be decided by a majority made up of three Trump appointees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch already on the bench — plus Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas , who make up the rightmost flank of the court .
Progressive activists are now gearing up to try to make healthcare the centerpiece of the election , similar to the 2018 midterms when Democrats took back the House running prominently on the argument that Republicans would take away protections for people with preexisting conditions .
“ Healthcare is on the ballot .
Period , ” said Brad Woodhouse , executive director of health advocacy organization Protect Our Care .
Woodhouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACA is for Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to run hard on healthcare and win .
“ If after that [ Republicans ] still go down this repeal path , then they ’ re signing their political death certificate for years to come , ” he said .
“ So we ’ ve got to make this a healthcare election.
” '' Voters understand : The next justice who goes on the court will decide whether or not they will still have protections for preexisting conditions , '' a Biden campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a fight that ’ s good for Democrats .
It carried them to the House majority in 2018 and it is motivating voters in communities all over the country .
It will further motivate voters to turn out for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris . ''
Typically presidential administrations defend federal laws in court , but the Trump administration sided with the Republican governors in the Obamacare case .
In June , the White House filed a brief arguing the entire 900-page Affordable Care Act should be tossed out .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obamacare replacement plan that would provide better coverage to more people for less cost .
He has never released a plan .
A range of outcomes are on the table .
The court justices could send the suit back to a lower court , which has already happened once at the federal level .
If a new justice is not appointed by Nov. 10 the case could result in a 4–4 tie .
But historically in high-profile cases where a tie is a possibility , the justices have held off on a decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new justice has been confirmed , Stephen Vladeck , a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and Supreme Court litigator , told BuzzFeed News .
That would significantly delay an Obamacare ruling , potentially well into 2021 .
A conservative-majority court could also uphold the ACA ’ s constitutionality .
Repealing Obamacare would remove the ban on denying or jacking up prices for health insurance to people with preexisting health conditions .
It would repeal the Medicaid expansion , which provides health insurance to millions of low-income Americans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ letting children stay on their parents ’ insurance plans until the age of 26 , caps on out-of-pocket cost sharings , a ban on annual or lifetime limits on what an insurance plan can pay out , and a list of benefits that all regulated plans must cover .
This would also take place during a global health pandemic .
Republicans have insisted that these provisions would not go away because Congress would step in to pass a new law .
Democrats have mostly dismissed this as a fantasy .
“ They controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they couldn ’ t do anything on healthcare .
Why on earth would we be able to restore the full protections in the Affordable Care Act with a divided government ?
” Sen. Chris Murphy told BuzzFeed News .
In the current Congress , the parties are pursuing totally opposite healthcare visions .
Democrats want to expand the Obamacare markets to bring in more people , which could in turn drive down prices .
Republicans want to allow healthy people to move to cheaper — but skimpier — unregulated plans , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit rests on a novel and widely derided two-part argument that Congress unintentionally made the ACA unconstitutional when it repealed the individual mandate — the penalty that people had to pay if they did not purchase health insurance — in 2017 .
The first part of the argument is that the mandate rested on Congress ’ s taxation powers so removing the tax made it unconstitutional .
The second part is that if that one section of the ACA is unconstitutional then the entire law , containing hundreds of pages of unrelated policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON — The fight to replace the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court could determine whether Obamacare is repealed next year, potentially stripping tens of millions of people of their health insurance during a global pandemic.
After Republicans in Congress failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, 20 red-state attorneys general led by Texas launched a lawsuit to have the law overturned by the courts. The case is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court for oral arguments on Nov. 10, one week after the election. A decision could come in the first half of 2021.
Obamacare defenders had hoped that the four Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices along with Chief Justice John Roberts would quash the Republican suit. Roberts previously voted with the liberal wing to uphold the ACA in 2012. But Ginsburg’s death Friday changes that calculus dramatically.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said he will put forward a Trump nominee to replace Ginsburg on the court. If Republicans are successful, the ACA’s fate could be decided by a majority made up of three Trump appointees — with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch already on the bench — plus Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who make up the rightmost flank of the court.
