buzzfeed--2020-09-21--I Tried Cannabis Mints For The First Time, And Yup, I'm A Fan Now


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--14 Things You Probably Won't Understand If You're A Healthy Pooper

Waiting patiently for a poop you 're sure is going to come , only for it to stand you up @ @ @ @ @

BuzzFeed Bring Me
Obsessed with travel? Discover unique things to do, places to eat, and sights to see in the best destinations around the world with Bring Me!


buzzfeed--2020-09-20--This Is Why People With Vaginas Get Bleached Stains In Their Underwear

The key word here ?
Discharge .
`` Your vagina is an acidic environment , and that ’ s normal @ @ @ @ @ BuzzFeed .
`` It ’ s healthy , and that ’ s because of the @ @ @ @ @ there .
And so , theoretically , if your discharge is slightly acidic , it @ @ @ @ @ of fabric .
I can ’ t say specifically it always does , or it @ @ @ @ @ it varies , but it ’ s certainly possible . ''

The key word here? Discharge. "Your vagina is an acidic environment, and that’s normal," Dr. Lincoln told BuzzFeed. "It’s healthy, and that’s because of the kind of bacteria that live there. And so, theoretically, if your discharge is slightly acidic, it could potentially change the color of fabric. I can’t say specifically it always does, or it doesn’t, or it varies, but it’s certainly possible."


buzzfeed--2020-09-22--Republicans Say They'll Vote On Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Even If He Loses The Election

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans say they will proceed with a vote on President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to the Supreme Court even if it takes place after Trump loses the presidential election .
Several Republicans said Monday that a confirmation , under those circumstances , would still be legitimate because Trump would remain president until January even if Biden wins .
“ He ’ s still president of the United States until January 20th .
What ’ s illegitimate ?
” said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama .
“ You ’ ve got the power now , why don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what we plan to do.
” Republicans differed when asked how they square this approach to 2016 , when the GOP-controlled Senate refused to advance the nomination of then-president Barack Obama ’ s Supreme Court pick , Merrick Garland .
At the time Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell justified blocking a nominee in an election year by saying “ the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.
” Some Republicans Monday said that this year is a fundamentally different situation now because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , as opposed to split control in 2016 .
“ Let ’ s be honest here , there ’ s a Republican majority in the Senate with a Republican president .
The Democrats would do the same thing , ” said Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska .
That line — the Democrats would do it if they were in our shoes — was a common refrain as senators returned to Washington for the first time since Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death on Friday .
“ All I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats were in the same spot they ’ d be doing exactly what it looks like the timetable is going to be , ” said Indiana Sen. Mike Braun in one example .
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said this was also what Republicans told him during in-person conversations on the Senate floor .
“ I just went up and talked to a bunch of them just to have them explain it to me and that was their line , ” he said .
“ So that ’ s what they ’ re saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the only justification they have because they can ’ t defend what they said , right ?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer denounced the GOP arguments as “ pathetic ” and “ enough to make your head explode ” but he and his party are powerless to stop the nomination from going forward .
It would take four Republican senators to break from their party to block the nomination .
Only Sens .
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have said the process should be paused until after the election .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want the confirmation process to move ahead .
Trump is expected to announce his nominee to fill Ginsburg ’ s seat sometime this week .
It ’ s not clear whether that person will get a confirmation vote before the November 3 election , or afterward in a possible lame duck session if Trump loses .
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio also said he would be open to voting for Trump ’ s nominee in a lame duck session even if the president loses to Joe Biden .
“ His presidency , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it doesn ’ t end on Election Day with respect to the outcome .
He ’ s still , for example , the commander in chief of the Armed Forces , ” said Rubio .
“ If it ’ s a qualified judge that I would otherwise support , I ’ m going to support them .
”

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans say they will proceed with a vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court even if it takes place after Trump loses the presidential election.
Several Republicans said Monday that a confirmation, under those circumstances, would still be legitimate because Trump would remain president until January even if Joe Biden wins.
“He’s still president of the United States until Jan. 20. What’s illegitimate?” said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. “You’ve got the power now. Why don’t you exercise it? That’s what we plan to do.”
Republicans differed when asked how they square this approach to 2016, when the GOP-controlled Senate refused to advance the nomination of then-president Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell justified blocking a nominee in an election year by saying “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” Some Republicans said on Monday that this year is a fundamentally different situation because the same party controls both the Senate and the White House, as opposed to split control in 2016.
Others offered a more blunt defense.
“Let’s be honest here. There’s a Republican majority in the Senate with a Republican president. The Democrats would do the same thing,” said Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska.
That line — the Democrats would do it if they were in our shoes — was a common refrain as senators returned to Washington, DC, for the first time since Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday. “All I can tell you is, I think if the Democrats were in the same spot they’d be doing exactly what it looks like the timetable is going to be,” said Indiana Sen. Mike Braun in one example.
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said this was also what Republicans told him during in-person conversations on the Senate floor.
“I just went up and talked to a bunch of them, just to have them explain it to me, and that was their line,” he said. “So that’s what they’re saying privately as well as publicly. It’s the only justification they have because they can’t defend what they said, right?”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer denounced the GOP arguments as “pathetic” and “enough to make your head explode,” but he and his party are powerless to stop the nomination from going forward. It would take four Republican senators to break from their party to block the nomination. Only Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have said the process should be paused until after the election. The vast majority of others have signaled they want the confirmation process to move ahead.
Trump is expected to announce his nominee to fill Ginsburg’s seat sometime this week. It’s not clear whether that person will get a confirmation vote before the Nov. 3 election or afterward in a possible lame-duck session if Trump loses.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio also said he would be open to voting for Trump’s nominee in a lame-duck session even if the president loses to Biden.
“His presidency, even though it’s his first term — it doesn’t end on Election Day with respect to the outcome. He’s still, for example, the commander in chief of the Armed Forces,” said Rubio. “If it’s a qualified judge that I would otherwise support, I’m going to support them.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-22--Julián Castro Now Says Democrats Should Consider Court-Packing

