Episode 33 Independent Bangladesh

A History of India

Michael Fisher (2016)

Film Review

Bangladesh is the eighth most populated country in the world. Geographically the size of Iowa, its population is half that of the US. Agriculturally rich thanks to alluvial soils deposited by the river Ganges, it’s plagued with immense poverty, corrupt and inefficient government and rising sea levels.

Prior to British occupation, the region had a long history of silk and cotton weaving,* and most early European settlements rose up along Bengal’s early trade networks. Calcutta, which became the center of India’s expanding British economy, was the second largest metropolis in the British Empire (second only to London). For decades, the city was home to the main nationalist networks fighting for Indian independence.

As a direct result of independence, there was a steady transfer of wealth from East to West Pakistan. The former contributed only a tiny minority of  officers and officials to Pakistan’s army and civil service.

The Awami League

In 1953, East Pakistan activists formed the Awami league, whose leaders were imprisoned and whose protests were violently suppressed by Pakistani police. Sheikh Majibar Rahman, who was also active in the Bengali language movement,** was one of the most prominent campaigners for increased East Pakistani autonomy.

In 1971, tensions between East and West Pakistan came to a head following Pakistan’s first fully democratic election. Owing to its far larger population, the Awami League won a majority of seats in Pakistan’s new National Assembly. Pakistan’s military dictator General Yahya Khan responded by dismissing the National Assembly and dispatching the army to “restore order” in East Pakistan.

With the help of the Indian army; the Razakars, an East Pakistan paramilitary force; and the Mukti Bahini, guerilla force India organized from East Pakistani refugees, Bengali nationalists prevailed and established Bangladesh as a sovereign country.

A Stormy Electoral History

Rahman, who advocated a program of “secular socialism and land redistribution, was ineffective in implementing these reforms, in large part due to the 1973-74 famine. His move to consolidate power by making Bangladesh a one party state led to a 1975 military coup and the assassination of Rahman and most of his family.

His daughter Begun Sheikh Hasena, who was away from home, inherited the leadership of the Awami League. She was elected prime minister three times, prior to the military coup by General Ziaur Rahman. After organizing the Bangladesh National Party, he was formally elected president in 1978. Following his 1981 assassination by rival military officers, his widow would be elected twice. A military coup launched by General Hussain Muham Mal Ershad removed her from office in 1983. Ershad subsequently formed the Jatiya Party and won the (likely fraudulent) election in 1986 and 1987. Forced to resign in 1990, Ershad was tried and convicted for corruption.

After he supported the election of Rahman’s widow Khaleda Zia as prime minister in 1991, heavy street protests forced her to appoint a caretaker government to run the 1996 election. This resulted in resulted in Begun Sheikh Hasena’s reelection. Khaleda Zia would replace her in the 2001 election.

Heavy street protests resulted in another military coup in 2007 and the appointment of World Bank economist Fakhruddin Ahmed as martial law administrator. Following major electoral reforms, Begun Sheikh Hasena was reelected in 2008 and 2014 (mainly due to a boycott by the opposition parities).

*The British destroyed East Bengal’s early textile London through large exports of raw India cotton, followed by large imports of cheap industrially woven cotton.

**From the outset, West Pakistani leaders tried to force East Pakistan to adopt Urdu (a Persianized Hindustani language), instead of Bangali, as their official language. Although Bengali and Urdu both evolved from Sanskrit, they are mutually incomprehensible.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/366254/366237

Dr Tess Lawrie

Last month I received an email from Mrs Bridget Wakefield, Dr Andrew Wakefield’s mother. It turned out she lives in Bath, my hometown, birthplace of a Better Way and just a stone’s throw from the World Council for Health offices! She asked whether we could meet.

[…]

What was Dr Andrew Wakefield’s “crime”?

In 1998 Dr Andrew Wakefield, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons and a senior researcher in the University Departments of Medicine and Histopathology at the Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine published a paper in the Lancet with his colleagues entitled: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.

Dr Wakefield’s special interest was inflammatory bowel disease and this paper reported a case series of 12 children with developmental disorders whose mothers also described a constellation of bowel symptoms appearing shortly after their child’s vaccination.

Wakefield’s co-authors included specialist physicians in psychiatry, histopathology, radiology and gastroenterology. After carefully documenting their research findings in the paper, the investigators cautiously concluded: “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and it’s possible relation to this vaccine.”

As a medical researcher reading the paper for the first time, without all the accompanying hubris of 1998, I can assure you that the conclusions of this expert group were entirely appropriate: more research was indeed needed. Words like “may” and “possible” suggested a high level of uncertainty among the researchers about a causal link. At a subsequent press conference, Wakefield suggested that it may be prudent to use single vaccines instead of the MMR triple vaccine until this could be ruled out, which sounds like common sense to me as both a doctor and a mother.

I now wish I had paid attention to Dr Wakefield’s concerns at the time I was raising my young family, as both developmental issues and inflammatory bowel disease are conditions manifest among my children and those of my peers today. Like autism, the prevalence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis has sky-rocketed in the last 30 to 40 years with little attention paid by health authorities as to the cause/s of this phenomenon.

University professors among other scientists have since published studies that show that childhood vaccination schedules are associated with serious health effects that continue to be ignored by drug regulatory agencies and pharmacovigilance bodies worldwide. In addition, research studies presenting evidence that questions the safety of the childhood vaccination schedule, such as this 2021 paper by Lyons-Weiler and Thomas, continue to be targeted for retraction. In 2020/21 Professor Brian Hooker and Dr Neil Miller conducted a study comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children and found developmental delays, asthma, gastrointestinal disorders and ear infections significantly higher among vaccinated children. I’ve had difficulty accessing their 2021 paper entitled “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children” published in the Journal of Translational Science. Perhaps the doi link will work for you 10.15761/JTS.1000459?