Progressive activists are now gearing up to try to make healthcare the centerpiece of the election, similar to the 2018 midterms when Democrats took back the House running prominently on the argument that Republicans would take away protections for people with preexisting conditions.
“Healthcare is on the ballot. Period,” said Brad Woodhouse, executive director of health advocacy organization Protect Our Care.
Woodhouse said the best way to preserve the ACA is for Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to run hard on healthcare and win. “If after that [Republicans] still go down this repeal path, then they’re signing their political death certificate for years to come,” he said. “So we’ve got to make this a healthcare election.”
"Voters understand: The next justice who goes on the court will decide whether or not they will still have protections for preexisting conditions," a Biden campaign official told BuzzFeed News. "That’s a fight that’s good for Democrats. It carried them to the House majority in 2018 and it is motivating voters in communities all over the country. It will further motivate voters to turn out for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris."
Typically presidential administrations defend federal laws in court, but the Trump administration sided with the Republican governors in the Obamacare case. In June, the White House filed a brief arguing the entire 900-page Affordable Care Act should be tossed out.
Trump has for years promised to release an Obamacare replacement plan that would provide better coverage to more people for less cost. He has never released a plan.
A range of outcomes are on the table. The court justices could send the suit back to a lower court, which has already happened once at the federal level. If a new justice is not appointed by Nov. 10 the case could result in a 4–4 tie. But historically in high-profile cases where a tie is a possibility, the justices have held off on a decision and reschedule another round of arguments once the new justice has been confirmed, Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and Supreme Court litigator, told BuzzFeed News. That would significantly delay an Obamacare ruling, potentially well into 2021. A conservative-majority court could also uphold the ACA’s constitutionality.
Repealing Obamacare would remove the ban on denying or jacking up prices for health insurance to people with preexisting health conditions. It would repeal the Medicaid expansion, which provides health insurance to millions of low-income Americans. Other provisions that would be eliminated include letting children stay on their parents’ insurance plans until the age of 26, caps on out-of-pocket cost sharings, a ban on annual or lifetime limits on what an insurance plan can pay out, and a list of benefits that all regulated plans must cover. This would also take place during a global health pandemic.
Republicans have insisted that these provisions would not go away because Congress would step in to pass a new law. Democrats have mostly dismissed this as a fantasy. “They controlled every branch of government for two years and they couldn’t do anything on healthcare. Why on earth would we be able to restore the full protections in the Affordable Care Act with a divided government?” Sen. Chris Murphy told BuzzFeed News.
In the current Congress, the parties are pursuing totally opposite healthcare visions. Democrats want to expand the Obamacare markets to bring in more people, which could in turn drive down prices. Republicans want to allow healthy people to move to cheaper — but skimpier — unregulated plans, which weakens the Obamacare markets.
The red-state lawsuit rests on a novel and widely derided two-part argument that Congress unintentionally made the ACA unconstitutional when it repealed the individual mandate — the penalty that people had to pay if they did not purchase health insurance — in 2017. The first part of the argument is that the mandate rested on Congress’s taxation powers so removing the tax made it unconstitutional. The second part is that if that one section of the ACA is unconstitutional then the entire law, containing hundreds of pages of unrelated policy, needs to be thrown out.


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--Will Republicans Vote On A Supreme Court Nominee Before The Election? Don’t Forget The Intense Senat

Will Republicans Vote On A Supreme Court Nominee Before The Election? Don’t Forget The Intense Senate Campaigns In 2020.

President Donald Trump has said he ’ ll nominate a replacement to fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said there will be a vote .
But will there be a vote before the election , and will Republicans actually be able to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court ?
If you ’ re focused on the Biden–Trump race : The Senate is very close this year .
There are a lot of competitive races across the country , many of them in the same states where the presidential race is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in polling this fall .
The big question of the lifetime Supreme Court appointment will be looming over the short-term question of who controls the Senate .
Already , three Republican senators in tightly contested seats — Martha McSally , Thom Tillis , and Kelly Loeffler — have said there should be a vote .
Because of their majority , Republicans can afford to lose only four votes and still confirm a justice .
One , Maine 's Susan Collins , has said that not only should there not be a vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Joe Biden — should select the replacement .