Castro , who said in a Democratic primary debate last October that he “ would not pack the court ” as president , said on Monday that with reproductive rights , voting rights , and healthcare hanging in the balance , Democrats should consider structural reform to the court .
“ When those are the stakes , and Mitch McConnell is the one who ’ s abused this system , then yeah , I think we need to be open to considering either adding more justices or other structural reforms that will prevent this kind of abuse in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of us , that was n't our preference , but the fact is you have Mitch McConnell not abiding by , not working in good faith under the Constitution .
… If you have that kind of abuse of the system , then I think that , yeah , Democrats should be open to different ways that we can stave off draconian changes to our fundamental rights , ” he told BuzzFeed ’ s News O ’ Clock podcast on Monday .
Former presidential candidate Julián Castro thinks Democrats should consider adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans rush to confirm a justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg this year , a reversal from his belief during his presidential campaign .
Adding more justices to the Supreme Court , once a fringe idea , has become widely popular among progressives in the last year .
Castro became a favorite among progressives late in his race and has recently been offering public advice to Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
In a separate interview late last week , Castro , the only Latino to run for this year ’ s Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been making progress among Latino voters but knows he has more left to do .
“ I believe the campaign gets it in that they understand they have work to do , ” Castro said , adding that he thinks that Biden will pick up Latino support by Nov. 3 because the campaign is now investing in voter registration , bilingual messaging across platforms , and tailored outreach to different Latino communities , rather than treating them as one unified voting block .
He said the Biden campaign has “ a nuanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where you have a pan-Latino community that ranges from Cuban Americans to Puerto Ricans and Dominicans , it ’ s not a monolithic community , and I think the campaign gets that , ” he said .
After endorsing Biden in June , Castro has been taking part in some Biden campaign events .
He ’ s also been talking about what matters to Latino voters , including this week at a Telemundo town hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders .
Though Biden has been competitive or ahead of President Donald Trump in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to build momentum among Latino voters .
A poll over the weekend showed Biden winning Latino voters over Trump 62 % to 26 % , similar to the Latino support that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 .
Castro ’ s campaign focused on progressive policy and racial justice issues .
The former Obama cabinet secretary was the first Democrat in the race to have a comprehensive police reform plan , a progressive immigration plan , and a specific plan to address disparities faced by Native Americans .
This summer , he launched the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support progressive candidates , and last week released the first episode of a new podcast focusing on underserved communities .
He has been outspoken about the lack of diversity in both parties ; he criticized the minimal inclusion of Latino speakers at the Democratic National Convention recently and was vocal throughout his campaign about the disadvantages faced by both candidates and communities of color .
In last week ’ s interview , Castro said he ’ s “ hopeful ” but “ not naive ” that the US is making progress toward addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , is hampered by “ a president who ’ s the biggest race-baiter , the biggest racial grievance politician that we ’ ve had since George Wallace on the national stage.
” Castro called Trump ’ s racist threats about people of color , particularly those in low-income housing , endangering white suburban communities “ shameful.
” “ It ’ s a naked ploy to stoke white fear about Black Americans and other people of color .
It ’ s a lie .
He lied about what the policy is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide fair housing opportunity to everybody , no matter their background .
He lied about who is in the suburbs today .
The suburbs are more diverse than they are when we passed the Fair Housing Act in 1968 , ” Castro , who served as housing secretary during the Obama administration , said .
“ I believe he ’ s misrepresenting what ’ s in the hearts of many white Americans .
I do n't believe the majority of white Americans are sitting at home trying to figure out how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhood .
He ’ s selling them short , ” he said .
Castro said that in the wake of George Floyd 's death in police custody in Minneapolis , he ’ s been heartened by the “ vast outpouring of support for making progress in our country towards racial justice that included many white people , people of all different backgrounds , ” including “ a greater commitment at least in words by corporate America , by public officials , police departments , sports , celebrities , and people marching in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The question now , he said , is whether people will carry that motivation through to voting and pushing for change in corporate and nonprofit organizations .
“ I ’ m hopeful , you know .
I ’ m not naive , ” he said .
“ I don ’ t think it 's comfortable for a lot of people to do so , and I don ’ t think it ’ s second nature for a lot of people to do so either .
But I also believe that most people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it , most people.
” The Castro campaign ’ s progressive policy agenda and focus on communities of color won praise among progressive activists .
Now , with the nomination of one of the least progressive candidates of the dozens of Democrats who ran this cycle , some activists have wondered if they ’ re being asked to shelve the progressive reforms they ’ ve been pushing for to defeat Trump .
Castro said he ’ s not concerned that progressives won ’ t turn out for Biden .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people who recognize what a danger Donald Trump represents also recognize that Joe Biden would do a much better job than Donald Trump , and they will turn out to vote for Joe Biden , ” he said .
“ Is it the case that there ’ s a more progressive vision out there than the one that Joe Biden has ?
On some issues , sure .
It ’ s also true that Joe Biden has the most progressive vision of any Democratic nominee that we ’ ve ever had on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he added .
“ So if Joe Biden is elected we have a wonderful opportunity to do great progressive work in the next administration .
”

Adding more justices to the Supreme Court, once a fringe idea, has become widely popular among progressives in the last year. Castro became a favorite among progressives late in his race and has recently been offering public advice to Democratic nominee Joe Biden. In a separate interview late last week, Castro, the only Latino to run for this year’s Democratic presidential nomination, said he believed Biden has been making progress among Latino voters but knows he has more left to do.
“I believe the campaign gets it in that they understand they have work to do,” Castro said, adding that he thinks that Biden will pick up Latino support by Nov. 3 because the campaign is now investing in voter registration, bilingual messaging across platforms, and tailored outreach to different Latino communities, rather than treating them as one unified voting block.
He said the Biden campaign has “a nuanced approach.”
“Out there in Florida where you have a pan-Latino community that ranges from Cuban Americans to Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, it’s not a monolithic community, and I think the campaign gets that,” he said.
After endorsing Biden in June, Castro has been taking part in some Biden campaign events. He’s also been talking about what matters to Latino voters, including this week at a Telemundo town hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders. Though Biden has been competitive or ahead of President Donald Trump in many swing states, his campaign has struggled to build momentum among Latino voters. A poll over the weekend showed Biden winning Latino voters over Trump 62% to 26%, similar to the Latino support that Hillary Clinton won in 2016.
Castro’s campaign focused on progressive policy and racial justice issues. The former Obama cabinet secretary was the first Democrat in the race to have a comprehensive police reform plan, a progressive immigration plan, and a specific plan to address disparities faced by Native Americans. This summer, he launched the People First Future political action committee to support progressive candidates, and last week released the first episode of a new podcast focusing on underserved communities.
He has been outspoken about the lack of diversity in both parties; he criticized the minimal inclusion of Latino speakers at the Democratic National Convention recently and was vocal throughout his campaign about the disadvantages faced by both candidates and communities of color.
In last week’s interview, Castro said he’s “hopeful” but “not naive” that the US is making progress toward addressing racial inequities. He said any progress, though, is hampered by “a president who’s the biggest race-baiter, the biggest racial grievance politician that we’ve had since George Wallace on the national stage.”
Castro called Trump’s racist threats about people of color, particularly those in low-income housing, endangering white suburban communities “shameful.”
“It’s a naked ploy to stoke white fear about Black Americans and other people of color. It’s a lie. He lied about what the policy is. The fair housing rule was simply meant to provide fair housing opportunity to everybody, no matter their background. He lied about who is in the suburbs today. The suburbs are more diverse than they are when we passed the Fair Housing Act in 1968,” Castro, who served as housing secretary during the Obama administration, said.
“I believe he’s misrepresenting what’s in the hearts of many white Americans. I don't believe the majority of white Americans are sitting at home trying to figure out how they can keep Black people out of their neighborhood. He’s selling them short,” he said.
Castro said that in the wake of George Floyd's death in police custody in Minneapolis, he’s been heartened by the “vast outpouring of support for making progress in our country towards racial justice that included many white people, people of all different backgrounds,” including “a greater commitment at least in words by corporate America, by public officials, police departments, sports, celebrities, and people marching in the streets to press for racial justice.”
The question now, he said, is whether people will carry that motivation through to voting and pushing for change in corporate and nonprofit organizations.
“I’m hopeful, you know. I’m not naive,” he said. “I don’t think it's comfortable for a lot of people to do so, and I don’t think it’s second nature for a lot of people to do so either. But I also believe that most people have a kind heart and that they want to do it, most people.”
The Castro campaign’s progressive policy agenda and focus on communities of color won praise among progressive activists. Now, with the nomination of one of the least progressive candidates of the dozens of Democrats who ran this cycle, some activists have wondered if they’re being asked to shelve the progressive reforms they’ve been pushing for to defeat Trump. Castro said he’s not concerned that progressives won’t turn out for Biden.
“I’m confident that the vast majority of people who recognize what a danger Donald Trump represents also recognize that Joe Biden would do a much better job than Donald Trump, and they will turn out to vote for Joe Biden,” he said.
“Is it the case that there’s a more progressive vision out there than the one that Joe Biden has? On some issues, sure. It’s also true that Joe Biden has the most progressive vision of any Democratic nominee that we’ve ever had on a whole number of issues,” he added. “So if Joe Biden is elected we have a wonderful opportunity to do great progressive work in the next administration.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-22--His Victory Was Major For Progressives. Now He Wants To Keep It Going By Expanding The Supreme Court