But it ’ s hard to know yet how the public will respond to the idea of replacing a justice in the weeks before the election , though how much anger from the conservative base a Republican senator might risk incurring by going against Trump seems more clear .
There is also the lingering question of whether Republicans will instead push the nomination process until after the election , when they will still hold the majority , no matter what happens this fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place as an election issue for not just Democrats .
Late Friday , McConnell sent what ’ s known as a “ dear colleague ” letter advising Republicans who did not want a vote before the election , or those who were unsure of their position , to keep their “ powder dry ” — and not commit publicly to a position .
Colorado ’ s Cory Gardner , another Republican in a competitive race , has not publicly commented on the matter of a vote since Ginsburg ’ s death , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for comment .
Other senators up for reelection in states where the races are expected to be at least competitive have been much clearer .
“ This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump ’ s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court , ” Arizona ’ s Martha McSally tweeted on Friday night .
McSally , who filled the late Sen. John McCain ’ s seat , is in an intense special election race to keep that seat against Democrat Mark Kelly , the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Kelly Loeffler , who is running in a close race for a full term in the Senate after being appointed to finish retired Sen. Johnny Isakson ’ s term , tweeted that the “ the future of our country is at stake.
” She added that Trump has “ every right ” to pick a new justice for the court ahead of the election .
Georgia holds an all-party primary on Election Day , so unlike many of her other Republican colleagues , Loeffler is actually facing her fiercest competition in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a tight race against Rep. Doug Collins , a Trump ally .
“ I will support President Trump in nominating a strict constructionist before the election who will protect innocent life and safeguard conservative values , ” Loeffler said in a statement to BuzzFeed News on Friday night .
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis also called on the Senate to confirm a new justice ahead of the presidential election in a tweet on Saturday morning .
“ Four years ago , a Supreme Court vacancy arose under divided government and a lame-duck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today however , President Trump is again facing voters at the ballot box , ” Tillis said .
“ There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support , and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate.
” On Friday , before the news of Ginsburg ’ s death , Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she would not vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the election .
Murkowski is not up for reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she has broken with the party on big issues in recent years , including when she voted against Justice Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation .
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham , who is facing a close reelection campaign against Jaime Harrison and chairs the Judiciary Committee , previously said that if a vacancy on the Supreme Court became open in the last year of Trump ’ s term that they would “ wait to the next election.
” But in May , Graham told Full Court Press that a vacancy in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to Merrick Garland ’ s nomination by then-president Barack Obama ahead of the 2016 election .
“ I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020 , ” Graham said in the May interview .
In 2016 , when Republicans blocked the nomination of Garland after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia , Graham — a member of what was known as the “ Gang of 14 , ” a bipartisan group that worked to preserve the judicial filibuster in the 2000s — gave a speech about how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and politics more broadly .
“ We ’ re setting a precedent here today , the Republicans are , that in the last year — at least of a lame-duck , eight-year term , I would say it ’ s going to be a four-year term — that you ’ re not going to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court , based on what we ’ re doing here today , ” he said at the time .
“ That ’ s going to be the new rule.
” In that speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate was handling judicial nominations would become more and more polarized and party-line .
“ So what does that mean ?
We ’ re going to pick the most hard-ass people that we can find , ” Graham said in 2016 .
“ And dare somebody in the conference to vote against that person .
You ’ re going to have the most liberal members of your caucus pushing you to pick the most liberal judges cause you don ’ t need to have to reach across the aisle to get any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the same.
” “ So , over time , the judiciary is going to be more ideologically driven because the process in the Senate now does not require you to get outside your own party , ” Graham said in 2016 .
On Saturday morning , Graham reiterated in a tweet that 2020 is “ different.
” Ginsburg ’ s death has seemed to motivate Democrats , who have flooded Democratic campaigns with donations since the Friday night announcement and McConnell ’ s letter suggests that he knows that some Republicans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection campaigns .
“ This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret , ” McConnell told Republican senators in his letter .

President Donald Trump has said he’ll nominate a replacement to fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said there will be a vote.
But will there be a vote before the election, and will Republicans actually be able to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court?
If you’re focused on the Biden–Trump race: The Senate is very close this year. There are a lot of competitive races across the country, many of them in the same states where the presidential race is close, and several where Republicans trail in polling this fall. The big question of the lifetime Supreme Court appointment will be looming over the short-term question of who controls the Senate.
Already, three Republican senators in tightly contested seats — Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, and Kelly Loeffler — have said there should be a vote. Because of their majority, Republicans can afford to lose only four votes and still confirm a justice.
One, Maine's Susan Collins, has said that not only should there not be a vote, that the next president — whether Trump or Joe Biden — should select the replacement.
But it’s hard to know yet how the public will respond to the idea of replacing a justice in the weeks before the election, though how much anger from the conservative base a Republican senator might risk incurring by going against Trump seems more clear. There is also the lingering question of whether Republicans will instead push the nomination process until after the election, when they will still hold the majority, no matter what happens this fall, through January — potentially keeping the court in place as an election issue for not just Democrats.
Late Friday, McConnell sent what’s known as a “dear colleague” letter advising Republicans who did not want a vote before the election, or those who were unsure of their position, to keep their “powder dry” — and not commit publicly to a position.
Colorado’s Cory Gardner, another Republican in a competitive race, has not publicly commented on the matter of a vote since Ginsburg’s death, nor did he respond to a request for comment.
Other senators up for reelection in states where the races are expected to be at least competitive have been much clearer.
“This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump’s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court,” Arizona’s Martha McSally tweeted on Friday night.
McSally, who filled the late Sen. John McCain’s seat, is in an intense special election race to keep that seat against Democrat Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords and a gun control advocate.
In Georgia, Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who is running in a close race for a full term in the Senate after being appointed to finish retired Sen. Johnny Isakson’s term, tweeted that the “the future of our country is at stake.” She added that Trump has “every right” to pick a new justice for the court ahead of the election.
Georgia holds an all-party primary on Election Day, so unlike many of her other Republican colleagues, Loeffler is actually facing her fiercest competition in November from the right. Loeffler is running in a tight race against Rep. Doug Collins, a Trump ally.
“I will support President Trump in nominating a strict constructionist before the election who will protect innocent life and safeguard conservative values,” Loeffler said in a statement to BuzzFeed News on Friday night.
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis also called on the Senate to confirm a new justice ahead of the presidential election in a tweet on Saturday morning.
“Four years ago, a Supreme Court vacancy arose under divided government and a lame-duck president as Americans were choosing his successor. Today however, President Trump is again facing voters at the ballot box,” Tillis said. “There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support, and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate.”
On Friday, before the news of Ginsburg’s death, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she would not vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the election. Murkowski is not up for reelection, but along with Sen. Mitt Romney, she has broken with the party on big issues in recent years, including when she voted against Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is facing a close reelection campaign against Jaime Harrison and chairs the Judiciary Committee, previously said that if a vacancy on the Supreme Court became open in the last year of Trump’s term that they would “wait to the next election.” But in May, Graham told Full Court Press that a vacancy in 2020 would be a “different situation” compared to Merrick Garland’s nomination by then-president Barack Obama ahead of the 2016 election.
“I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020,” Graham said in the May interview.
In 2016, when Republicans blocked the nomination of Garland after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Graham — a member of what was known as the “Gang of 14,” a bipartisan group that worked to preserve the judicial filibuster in the 2000s — gave a speech about how the maneuver could come back to haunt Republicans and politics more broadly.
“We’re setting a precedent here today, the Republicans are, that in the last year — at least of a lame-duck, eight-year term, I would say it’s going to be a four-year term — that you’re not going to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, based on what we’re doing here today,” he said at the time. “That’s going to be the new rule.”
In that speech, he argued that the way the Senate was handling judicial nominations would become more and more polarized and party-line.
“So what does that mean? We’re going to pick the most hard-ass people that we can find,” Graham said in 2016. “And dare somebody in the conference to vote against that person. You’re going to have the most liberal members of your caucus pushing you to pick the most liberal judges cause you don’t need to have to reach across the aisle to get any of our input — and we’ll do the same.”
“So, over time, the judiciary is going to be more ideologically driven because the process in the Senate now does not require you to get outside your own party,” Graham said in 2016.