His Victory Was Major For Progressives. Now He Wants To Keep It Going By Expanding The Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — At 33 and not yet a member of the House of Representatives , Mondaire Jones might not seem like the obvious choice to lead Congress in the fight to expand the Supreme Court — but come January , he hopes to do just that .
“ There 's not been a leader on this issue in the House of Representatives .
I 'm excited to be the point person in the House of Representatives on this subject area , ” Jones said in an interview with BuzzFeed News on Monday .
“ I think that [ reform like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can have durable progressive legislation that will stand the test of time when faced with opposition from political hacks on the Supreme Court and in the lower courts.
” Jones won the primary to replace New York Rep. Nita Lowey earlier this year , garnering endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
The district is heavily Democratic , so Jones is expected to win the seat in November .
He and Ritchie Torres , another Democratic congressional nominee in New York , are likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of Congress .
And for months , he ’ s made expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court central to his progressive agenda .
It ’ s an idea that has gained increasing traction among Democrats in Congress and liberal groups following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last Friday and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s vow to hold a vote on her replacement this year .
“ It is time we do something about the Roberts court 's assault on democracy .
Expanding the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in an opinion column published by Salon in April .
“ Court expansion would not cause a death spiral of democracy .
That death spiral is already here .
And it will only get worse if we do nothing.
” Now , in the wake of Ginsburg ’ s death , Jones is reiterating his call , pushing for 13 seats on the Supreme Court instead of the current nine — and calling on former vice president and current Democratic nominee Joe Biden to join him in that fight .
Biden hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday but has previously argued against court-packing , saying it would set a dangerous precedent and “ come back and eat us alive.
” “ It is the case , and has been for many years now , that there is a hyperpartisan conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States that is hostile to democracy itself and the will of Congress , ” Jones told BuzzFeed News on Monday .
“ There has not been a democratic institution that Justice Roberts and his majority has not been hostile to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of elections , or efforts to make it easier for folks who are eligible to vote to have their voices heard.
” Even under a Biden presidency and with Democrats in the majority in both chambers , Jones worries that the Supreme Court could still be a major impediment to a progressive agenda .
“ I know that in 2021 , when Democrats have unified control of the federal government , that we will still have as a major obstacle having the progressive legislation that we enact upheld when it is challenged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If democracy is to be preserved , we have to expand the size of the Supreme Court and restore balance .
… Roe v. Wade , the civil rights of LGBTQ people like myself , [ and ] the civil rights of racial minorities like myself are all at risk of being abridged by what may end up being a 6–3 conservative bloc on the Supreme Court.
” The idea of expanding the court has attracted new disciples in recent years , after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee , Merrick Garland , in the eight months leading up to the 2016 election .
McConnell argued at the time the next president needed to be the one to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia , who died in February that year .
Now , with just weeks to go before the election , McConnell has announced that President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg will get a vote on the Senate floor .
( McConnell argues that he blocked Garland not only because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate and the White House were controlled by different parties . )
“ Mitch McConnell set the precedent .
No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year , ” Sen. Ed Markey tweeted Friday night .
“ If he violates it , when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress , we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court .
”

WASHINGTON — At 33 and not yet a member of the House of Representatives, Mondaire Jones might not seem like the obvious choice to lead Congress in the fight to expand the Supreme Court — but come January, he hopes to do just that.
“There's not been a leader on this issue in the House of Representatives. I'm excited to be the point person in the House of Representatives on this subject area,” Jones said in an interview with BuzzFeed News on Monday. “I think that [reform like this is] the only way that we can have durable progressive legislation that will stand the test of time when faced with opposition from political hacks on the Supreme Court and in the lower courts.”
Jones won the primary to replace New York Rep. Nita Lowey earlier this year, garnering endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The district is heavily Democratic, so Jones is expected to win the seat in November. He and Ritchie Torres, another Democratic congressional nominee in New York, are likely to become the first two openly gay Black members of Congress.
And for months, he’s made expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court central to his progressive agenda. It’s an idea that has gained increasing traction among Democrats in Congress and liberal groups following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last Friday and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow to hold a vote on her replacement this year.
“It is time we do something about the Roberts court's assault on democracy. Expanding the Supreme Court is our only option,” Jones wrote in an opinion column published by Salon in April. “Court expansion would not cause a death spiral of democracy. That death spiral is already here. And it will only get worse if we do nothing.”
Now, in the wake of Ginsburg’s death, Jones is reiterating his call, pushing for 13 seats on the Supreme Court instead of the current nine — and calling on former vice president and current Democratic nominee Joe Biden to join him in that fight. Biden hasn’t spoken on the issue since Friday but has previously argued against court-packing, saying it would set a dangerous precedent and “come back and eat us alive.”
“It is the case, and has been for many years now, that there is a hyperpartisan conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the United States that is hostile to democracy itself and the will of Congress,” Jones told BuzzFeed News on Monday. “There has not been a democratic institution that Justice Roberts and his majority has not been hostile to, whether it's systems of public financing of elections, or efforts to make it easier for folks who are eligible to vote to have their voices heard.”
Even under a Biden presidency and with Democrats in the majority in both chambers, Jones worries that the Supreme Court could still be a major impediment to a progressive agenda.
“I know that in 2021, when Democrats have unified control of the federal government, that we will still have as a major obstacle having the progressive legislation that we enact upheld when it is challenged in the Supreme Court,” he said. “If democracy is to be preserved, we have to expand the size of the Supreme Court and restore balance. … Roe v. Wade, the civil rights of LGBTQ people like myself, [and] the civil rights of racial minorities like myself are all at risk of being abridged by what may end up being a 6–3 conservative bloc on the Supreme Court.”
The idea of expanding the court has attracted new disciples in recent years, after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold hearings or a vote on then-president Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, in the eight months leading up to the 2016 election. McConnell argued at the time the next president needed to be the one to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February that year.
Now, with just weeks to go before the election, McConnell has announced that President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg will get a vote on the Senate floor. (McConnell argues that he blocked Garland not only because it was an election year but because the Senate and the White House were controlled by different parties.)
“Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year,” Sen. Ed Markey tweeted Friday night. “If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-22--Elizabeth Warren And Bernie Sanders Want Big Banking Reforms Following The FinCEN Files Investigatio

Elizabeth Warren And Bernie Sanders Want Big Banking Reforms Following The FinCEN Files Investigations

Lawmakers , regulators , and activists across the globe Monday called for swift action into the findings of a new investigation from BuzzFeed News and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists about corruption in the global banking system and how governments facilitate it .
In the FinCEN Files , a series of stories that began publishing Sunday , BuzzFeed News and its partners revealed how the giants of Western banking move trillions of dollars in suspicious transactions , enriching themselves and their shareholders while facilitating the actions of terrorists , kleptocrats , and drug kingpins .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of offering banks deferred prosecution agreements instead of real punishments when they are caught abetting money laundering , one of the problems highlighted in the series .
“ We must root out this corruption by strengthening transparency of financial networks and clamp down on the dark money that flows through the global financial system , ” she said .
The Massachusetts Democrat called for the creation of a new unit in the US Treasury Department , separate from FinCEN “ to investigate these types of financial crimes.
” She also called for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Jail Act , legislation she introduced in 2018 that she said would hold Wall Street executives criminally accountable when the banks they lead break the law .
This , she said , would stop the practice of allowing “ bankers to walk away with drop in the bucket settlements and slaps on the wrist.
” Sen. Bernie Sanders also described the series as revealing “ the routine business practices on Wall Street.
” “ The business model of Wall Street is fraud .
It is not the exception to the rule—it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter .
“ Break them up .
”

Lawmakers, regulators, and activists across the globe Monday called for swift action into the findings of a new investigation from BuzzFeed News and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists about corruption in the global banking system and how governments facilitate it.
In the FinCEN Files, a series of stories that began publishing Sunday, BuzzFeed News and its partners revealed how the giants of Western banking move trillions of dollars in suspicious transactions, enriching themselves and their shareholders while facilitating the actions of terrorists, kleptocrats, and drug kingpins.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren called on Monday for reforming the government practice of offering banks deferred prosecution agreements instead of real punishments when they are caught abetting money laundering, one of the problems highlighted in the series.
“We must root out this corruption by strengthening transparency of financial networks and clamp down on the dark money that flows through the global financial system,” she said.
The Massachusetts Democrat called for the creation of a new unit in the US Treasury Department, separate from FinCEN, “to investigate these types of financial crimes.”
She also called for the passage of her so-called Ending Too Big to Jail Act, legislation she introduced in 2018 that she said would hold Wall Street executives criminally accountable when the banks they lead break the law. This, she said, would stop the practice of allowing “bankers to walk away with drop in the bucket settlements and slaps on the wrist.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders also described the series as revealing “the routine business practices on Wall Street.”
“The business model of Wall Street is fraud. It is not the exception to the rule—it is the rule,” he said on Twitter. “Break them up.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--Trump’s Swift Push To Replace Justice Ginsburg Has Democrats Rallying Around Court-Packing