On Saturday morning, Graham reiterated in a tweet that 2020 is “different.”
Ginsburg’s death has seemed to motivate Democrats, who have flooded Democratic campaigns with donations since the Friday night announcement and McConnell’s letter suggests that he knows that some Republicans are walking a fine line ahead of their reelection campaigns.
“This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret,” McConnell told Republican senators in his letter.


buzzfeed--2020-09-20--Mitch McConnell Said The Senate Will Vote On Trump’s Replacement For Ruth Bader Ginsburg

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared Friday he will support President Donald Trump in attempting to fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s Supreme Court seat this fall , despite the imminent presidential election .
“ Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda , particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary .
Once again , we will keep our promise , ” he said in a press release .
“ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate.
” McConnell famously refused to allow former president Barack Obama ’ s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to proceed in 2016 .
At the time , McConnell argued it was an election year and voters should decide who filled the next Supreme Court seat ; Garland was nominated in March of that year , eight months away from the election .
Responding to cries of hypocrisy from the left , McConnell has said that rule only applied because the Senate was controlled by a different party than the president ; he reiterated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not appear to be aware of Ginsburg ’ s death when McConnell released the statement .
The news of Ginsburg ’ s death came during a campaign rally in Minnesota , where Trump did not show any indication he was aware of the news , aside from praising his potential future Supreme Court nominees , including Sen. Ted Cruz , and emphasizing the importance of the election for the future of the court .
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
McConnell has long been on record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Supreme Court in 2020 if a seat opens up , despite blocking Obama ’ s nominee in 2016 .
“ Oh , we ’ d fill it , ” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky last year .
The Friday night announcement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death comes less than seven weeks before the next presidential election .
But even if Trump loses to Joe Biden , Republicans will control the Senate until at least January .
Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the 100-seat chamber .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pence casts the tie-breaking vote .
Because of that , four Republican senators would need to object to a new Supreme Court nominee in order to block a nomination , assuming all Democrats are opposed .
The White House is poised to swiftly name a nominee — Trump released a list of Supreme Court candidates he ’ d like to nominate just last week .
The unusual practice of publicly naming potential candidates has given the administration and conservative legal advocacy groups time well in advance of an actual open seat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy .
Trump announced the nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh just two weeks after now-former justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in July 2018 .
Republican nominees already hold a 5–4 majority on the Supreme Court , but replacing Ginsburg would shift the court even further to the right ; justices serve lifetime appointments and can only be removed through impeachment , so the next justice could spend decades on the bench .
Trump has lashed out at Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. for siding with Ginsburg and the court ’ s liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting he would try to fill the next vacancy with a more politically reliable nominee .
According to NPR , before she died , Ginsburg told her granddaughter : “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” McConnell has been open about filling judicial vacancies and the reshaping the ideological makeup of the courts being the top priority of the Senate under the Trump administration .
Under his watch , the Senate has rarely passed meaningful legislation , but it has confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial nominees .
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham released a statement Friday night expressing “ great sadness ” about Ginsburg ’ s death , but he did not address what he would do if Trump announced a nominee .
In October 2018 , Graham said , “ If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump 's term , and the primary process has started , we 'll wait to the next election.
” Asked to confirm that statement at the time , Graham replied : “ Hold the tape @ @

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared Friday he will support President Donald Trump in attempting to fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat this fall, despite the imminent presidential election.
“Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise,” he said in a press release. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
McConnell famously refused to allow former president Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to proceed in 2016. At the time, McConnell argued it was an election year and voters should decide who filled the next Supreme Court seat; Garland was nominated in March of that year, eight months away from the election.
Responding to cries of hypocrisy from the left, McConnell has said that rule only applied because the Senate was controlled by a different party than the president; he reiterated that argument Friday.
Trump himself did not appear to be aware of Ginsburg’s death when McConnell released the statement. The news of Ginsburg’s death came during a campaign rally in Minnesota, where Trump did not show any indication he was aware of the news, aside from praising his potential future Supreme Court nominees, including Sen. Ted Cruz, and emphasizing the importance of the election for the future of the court. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
McConnell has long been on record saying he would appoint a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court in 2020 if a seat opens up, despite blocking Obama’s nominee in 2016. “Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky last year.