The doors to the US Supreme Court Building remain closed the day following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
“ Mitch McConnell set the precedent .
No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year , ” Markey tweeted Friday night .
“ If he violates it , when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress , we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.
” After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Friday night that the president ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg would get a vote on the floor of the Senate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their support for court-packing .
Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts was the first to tweet in support of Democrats taking dramatic steps after the election if they win back the Senate .
Opponents of court-packing , including Biden , argue it would start a dangerous precedent — that whichever political party is in power would try to add or subtract seats to change the court ’ s ideological balance .
Biden hasn ’ t weighed in on court-packing since Ginsburg ’ s death , but the Washington Post reported that some of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong stance on the issue right away .
One of the leading court expansion proposals , which was based on a Yale Law Journal article and had support from former Democratic presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg and Beto O ’ Rourke , involves going from nine justices to 15 .
Known as the “ 5-5-5 ” plan , it proposes five Democrat-affiliated justices , five Republican-affiliated justices , and five justices chosen by the 10 politically aligned justices to serve shorter , rotating terms .
Enter court-packing , which would involve Congress passing legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
It ’ s a strategy that hasn ’ t had real momentum since 1937 , when Franklin Roosevelt unsuccessfully pushed to add up to 15 new justices in the face of a court that repeatedly blocked his New Deal policies .
Democrats calling for more seats now haven ’ t specified how many more justices they might want , but the fact that they ’ re talking about it all shows how much the politics around the court have changed just in the last two years .
There is little that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump nominee from getting confirmed if the Senate ’ s Republican majority sticks together .
That would give the court ’ s more conservative wing a 6–3 majority .
Even if Joe Biden wins the White House and Democrats take the Senate , Democrats fear a solidly conservative court would stand in the way of their political agenda .
WASHINGTON — The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and the prospect of President Donald Trump rushing through a nominee to deepen the court ’ s conservative majority — has a growing number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US Supreme Court .
Mitch McConnell set the precedent .
No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year .
If he violates it , when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress , we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court .
The next morning , Rep. Joe Kennedy , who recently unsuccessfully primaried Markey , tweeted his agreement , writing , “ If [ McConnell ] holds a vote in 2020 , we pack the court in 2021 .
It ’ s that simple.
” “ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court , ” Nadler tweeted Saturday .
“ Filling the SCOTUS vacancy during a lame duck session , after the American people have voted for new leadership , is undemocratic and a clear violation of the public trust in elected officials .
Congress would have to act and expanding the court would be the right place to start.
” If Sen. McConnell and @ SenateGOP were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court .
1/2 https : //t.co/BDYQ0KVmJe During a Sunday night press conference in Brooklyn with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that “ everything is on the table ” in regards to court expansion if Trump ’ s nominee is confirmed before the election and if Democrats win a majority in the Senate .
Ocasio-Cortez has long supported court expansion and recently told reporters that Democrats should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open .
“ Our reproductive rights are on the line , our labor rights are on the line , our right to healthcare is on the line , labor and union protections are on the line , our climate is on the line , ” she told reporters at the Brooklyn press conference .
Federal law has set the court ’ s size at nine justices since 1869 — one chief justice and eight associate justices .
They serve lifetime appointments and can only be removed through impeachment .
The idea of adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reemerged in late 2018 after the contentious confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the launch of a liberal advocacy group focused on expanding the size of the Supreme Court as well as the lower courts .
Originally called “ Pack the Courts , ” the group was started by Aaron Belkin , who was previously involved in the fight against the military ’ s “ don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell ” policy prohibiting LGBTQ service members from serving openly .
Imposing term limits is another big structural change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , Fix the Court , a Supreme Court watchdog group , launched a term limits campaign with support from dozens of law professors and legal scholars ; the group has proposed staggered 18-year terms for justices .
Proponents of court-packing argue term limits wouldn ’ t be a fast-enough fix , however .
Sean McElwee , who has worked alongside Belkin in pushing Democrats to embrace court-packing , pointed to the judicial pushback against the Affordable Care Act as one of the reasons why the push has gained traction over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenged by red-state attorneys general in a lawsuit that has wound through the judicial system after Congress failed to repeal the law in 2017 .
The Supreme Court is set to hear the case in the days after the election .
“ The problem with the Supreme Court is that it ’ s a very effective way to fuck up any progressive legislation , ” McElwee said .
“ We live in a world where Democrats can just not be sure that , even if they do due diligence on passing laws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up by the Supreme Court , ” McElwee added .
“ It became clear that we needed to have discussions about expansion because it is fundamentally undemocratic for us to win the House , win the Senate , win the presidency — all with majorities of the American public — and then see the laws we want to enact struck down by an unelected branch.
” More than 80 years after Roosevelt ’ s unsuccessful push , the term “ court-packing ” was still so fraught that Belkin faced pressure from within his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He reluctantly agreed to change the name of the organization to “ Take Back the Court ” ; he previously told BuzzFeed News that he was overruled by “ literally everybody ” — but the mission stayed the same .
The group ’ s first win came in February 2019 , when they successfully planted a question about court-packing at a campaign event in Philadelphia for Buttigieg , then a presidential contender .
Buttigieg said that he was open to the idea , which not only generated a round of public debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on other Democratic candidates to weigh in .
A few months later , the New York Times included a question about adding seats to the court as part of a larger questionnaire to top-polling Democratic candidates .
A number of 2020 presidential candidates , including Sens .
Kamala Harris , Amy Klobuchar , and Elizabeth Warren , told the Times at the time that they were open to at least thinking about it .
Biden made clear early on that he was opposed .
“ If we pack the court , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us alive , ” Biden said at an event in July 2019 .
Belkin told BuzzFeed News on Monday that his group isn ’ t trying to directly lobby Biden to change his mind .
He said its approach has been to build a grassroots movement and also send a message to Chief Justice John Roberts that there could be consequences if liberals believe he ’ s tipping the scales too far in favor of Trump and Republicans .
Belkin noted the speed at which the conversation shifted to court-packing after Ginsburg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument has moved up and up and up through the echelons of the party and the progressive community , ” he said .
“ Joe Biden is going to see real fast that unless something is done about the court , his agenda is dead on arrival on day one .
Those are the dots that need to be connected .
It ’ s not about lobbying Joe Biden , it ’ s about helping the progressive community understand.
” At the Democratic National Convention this summer , the party for the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court reforms ” in its platform , although it didn ’ t advocate for any specific plan .
The idea has also picked up traction among progressive candidates , including Marie Newman , who recently pulled off a successful primary challenge against Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski , and Mondaire Jones , who recently won the primary to replace Rep. Nita Lowey in New York and made the issue central to his campaign platform .
In an interview with BuzzFeed News on Monday , Jones said he thought 13 justices “ sounds right.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may end up being six justices in the conservative majority on the Supreme Court , I think the way that you restore balance and save our democracy is to have seven people in good conscience , ” Jones said .
McElwee pointed out that while the idea has gained traction with a wider coalition of Democrats from Schumer to more progressive-leaning candidates like Jones , it is going to take an extended amount of time to bring a majority of Democrats on board with expanding the court .
Congress would have to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand the number of Supreme Court justices and either get the president ’ s signature or override a veto .
With Democrats expected to maintain a fairly safe majority in the House , the focus would turn to the Senate .
“ We ’ ve definitely made some strides but whenever Democrats try to expand the court it ’ s going to take 50 Democratic senators , ” McElwee said , assuming Biden wins and Kamala Harris as vice president could break the tie .
McElwee said that the best way to shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ways the Supreme Court affects people ’ s day-to-day lives , from decisions that determine their access to healthcare to how they vote for congressional representatives .
“ I think you get to 50 votes on this idea by 2022 or 2023 , ” McElwee said .
“ We have to make it clear to the American public the material harm that the court is doing and then make it clear to the Democratic senators that the majority is on our side . ''

During a Sunday night press conference in Brooklyn with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that “everything is on the table” in regards to court expansion if Trump’s nominee is confirmed before the election and if Democrats win a majority in the Senate.
Ocasio-Cortez has long supported court expansion and recently told reporters that Democrats should keep the option of expanding the court open. “Our reproductive rights are on the line, our labor rights are on the line, our right to healthcare is on the line, labor and union protections are on the line, our climate is on the line,” she told reporters at the Brooklyn press conference.
Recent Momentum
Federal law has set the court’s size at nine justices since 1869 — one chief justice and eight associate justices. They serve lifetime appointments and can only be removed through impeachment.
The idea of adding justices to immediately undercut the conservative majority reemerged in late 2018 after the contentious confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the launch of a liberal advocacy group focused on expanding the size of the Supreme Court as well as the lower courts. Originally called “Pack the Courts,” the group was started by Aaron Belkin, who was previously involved in the fight against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibiting LGBTQ service members from serving openly.
Imposing term limits is another big structural change that’s gained traction. Last year, Fix the Court, a Supreme Court watchdog group, launched a term limits campaign with support from dozens of law professors and legal scholars; the group has proposed staggered 18-year terms for justices. Proponents of court-packing argue term limits wouldn’t be a fast-enough fix, however.
Sean McElwee, who has worked alongside Belkin in pushing Democrats to embrace court-packing, pointed to the judicial pushback against the Affordable Care Act as one of the reasons why the push has gained traction over the past few years. The ACA has been challenged by red-state attorneys general in a lawsuit that has wound through the judicial system after Congress failed to repeal the law in 2017. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case in the days after the election.
“The problem with the Supreme Court is that it’s a very effective way to fuck up any progressive legislation,” McElwee said.
“We live in a world where Democrats can just not be sure that, even if they do due diligence on passing laws, that they will see those laws held up by the Supreme Court,” McElwee added. “It became clear that we needed to have discussions about expansion because it is fundamentally undemocratic for us to win the House, win the Senate, win the presidency — all with majorities of the American public — and then see the laws we want to enact struck down by an unelected branch.”
More than 80 years after Roosevelt’s unsuccessful push, the term “court-packing” was still so fraught that Belkin faced pressure from within his own organization to tone down the rhetoric. He reluctantly agreed to change the name of the organization to “Take Back the Court”; he previously told BuzzFeed News that he was overruled by “literally everybody” — but the mission stayed the same.
The group’s first win came in February 2019, when they successfully planted a question about court-packing at a campaign event in Philadelphia for Buttigieg, then a presidential contender. Buttigieg said that he was open to the idea, which not only generated a round of public debate among legal scholars but also put pressure on other Democratic candidates to weigh in. A few months later, the New York Times included a question about adding seats to the court as part of a larger questionnaire to top-polling Democratic candidates.
A number of 2020 presidential candidates, including Sens. Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, told the Times at the time that they were open to at least thinking about it. Biden made clear early on that he was opposed.
“If we pack the court, it’s going to come back and eat us alive,” Biden said at an event in July 2019.
Belkin told BuzzFeed News on Monday that his group isn’t trying to directly lobby Biden to change his mind. He said its approach has been to build a grassroots movement and also send a message to Chief Justice John Roberts that there could be consequences if liberals believe he’s tipping the scales too far in favor of Trump and Republicans.
Belkin noted the speed at which the conversation shifted to court-packing after Ginsburg’s death on Friday.
“The argument has moved up and up and up through the echelons of the party and the progressive community,” he said. “Joe Biden is going to see real fast that unless something is done about the court, his agenda is dead on arrival on day one. Those are the dots that need to be connected. It’s not about lobbying Joe Biden, it’s about helping the progressive community understand.”
At the Democratic National Convention this summer, the party for the first time included a call for “structural court reforms” in its platform, although it didn’t advocate for any specific plan.
The idea has also picked up traction among progressive candidates, including Marie Newman, who recently pulled off a successful primary challenge against Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, and Mondaire Jones, who recently won the primary to replace Rep. Nita Lowey in New York and made the issue central to his campaign platform.
In an interview with BuzzFeed News on Monday, Jones said he thought 13 justices “sounds right.”
“Given the hyperpartisan behavior of what may end up being six justices in the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, I think the way that you restore balance and save our democracy is to have seven people in good conscience,” Jones said.
McElwee pointed out that while the idea has gained traction with a wider coalition of Democrats from Schumer to more progressive-leaning candidates like Jones, it is going to take an extended amount of time to bring a majority of Democrats on board with expanding the court.
Congress would have to pass legislation through the House and Senate to expand the number of Supreme Court justices and either get the president’s signature or override a veto. With Democrats expected to maintain a fairly safe majority in the House, the focus would turn to the Senate.
“We’ve definitely made some strides but whenever Democrats try to expand the court it’s going to take 50 Democratic senators,” McElwee said, assuming Biden wins and Kamala Harris as vice president could break the tie.
McElwee said that the best way to shape public opinion on court-packing is to emphasize the ways the Supreme Court affects people’s day-to-day lives, from decisions that determine their access to healthcare to how they vote for congressional representatives. “I think you get to 50 votes on this idea by 2022 or 2023,” McElwee said. “We have to make it clear to the American public the material harm that the court is doing and then make it clear to the Democratic senators that the majority is on our side."


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--The CDC Removed A New Guidance About Airborne Coronavirus Transmission Days After Posting It

The agency 's new `` How COVID-19 Spreads `` guidance , initially posted on Friday , acknowledged that the virus can spread by aerosol droplets released when infected people breathe , talk , and sing , spreading infectious particles beyond the 6-foot limit widely used as a guide for distancing .
Many virus experts have been calling for such a change to be reflected in public health guidance .
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed its new guidance for stopping airborne coronavirus transmission on Monday , sparking more concerns that the Trump administration may be interfering with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the guidance was removed and the agency 's website was updated to say that `` a draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error . ''
Another change to the @ CDCgov website : `` CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 ( the virus that causes COVID-19 ) . ''
https : //t.co/4T3nWtTlJW Info about aerosols no longer appears .
Not sure what 's going on .
Jason McDonald , a spokesperson for the CDC , said that the updated guidance was improperly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s concerns regarding COVID-19 transmission language led to revision of the 'How COVID-19 Spreads ' web page without appropriate in-house technical review , '' McDonald said .
`` We are reviewing our process and tightening criteria for review of all guidance and updates before they are posted to the CDC website . ''
Jose-Luis Jimenez , a chemistry professor at the University of Colorado , Boulder , called the situation “ a total mess.
” “ We are beside ourselves , ” he told BuzzFeed News .
`` This is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and take down guidance .
It is not normal , '' Anita Desikan of the Union of Concerned Scientists , a science agency watchdog , told BuzzFeed News .
The CDC would be expected to update its guidance on a new , dangerous disease as it learns more , but those changes are supposed to come only after a thorough review .
`` Even if it is just a screw-up , it 's a problem to have CDC screwing up , '' Desikan added .
`` It is undermining public trust . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other experts had been urging the CDC and other health agencies to recognize a growing consensus that aerosol transmission likely accounts for most COVID-19 transmission .
To these scientists , the CDC ’ s update on Friday was welcome , and long-overdue , news .
Do you work at the CDC ?
Contact these reporters at dan.vergano @ buzzfeed.com or stephanie.lee @ buzzfeed.com , or securely at tips.buzzfeed.com .
“ Finally a major health organization was listening to the science and updating their position .
We were very happy about this , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ Now what happens today , who knows what the reason is ?
” It could turn out to be a mistake as simple as uploading a draft prematurely .
Or , Jimenez feared , it could be an instance of the White House once again interfering with the CDC ’ s public health messaging .
As the New York Times reported last week , a widely criticized CDC recommendation about who should get tested for the virus was written by officials at the Department of Health and Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of CDC scientists .
Whatever the reason , Jimenez said that the flip-flop over aerosol transmission was yet another instance of the agency giving off an “ extraordinarily confusing ” message .
“ It diminishes the trust of the CDC , which was already weakened by all the things that have happened recently , which is the last thing we need , '' he said .
`` We ’ re in a pandemic .
It ’ s likely that we have a fall and winter ahead of us that are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions to have a clear message based on science and not to be announcing something on Friday and pulling it out on Monday .
”