The Friday night announcement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death comes less than seven weeks before the next presidential election. But even if Trump loses to Joe Biden, Republicans will control the Senate until at least January.
Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the 100-seat chamber. In the event of a tie, Vice President Mike Pence casts the tie-breaking vote. Because of that, four Republican senators would need to object to a new Supreme Court nominee in order to block a nomination, assuming all Democrats are opposed.
The White House is poised to swiftly name a nominee — Trump released a list of Supreme Court candidates he’d like to nominate just last week. The unusual practice of publicly naming potential candidates has given the administration and conservative legal advocacy groups time well in advance of an actual open seat to vet potential nominees and develop a confirmation strategy. Trump announced the nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh just two weeks after now-former justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in July 2018.
Republican nominees already hold a 5–4 majority on the Supreme Court, but replacing Ginsburg would shift the court even further to the right; justices serve lifetime appointments and can only be removed through impeachment, so the next justice could spend decades on the bench. Trump has lashed out at Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. for siding with Ginsburg and the court’s liberal wing in rulings against his administration, suggesting he would try to fill the next vacancy with a more politically reliable nominee.
According to NPR, before she died, Ginsburg told her granddaughter: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
McConnell has been open about filling judicial vacancies and the reshaping the ideological makeup of the courts being the top priority of the Senate under the Trump administration. Under his watch, the Senate has rarely passed meaningful legislation, but it has confirmed more than 200 of Trump’s judicial nominees.
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham released a statement Friday night expressing “great sadness” about Ginsburg’s death, but he did not address what he would do if Trump announced a nominee. In October 2018, Graham said, “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election.” Asked to confirm that statement at the time, Graham replied: “Hold the tape.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--Friends And Family Members Of QAnon Believers Are Going Through A “Surreal Goddamn Nightmare”

Almost 200 people told us what it ’ s been like to lose a loved one to the mass delusion .
Here ’ s what they said .
“ We literally watched as she became radicalized.
” “ It feels like we are losing her to an addiction.
” This is how friends and family of QAnon supporters describe what they ’ re going through .
Most don ’ t understand how their loved ones could fall for something so unbelievable .
At its core , the QAnon collective delusion is a belief system that began in the innards of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mainstream .
Believers sign up for a slew of untruths .
Most support Trump , oppose the “ deep state , ” deny vaccination science , say many instances of gun violence were faked , and set off on quixotic crusades for supposedly trafficked children that hinder the real fight against the issue .
Much of their wrath is centered on purported elites who either faked the coronavirus pandemic or spread the virus through 5G technology , a scientific impossibility .
Satanism and drinking the blood of children are common points of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests and anti-fascist activists is widespread .
Taken together , the mass delusion seems outlandish , but a recent Pew Research Center survey showed that roughly half of US adults were aware of QAnon .
Four in ten Republicans who had heard of it said it was good for the country .
But those numbers are only part of the story .
They don ’ t show the impact the delusion has had on people and their relationships .
So , we asked our readers to tell us about the QAnon believers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Respondents , who mostly said they lived in the United States , ranged in age from 16 to 82 .
Here ’ s what you said .
QAnon has ruined lifelong friendships and alienated family members .
Those who still speak to one another say their relationships have changed , often beyond repair .
Nobody said any of their loved ones had returned to reality .
“ My mom has fallen into the conspiracy beliefs of QAnon , ” Samantha , 30 , who lives in Texas , told BuzzFeed News .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring her back to reality , and I ’ ve really tried it all.
” Samantha wrote that after her level-headed and college-educated mother became a believer , she could not save her .
“ Occasionally , I become emotional because we can ’ t have any normal conversations anymore , ” Samantha wrote .
“ It helps talking about it with my younger sister , and her solution is always the same — pray about it , so now that ’ s what I do .
I can ’ t change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that things will get better.
” For many , trouble started in March .
“ Once [ my mom ] lost her job in March due to the pandemic , she started spending most of her time watching YouTube videos and reading tweets about and from QAnon believers , ” wrote Katie , 29 , who lives in Alaska .
“ It 's disturbing the things she now believes.
” Another respondent , a 38-year-old from Washington who chose not to provide a name , said their friend of 24 years has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and marijuana ” kind of guy .
The respondent described their friend as someone who didn ’ t complete high school and was always prone to going down conspiracy rabbit holes .
This time was different .
“ This all started in March , ” they wrote .
“ I kept telling him that his beliefs are fine with me but his truth was not my truth .
He eventually took that as an ultimatum and posted that he ‘ lost a friend of 24 years ’ on Facebook.
” “ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We were best friends , and now he and his family are people that I used to know.
” “ My close friend in Northern California , a father of three , a friendly and well-liked small business owner who hardly posted on Facebook , other than just photos of family , suddenly got crazy active 30 days into corona lockdown , ” wrote another respondent .
“ I feel like I have no idea who he is.
” Over and over , respondents mourned the ends of friendships .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been someone I could depend on .
In our early adulthood , we both experienced abusive partners and leaned on each other for support , ” wrote a person living in California who ’ s 31 and didn ’ t provide a name .
“ We 've gotten through life/death situations .
Together .
She 's the only one who has never wavered from my side in 10-plus years.
” The author said their friend ’ s partner is a QAnon believer who makes his own YouTube videos , which is how she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend has cut herself off from the outside world .
“ She does n't even know what day it is more than half the time.
” “ I 've lost my best friend , ” she said .
“ My only friend .
Her .
I do n't think she 's ever going to come back.
” Susan , 73 , who lives in Hawaii , has also seen “ a very good friend ” become a QAnon supporter .
“ We went around and around for a few days with me providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
“ Finally , she cut me off , and that 's fine .
We ca n't continue our friendship with her denying reality.
” Marriages and romantic relationships have been tested .
QAnon has driven some couples apart , and those who have stuck around describe having to stay on their toes constantly .
“ I lost my partner of eight years to Q , ” one person wrote .
Their partner stumbled onto QAnon through actor Roseanne Barr , who was following a prominent QAnon account .
“ I looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researching Q and became emotionally upset over what my partner was reading and believing , ” the person said .
Their relationship ended , but they recently discovered that their former partner was telling people the coronavirus is a hoax .
Another person , who didn ’ t give their name but said they lived in Atlanta , watched a relationship crumble because of QAnon .
“ My cousin is divorcing her husband over his obsession with QAnon .
It ruined their relationship and became a huge wedge between them , ” they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a digital cult and it 's very dangerous .
I ’ m worried about what it will lead to , not only for our own family , but for our society as a whole .
It ’ s really scary.
” Other people said they ’ re trying to hang on to relationships .
Sandra , who lives in North Carolina , said she ’ s been struggling with her partner ’ s way of thinking , in particular his belief that Black Lives Matter protests were part of a conspiracy .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an admitted QAnon believer , ” she wrote .
“ There seems to be no way out for a QAnon believer , at least for this particular man .
No one else can be right , no one else can be trusted , anyone else who does n't believe is a sheep and the Great Awakening is coming .
It seems to hit on all the resentment he 's ever felt about being rejected or left behind or misunderstood or not as powerful/successful as he 'd like.
” “ I do worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single day.
” Frédéric , 55 , who lives in Belgium , was struggling with a similar situation .
“ My partner is spending hours every day in front of her laptop .
Coming to bed late in the night with all kinds of wild theories .
Using rather bizarre terms to describe what awful [ things ] she discovered on the net , ” he wrote .
He describes his partner reciting false theories about vaccines and microchips , talking about the Clintons drinking children ’ s blood , and blaming global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the Rockefellers .
Attempts to speak with her have been fruitless , he said .
“ This poison is troubling our relationship , so we avoid the subject .
But this is not the right thing to do , I would like her to wake up from this bad dream and face the world like it is , ” Frédéric wrote .
“ I hope that we in Europe will not turn like the Americans .
And I sincerely hope for the US that the country will take another path.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their children , and children are struggling with their parents .
One respondent described their son joining a militia group and wanting to aid the police as a result of believing in QAnon .