Jason McDonald, a spokesperson for the CDC, said that the updated guidance was improperly posted online. "Internal CDC program’s concerns regarding COVID-19 transmission language led to revision of the 'How COVID-19 Spreads' web page without appropriate in-house technical review," McDonald said. "We are reviewing our process and tightening criteria for review of all guidance and updates before they are posted to the CDC website."
Jose-Luis Jimenez, a chemistry professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, called the situation “a total mess.” “We are beside ourselves,” he told BuzzFeed News.
"This is not a usual thing to have CDC put up and take down guidance. It is not normal," Anita Desikan of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science agency watchdog, told BuzzFeed News. The CDC would be expected to update its guidance on a new, dangerous disease as it learns more, but those changes are supposed to come only after a thorough review.
"Even if it is just a screw-up, it's a problem to have CDC screwing up," Desikan added. "It is undermining public trust."
For months, Jimenez and dozens of other experts had been urging the CDC and other health agencies to recognize a growing consensus that aerosol transmission likely accounts for most COVID-19 transmission. To these scientists, the CDC’s update on Friday was welcome, and long-overdue, news.
Do you work at the CDC? Contact these reporters at dan.vergano@buzzfeed.com or stephanie.lee@buzzfeed.com, or securely at tips.buzzfeed.com.
“Finally a major health organization was listening to the science and updating their position. We were very happy about this, all the scientists working on this issue,” he said. “Now what happens today, who knows what the reason is?”
It could turn out to be a mistake as simple as uploading a draft prematurely. Or, Jimenez feared, it could be an instance of the White House once again interfering with the CDC’s public health messaging. As the New York Times reported last week, a widely criticized CDC recommendation about who should get tested for the virus was written by officials at the Department of Health and Human Services and posted online over the objections of CDC scientists.
Whatever the reason, Jimenez said that the flip-flop over aerosol transmission was yet another instance of the agency giving off an “extraordinarily confusing” message.
“It diminishes the trust of the CDC, which was already weakened by all the things that have happened recently, which is the last thing we need," he said. "We’re in a pandemic. It’s likely that we have a fall and winter ahead of us that are going to be very difficult. We need the public institutions to have a clear message based on science and not to be announcing something on Friday and pulling it out on Monday.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-21--HSBC's Secret Files: The Inside Tale Of What Happened After It Apologized For Being Dirty

From the FinCEN Files investigation : Secret documents show how one of the world ’ s biggest banks kept doing business with companies that its own employees raised red flags about .
It sure seemed like the wild days were coming to an end .
HSBC , Europe ’ s largest bank , had just been caught allowing a network of drug kingpins , including the notorious Joaquín “ El Chapo ” Guzmán , to launder more than $ 880 million through its accounts .
And it had brazenly done business in off-limits countries such as Sudan and Myanmar .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the US Department of Justice granted it : Admit your guilt , pay $ 1.9 billion in fines , and submit to an independent monitor .
And so HSBC ’ s new era began , with the arrival of a sprawling team of outside investigators to make sure the bank was cleaning up its act .
It was the most high-profile case against a bank in a decade , and the government declared that the arrangement it had put in place , known as a deferred prosecution agreement , would make HSBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t , it could face criminal charges .
The FinCEN Files investigation — based , in part , on thousands of secret Treasury Department documents — reveals that HSBC ’ s promises were hollow , and so was the government ’ s threat .
Even under the most intensive scrutiny , the bank continued to facilitate and profit from transactions it suspected were dirty .
At the end of the monitor ’ s five-year tenure , he said HSBC had made progress , but the bank itself acknowledged to shareholders that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing financial crime risk.
” Yet no criminal charges ensued .
In fact , the government announced that HSBC had “ complied with their obligations.
” The inside tale of what happened at HSBC , told here for the first time , underscores how toothless deferred prosecution agreements really are .
The records show that the bank continued to do business with companies that its own employees raised red flags about .
Vida Panamá , owned by Panama ’ s powerful Waked family , used the bank to exchange $ 292 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it a money laundering organization that washed funds for narco kingpins .
An attorney for the family , Yasser Williams , told BuzzFeed News the business was legitimate , and the Wakeds plan to fight Treasury ’ s designation .
A Turkish financial consultant made 124 suspicious transactions in 2015 and 2016 , including a wire transfer to a California electronics company accused by the Justice Department of laundering cash for the Norte del Valle drug cartel .
The California company did not respond to a detailed message .
And the bank flouted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial institutions in Transnistria , a breakaway republic in Moldova known as a haven for financial crime .
The confidential files , shared by BuzzFeed News with the more than 100 partner newsrooms of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ( ICIJ ) , contain 70 of the suspicious activity reports , or SARs , that HSBC submitted during the five-year period it was under the eye of the monitor .
Such documents , sent to the Treasury Department ’ s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network , or FinCEN , flag transactions that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not by themselves evidence of a crime , but they can support investigations and intelligence gathering .
The FinCEN Files investigation — which also included internal bank records and firsthand accounts of people inside the bank and familiar with the monitor ’ s examination — found numerous fronts on which the bank fell short .
Outside the US , local regulators tried to brush off the monitor ’ s staff or warned them not to ask uncomfortable questions .
Despite bringing on more than a dozen US and UK government officials — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to serve as FBI director , and Bob Werner , who had overseen the Treasury Department ’ s efforts to enforce sanctions — HSBC failed to resolve shortcomings the monitor identified in anti–money laundering procedures .
Meanwhile , to improve computer security measures , HSBC brought on consultants remembered by a colleague more for their partying than their work ethic .
During the past decade , the government has relied on deferred prosecution agreements as its main strategy to fight high-level corporate crime .
`` Through those agreements , we can often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more than , we could from a criminal conviction , ” said Leslie Caldwell , the former head of the Justice Department 's criminal division , at an anti–money laundering conference in 2015 .
But instead of accomplishing real change , the Justice Department ’ s approach has produced an ineffective cycle of accusations and inaction , apologies and broken promises — and yet more deferred prosecution agreements .
Nowhere is that more clear than the case of HSBC .
The monitors installed by the Department of Justice to evaluate banks often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Cherkasky , who led the team overseeing HSBC , is a former prosecutor who brought mob boss John Gotti to trial .
But monitors are not law enforcement officials .
They are independent overseers , and they are paid by the banks , not the government .
What ’ s more , the banks have substantial influence over which monitor gets the job : A bank typically proposes three candidates , from which the government chooses one .
So , critics say , the monitors are beholden to the very industry they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers are weak .
Monitors can request bank records and try to interview employees , but they don ’ t have the power to make anyone cooperate .
If the bank doesn ’ t comply , the monitor can ’ t bring criminal charges or put the bank out of business by revoking its charter — nor can it assume that law enforcement authorities will do so .
And the banks know it .
“ It was in the air that everyone felt like it was a joke , ” said Christina Rea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Manhattan office .
“ The sentiment that was coming from the top down wasn ’ t ‘ Oh , we don ’ t want to get our charter revoked.
’ It was ‘ Make it look like we ’ re doing more.
’ ” At most , she said , the message was “ you had to sit up a little bit straighter.
” Elise Bean , the Senate staffer who led the congressional probe into HSBC , initially supported the record fine against the bank .
“ I thought imposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and giving the bank a chance to change might work , '' said Bean .
`` But when the Justice Department , backed by the courts , became very secretive about what the monitor was finding at HSBC , that was the death knell .
Secret oversight and secret reports don ’ t produce meaningful change.
” HSBC , like other banks , is barred from discussing or even acknowledging the existence of SARs .
A spokesperson would not answer detailed questions , but said the events in question took place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met the obligations of its agreements with the government .
“ HSBC is a much safer institution than it was in 2012 , ” said spokesperson Heidi Ashley .
Wearing a white linen suit and a white shirt open at the neck , Phil Ming Xu spoke to potential investors from a conference room stage .
He quoted from Proverbs 29:18 : “ Where there is no vision , the people perish.
” Xu promised he had the vision .
All he needed from the crowd was their faith — and their money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his associates were trumpeting a unique investment opportunity — membership units for cloud space storing video and music — that would not only bring a 100 % return in the first 100 days , but also “ glorify God.
” People handed over piles of money .
But rather than build a cloud computing network , Xu ’ s associates bought two golf courses for $ 8 million and a 7,000-square-foot luxury home for $ 2.4 million , all with cash .
He sent $ 1.3 million to a jeweler to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sierra Leone .
The FinCEN Files reveal that HSBC itself was aware of allegations that its customer , Xu , was running a Ponzi scheme — and even documented that awareness in SARs that it filed to FinCEN .
The government shelved those reports and HSBC continued to profit from these transactions , while thousands of people , predominantly Asian and Latino immigrants , lost their shirts .
In 2013 , California sent a subpoena to HSBC about Xu ’ s company .
The bank ’ s legal department replied that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the information stated on the subpoena.
” Yet a mere four weeks later , HSBC filed the first of at least three suspicious activity reports about Xu and his company , WCM777 .
( The name stood for World Cloud Media and the supposedly divine number of triple seven . )
In Malta , a small island nation with a large HSBC presence , a key employee told Cherkasky ’ s investigators that he was too scared to talk because he had received a death threat before his interview .
And in Sri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was made to promise the bank it wouldn ’ t look into the accounts of the many politicians who used its services , according to a source familiar with the matter .
Even then , government ministers wouldn ’ t respond to visa requests .
First , the monitor was told the official in charge of their trip was on holiday .
Then that person was ill .
Eventually , Cherkasky ’ s team moved on .
In China , one of the members of the monitor ’ s team was asleep in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a knock at the door .
In the hallway stood local law enforcement agents who wouldn ’ t give their names .
They interrogated him about what he intended to do in China .
To Cherkasky ’ s group , it was an intimidation tactic .
The bank first opened its doors in Hong Kong in 1865 , as the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation , to finance trade between Europe and Asia .
The region still accounts for two-thirds of HSBC ’ s profits .
The bank is so deeply interwoven with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its headquarters are a kind of landmark , where passersby pat the paws of its distinctive lion statues for good luck .
When the monitor ’ s team arrived there , it met layers of resistance .
Two people familiar with the conversation recalled that HSBC ’ s former general counsel Stuart Levey told Cherkasky that China was one of its “ emerging markets , ” and that as a result the bank ’ s operations there weren ’ t ready for an intensive review .
Levey did not comment for this article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources said , that in China and Hong Kong , government ministers and bank employees alike were offended that a group of Americans would expect access to HSBC ’ s books .
Those sources recalled a circumstance they said happened often : The monitor ’ s team expected to interview an HSBC employee , only to be notified that the person was unavailable because they had been summoned away at the last moment .
A contractor who was not a part of the monitor ’ s team , but who was sent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s anti–money laundering programs , recalled arriving at the bank ’ s skyscraper overlooking Victoria Harbor .
The contractor was made to sit in the lobby for nearly an hour before being allowed upstairs .
Inside the office , staff members wouldn ’ t turn over the data that was supposed to be under review .
They suggested getting out to see the city instead .
“ They basically told me to fuck off and go shopping , ” the contractor said .
All the while , the bank was waving through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial transactions .
The FinCEN Files show that people in HSBC ’ s US compliance office — the department charged with making sure the bank follows anti–money laundering laws — filed reports identifying more than $ 2 billion in transactions through the company ’ s Hong Kong subsidiary that bore the hallmarks of possible criminal activity .
This was happening while HSBC was under the supposedly tough scrutiny of the monitor , but the government took no action .
HSBC 's own reports cited the same targets again and again for suspicious behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transaction by a company that “ was identified as the subject of 12 money laundering investigations carried out by HSBC Hong Kong which resulted in disclosures to Hong Kong authorities and recommendation for closure of this entity 's accounts.
” Another Hong Kong customer was the subject of eight such money laundering investigations .
In some cases , SARs allege , compliance officers in HSBC ’ s US operation raised concerns about customers in Hong Kong , only to be told that even the most basic information — who owned the company in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or what type of business it conducted — couldn ’ t be shared or was never collected in the first place .
“ It was impossible to do the job without this information , ” Alexis Grullon , who monitored international suspicious activity at HSBC until August 2014 , told ICIJ .
On the very day in 2012 that HSBC ’ s lawyers met with congressional investigators , employees in Hong Kong began transferring money for a customer called Trade Leader Corporation Limited .
Trade Leader would reportedly emerge in the so-called Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of illicit dollars through banks in Eastern Europe .
By February 2014 , Trade Leader had moved more than half a billion dollars in transactions through HSBC .
Altogether , at least $ 840 million that filtered through HSBC Hong Kong can be connected to shell companies involved in the Russian Laundromat , according to an analysis of SARs by BuzzFeed News and ICIJ .
A representative for the company that registered Trade Leader did not answer detailed questions .
When investigators for HSBC ’ s US operations asked their counterparts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader ’ s owner , the Americans received a curt response : “ None available.
” “ They would say : ‘ Sure , we ’ ll get back to you , ’ ” Grullon said .
“ But they ’ d never get back.
” One team member was so hungover after a particularly hard night that he crashed out in a bathroom stall at work the next day , the whistleblower told BuzzFeed News .
Another fell asleep during a phone call .
In July 2016 , HSBC promised the whistleblower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — an exhaustive review by the bank ’ s Global Internal Investigations Group .
In the meantime , Cherkasky ’ s reports to the Justice Department again and again cited a major problem festering inside many of HSBC ’ s branches : the broken computer systems that were intended to catch dirty money , systems like the one the London team was supposed to be fixing .
Human beings alone can ’ t track the trillions of dollars sloshing through the financial system .
Banks rely instead on software that can flag any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that credit card companies flag irregular purchases .
These programs are the central pillar of any anti–money laundering program .
But HSBC struggled to fix its vital computer system .
Four people who worked on one of the bank ’ s main computer programs , called CAMP , told BuzzFeed News that there was no easy way to share information among the company ’ s different computer systems , and that CAMP was so inconsistent that it would flag a transaction as suspicious in one country but not another .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hairs [ sic ] running , ” the whistleblower emailed to an HSBC tipline in June 2016 , “ as it ’ s obvious to everyone on the ground that there ’ s no way it will meet ” the monitor ’ s deadlines .
That fall , the emails suggest , things were no better .
“ HSBC is no more safe or compliant than 2 years ago , ” the whistleblower wrote in November .
“ There has been an appalling amount of time and money spent to achieve so little.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ names such as “ Rouge ” and “ Mantas ” were behind schedule , according to another email , and the high-paid team that was known for partying forgot to back up data , so it lost reams of compliance information in a crash .
Top workers were frustrated and left the bank , the emails said .
In the year that the whistleblower repeatedly sounded alarms , the monitor also kept flagging how flawed HSBC ’ s critical software was .
Cherkasky ’ s team updated the government about “ areas of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make “ greater and quicker progress.
” The monitor set deadlines to make important fixes across the bank .
But nearly four years after he began the job , Cherkasky ’ s only recourse was to write reports updating the Justice Department about how HSBC “ still struggles.
” The whistleblower began copying the UK ’ s top regulator , the Financial Conduct Authority , on their complaint in November 2016 .
In June 2017 , the now-former employee received a final update on the HSBC internal investigation .
It said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that “ there have been changes made to the FCC function and personnel.
” HSBC would not answer detailed questions about the matter .
When a project failed to get done — something as simple as adding names to a spreadsheet to capture those who are barred from doing business in the US — HSBC executives tried to paper it over by “ rebaselining ” it , changing its original goal .
Christina Rea , the former HSBC employee who said her colleagues felt like they were just supposed to “ sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the monitor , oversaw a team that investigated alerts for suspicious transactions .
In particular , her team worked on embassy accounts , potential hot spots because of the politically connected clients .
She recalled investigating one transaction in which it wasn ’ t clear where the money was coming from or where it was going , essential details for understanding whether it was aboveboard .
She was told she was taking too long on it , Rea said , but she explained she needed one more day .
That night , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ On paper , it might look like alerts are being cleared , but it was n't being investigated , ” she said .
Disillusioned by how little the bank seemed to care about stopping financial crime , she eventually quit the job and left banking altogether .
By March 2014 , the WCM777 scam had collapsed .
Investors no longer had access to their accounts .
After scores of complaints and investigations in two countries and four different states — prompting cease-and-desist orders in three — the US Securities and Exchange Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assets , and appointed a receiver to stop the bleeding .
But HSBC Hong Kong didn ’ t stop .
Just four days after the SEC filing , the bank let WCM777 withdraw all of the money in its account — more than $ 7 million .
In an interview with ICIJ , Xu blamed lower-level players in the organization for “ overpromising ” to WCM777 investors early on .
He also faulted investors for not understanding the company ’ s products .
Xu denounced the actions US authorities had taken , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors took a sharply different view .
On message boards and social media , they lambasted Xu and their church leaders for luring them into a scam .
Julio Ramos , a California lawyer for scores of investors , said HSBC ’ s Hong Kong branch played a pivotal role in helping the company move its ill-gotten gains .
`` HSBC Hong Kong knew that WCM777 was engaging in fraud , '' he wrote in a class action complaint against the bank .
“ The Ponzi scheme survived for over a year because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowingly delivered , organized , converted and laundered proceeds from an illegal Ponzi scheme.
” The court-appointed receiver who had been tasked with recovering money for victims of the scheme sent a subpoena to HSBC Hong Kong .
But the bank said HSBC Hong Kong was outside the jurisdiction of US courts and it did not have to respond .
The receiver told the court in February 2015 that “ the cost of tracing these funds overseas will be very expensive ” because HSBC did not cooperate .
In all , more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had invested more than $ 80 million , according to court records .
Others said they had turned over funds — frequently in cash — that were never tallied .
The SEC called WCM777 a “ worldwide pyramid scheme.
” But a federal judge dismissed the class action lawsuit against HSBC Hong Kong on August 10 because the US court lacks jurisdiction over Hong Kong businesses .
Xu left for China and started a similar company there .
But this time , he was targeted by Chinese authorities and sentenced to three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to deny that his company was a Ponzi scheme .
He told ICIJ he ’ s still “ trying to fight back about my case . ''
HSBC was under the monitor ’ s scrutiny while the Ponzi scheme played out , and HSBC repeatedly filed SARs detailing its suspicions about Xu ’ s companies .
But the bank continued to profit from WCM777 .
At no point did the US government stop the bank from doing business with him or his firms , let alone bring a criminal charge against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims felt the government had failed them , and one exacted her own rough justice .
Angela Martinez Arias had invested $ 2,000 in WCM777 , encouraged by one of Xu ’ s followers , Reynaldo Pacheco .
When she realized she ’ d been swindled , she asked Pacheco if he could meet her to discuss the money .
It was a trap .
She drove Pacheco to a rural location , where three men beat him , taped his mouth shut , and bound his wrists and ankles with his shoelaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ canyon road in Northern California , and one of them stoned him to death .
Police found Pacheco ’ s body nine days later , submerged in a creek bed .
In an annual disclosure to shareholders in February 2018 , the bank revealed information that Cherkasky had put in his final report .
Despite “ significant progress , ” the monitor “ noted deficiencies in HSBC ’ s financial crime compliance controls and areas of HSBC ’ s programme that require further work , and highlighted potential instances of financial crime and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HSBC is not yet adequately managing financial crime risk.
” The bank was reviewing those issues with the Justice Department , the Federal Reserve Board , and the UK 's financial regulator .
The monitor ’ s final report was never released to the public .
Last year , BuzzFeed News filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get access to that document .
It has also filed a FOIA request for the letter that the monitor wrote that day in the Bryant Park office .
Last month , a government attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interfere with an ongoing criminal prosecution — he did not give any details — and that disclosure “ might also provide a roadmap for criminals to exploit vulnerabilities in HSBC ’ s compliance program and potentially those of other financial institutions.
” The bank took the unusual step of intervening in the FOIA lawsuit , writing a five-page letter asking the government not to release the report .
One month after the government announced the end of the deferred prosecution agreement that brought Cherkasky ’ s team into HSBC , the bank entered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different set of financial crimes : fraud .
Two years later , it would receive yet another .
● Spencer Woodman of ICIJ , and Sophie Comeau , Waylon Cunningham , Sam Feehan , Nancy Guan , Kristy Hutchings , Kylie Storm , Felicia Tapia , Karen Wang , Abby Washer , and Ashley Zhang of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism contributed reporting .