“ He believes that the police welcome the assistance that their militia group offers and that his training will prepare him for the coming civil wars , ” they said .
Another woman describes being ostracized from her Mexican American family who supports both Trump and QAnon .
“ Since I refuse to stay quiet any longer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly disrespectful and ungrateful daughter that ’ s on the brink of being disowned , ” she wrote .
Many people describe their parents watching YouTube videos and spending time on Facebook for hours on end .
One person said their dad has bought into almost every conspiracy theory he ’ s come across in the last four years , including QAnon .
“ He always sends me links to videos that were ‘ recommended to him ’ by YouTube ’ s own algorithm , ” they said .
“ He used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flaws , trials , tribulations and putting yourself in others ' shoes .
Now I see him using terms like ‘ cuck , ’ ‘ commie , ’ and ‘ lefty queer.
’ ” “ It ’ s been a nightmare , honestly , ” said another person , whose mom is a QAnon supporter .
“ She has changed her voicemail to say that COVID is a hoax , Hollywood is filled with pedophiles , and to vote early for Trump .
I was so scared after returning home from the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and told her if I ever go missing to start with my mom and her boyfriend.
” A divorced couple 's previously successful co-parenting has broken down because of QAnon .
“ My son is refusing to go to his dad 's house , ” a woman who declined to be named wrote .
“ He is always telling me he wants his old dad back , and it has caused my son so much anxiety .
It makes me so sad.
” In a twist , one hairdresser wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they became a QAnon believer — while another person wrote in to say they had to stop going to their hairdresser for the same reason .
“ For the past nine years , I never strayed from our monthly hangouts and 5-hour-long discussions while he was dying my hair , ” they wrote .
“ Then the great quarantine came and I did n't see him for a few months , and when I came skipping into the salon in late May , everything was different.
” Even those who don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve come across posts made by acquaintances on social media or seen believers in real life .
Kelly , 33 , who lives in Oklahoma City , has dealt with both .
She wrote that her hometown has been “ taken over ” by supporters .
She used to mess with believers online by pretending to “ take the bait ” and then making up increasingly implausible theories .
“ Best way to sum it up , ” she wrote , `` surreal goddamn nightmare . ''

“Once [my mom] lost her job in March due to the pandemic, she started spending most of her time watching YouTube videos and reading tweets about and from QAnon believers,” wrote Katie, 29, who lives in Alaska. “It's disturbing the things she now believes.”
Another respondent, a 38-year-old from Washington who chose not to provide a name, said their friend of 24 years has always been a “peace, love, and marijuana” kind of guy. The respondent described their friend as someone who didn’t complete high school and was always prone to going down conspiracy rabbit holes. This time was different.
“This all started in March,” they wrote. “I kept telling him that his beliefs are fine with me but his truth was not my truth. He eventually took that as an ultimatum and posted that he ‘lost a friend of 24 years’ on Facebook.”
By April, they stopped speaking.
“It happened so fast,” they wrote. “We were best friends, and now he and his family are people that I used to know.”
“My close friend in Northern California, a father of three, a friendly and well-liked small business owner who hardly posted on Facebook, other than just photos of family, suddenly got crazy active 30 days into corona lockdown,” wrote another respondent. “I feel like I have no idea who he is.”
Over and over, respondents mourned the ends of friendships.
“My (ex) BFF has always been someone I could depend on. In our early adulthood, we both experienced abusive partners and leaned on each other for support,” wrote a person living in California who’s 31 and didn’t provide a name. “We've gotten through life/death situations. Together. She's the only one who has never wavered from my side in 10-plus years.”
The author said their friend’s partner is a QAnon believer who makes his own YouTube videos, which is how she was introduced to it. Now her friend has cut herself off from the outside world. “She doesn't even know what day it is more than half the time.”
“I've lost my best friend,” she said. “My only friend. Her. I don't think she's ever going to come back.”
Susan, 73, who lives in Hawaii, has also seen “a very good friend” become a QAnon supporter.
“We went around and around for a few days with me providing links disproving her beliefs,” Susan wrote. “Finally, she cut me off, and that's fine. We can't continue our friendship with her denying reality.”