In Malta, a small island nation with a large HSBC presence, a key employee told Cherkasky’s investigators that he was too scared to talk because he had received a death threat before his interview.
And in Sri Lanka, the monitor’s team was made to promise the bank it wouldn’t look into the accounts of the many politicians who used its services, according to a source familiar with the matter. Even then, government ministers wouldn’t respond to visa requests. First, the monitor was told the official in charge of their trip was on holiday. Then that person was ill. Eventually, Cherkasky’s team moved on.
In China, one of the members of the monitor’s team was asleep in his Beijing hotel room when he heard a knock at the door. In the hallway stood local law enforcement agents who wouldn’t give their names. They interrogated him about what he intended to do in China. To Cherkasky’s group, it was an intimidation tactic.
The bank first opened its doors in Hong Kong in 1865, as the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, to finance trade between Europe and Asia. The region still accounts for two-thirds of HSBC’s profits. The bank is so deeply interwoven with the culture of that former colony that its headquarters are a kind of landmark, where passersby pat the paws of its distinctive lion statues for good luck.
When the monitor’s team arrived there, it met layers of resistance. Two people familiar with the conversation recalled that HSBC’s former general counsel Stuart Levey told Cherkasky that China was one of its “emerging markets,” and that as a result the bank’s operations there weren’t ready for an intensive review. Levey did not comment for this article.
It became clear, the two sources said, that in China and Hong Kong, government ministers and bank employees alike were offended that a group of Americans would expect access to HSBC’s books.
Those sources recalled a circumstance they said happened often: The monitor’s team expected to interview an HSBC employee, only to be notified that the person was unavailable because they had been summoned away at the last moment.
A contractor who was not a part of the monitor’s team, but who was sent to Hong Kong in 2014 to assess HSBC’s anti–money laundering programs, recalled arriving at the bank’s skyscraper overlooking Victoria Harbor. The contractor was made to sit in the lobby for nearly an hour before being allowed upstairs.
Inside the office, staff members wouldn’t turn over the data that was supposed to be under review. They suggested getting out to see the city instead.
“They basically told me to fuck off and go shopping,” the contractor said.
All the while, the bank was waving through billions of dollars’ worth of suspicious financial transactions.
The FinCEN Files show that people in HSBC’s US compliance office — the department charged with making sure the bank follows anti–money laundering laws — filed reports identifying more than $2 billion in transactions through the company’s Hong Kong subsidiary that bore the hallmarks of possible criminal activity. This was happening while HSBC was under the supposedly tough scrutiny of the monitor, but the government took no action.
HSBC's own reports cited the same targets again and again for suspicious behavior. The Hong Kong branch allowed a transaction by a company that “was identified as the subject of 12 money laundering investigations carried out by HSBC Hong Kong which resulted in disclosures to Hong Kong authorities and recommendation for closure of this entity's accounts.” Another Hong Kong customer was the subject of eight such money laundering investigations.
In some cases, SARs allege, compliance officers in HSBC’s US operation raised concerns about customers in Hong Kong, only to be told that even the most basic information — who owned the company in question, where it was located, or what type of business it conducted — couldn’t be shared or was never collected in the first place.
“It was impossible to do the job without this information,” Alexis Grullon, who monitored international suspicious activity at HSBC until August 2014, told ICIJ.
On the very day in 2012 that HSBC’s lawyers met with congressional investigators, employees in Hong Kong began transferring money for a customer called Trade Leader Corporation Limited.
Trade Leader would reportedly emerge in the so-called Russian Laundromat, a notorious scheme to funnel billions of illicit dollars through banks in Eastern Europe. By February 2014, Trade Leader had moved more than half a billion dollars in transactions through HSBC. Altogether, at least $840 million that filtered through HSBC Hong Kong can be connected to shell companies involved in the Russian Laundromat, according to an analysis of SARs by BuzzFeed News and ICIJ. A representative for the company that registered Trade Leader did not answer detailed questions.
When investigators for HSBC’s US operations asked their counterparts in Hong Kong for the name of Trade Leader’s owner, the Americans received a curt response: “None available.”
“They would say: ‘Sure, we’ll get back to you,’” Grullon said. “But they’d never get back.”