In any event, a book detailing the strong case against childhood vaccination is to be published soon and I shall alert you to it when it is. Be prepared for a barrage of fearful and polarising “anti-vaxxer” propaganda in the press.

So why was Dr Andrew Wakefield vilified?

At the time of the Wakefield study, the UK government had just produced a plan to roll out MMR vaccines to all under-fives around the country. Andrew asked them to hold it back until safety could be assured but was told it was not possible.

According to Mrs Wakefield’s, a freelance Sunday Times reporter by the name of Brian Deer launched an attack on Andrew with such voracity that it was “as if he had been told to destroy the man who was going to upset the vaccine programme”. Amazingly, Deer is still on Andrew’s case having published a book as recently as 2020 about his award-winning investigation that destroyed a doctor’s career. The book is called ‘The doctor who fooled the world’ and is published by John Hopkins Press, the university known for the Covid Vaccine Tracker and other Covid activities.

What curious timing indeed that Deer’s book should come out in the year Covid vaccines were launched. Was this to make sure we all know what happens when the bearers of the mighty pen and power of corporate media declare vaccine-concerned doctors to be “‘anti-vaxxers”?

[…]

How to keep ethical doctors quiet

The corporate media’s demonisation of Dr Andrew Wakefield was relentless and continues today. Andrew’s professional hearing went on for three years and, with the medical council desperate to find him guilty of something, he was eventually found guilty of a “callous disregard for children”.

However, parents of allegedly callously disregarded children totally disagreed and tried to set the record straight. They wrote the letter below which concludes with the sentence “We are appalled that these doctors have been the subject of this protracted enquiry in the absence of any complaint from any parent about any of the children who were reported in the Lancet paper.”

Another letter of support from parents can be found in the supplementary material. The latter is from parents who felt misled by a journalist pretending to help their vaccine-damaged child when the motive for engagement was subsequently revealed to be that of making a documentary to discredit Dr Wakefield. “We would like to make it known that we were tricked into appearing”, the letter says.

Scientific Consensus?

It is incredible that it took 12 years for the paper to be retracted. (In Covid times, this can be a matter of days.) On the Lancet paper, Wikipedia erroneously asserts that “The scientific consensus on vaccines and autism is that there is no causal connection between MMR, or any other vaccine, and autism.” and if you visit the Wiki pages you will see the same old names pop up: e.g. vaccinologist Peter Hotez.

To be clear, there is no scientific consensus on this. As with the covid vaccines, open scientific debate and independent scientific evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of the variety of childhood vaccines never happened.

Now that we have heard that the corrupt Dr Anthony Fauci “[is] the science”, we owe it to ourselves and our children to critically rethink our unquestioning embrace of this barbaric voodoo approach to child “health”. Isn’t this what sticking needles into babies is after all?

Like you, it’s the Covid ‘vaccines’ that woke me up…

What Covid has demonstrated is that the pharmaceutical industry is amoral and corrupt, thriving on our disease and not our good health. It will lie and cheat to make billions at our expense and make us sick to ensure lifelong dependency on its chemicals if it can.

In 2010 the medical council finally ruled that Dr Andrew Wakefield was dishonest and the Lancet retracted the paper. Andrew lost his licence to practice and was demonised henceforth as being ‘anti-vax’ – a term thoroughly exploited during the roll out of the inadequately tested and novel covid-19 vaccines religiously given to two-thirds of humanity in the name of The Science.

I have empathy for Andrew and, now that I know what I know about the power and corruption of the vaccine industry, I seriously doubt that he was guilty of the fraud alleged in Wikipedia. Wikipedia alleges many false things these days and can no longer be considered a trustworthy source. Its founder recently revealed that it is run by the CIA, so it would seem to be part of the agenda to brainwash us with a narrative that makes us compliant and fearful.

On the ‘anti-vax’ issue, I too have recently been labelled ‘anti-vax’ by the corporate media, but a more appropriate term is health revolutionary. A revolutionary approach to health and a re-evaluation of vaccines is long overdue!

Whilst the General Medical Council has revealed its true corporate colours during Covid-19, the fact of the matter is that it has been investigating and persecuting doctors who put their patients first for decades. Like Andrew Wakefield, Dr Jayne Donegan is currently enduring a GMC tribunal after firmly sticking to her conviction that “no doctor can ethically deny that children suffer ‘serious, life-changing adverse reactions’ to vaccines”. In addition, there is a list of other doctors who do not agree with the government’s dangerous covid policies who are being “investigated”. I too have been investigated by the medical council on a spurious claim that they could not pursue. No doubt they have dossiers on all who have upheld their Hippocratic Oath during Covid, to do no harm and not give poison to anyone.

[…]

Via https://substack.com/@drtesslawrie

For the 22nd year, the abuses and lack of accountability at Guantanamo have been codified with no end in sight.

But while the annual passage of the NDAA and its signing by successive presidents have maintained the status quo on Guantanamo, budgetary considerations are far from being the only reason that the forever prison is still in operation and why impunity has reigned.

Ongoing cruelty

This month marks 21 years since the infamous torture memos were drafted and signed by the US Office of Legal Counsel, effectively sanctioning the use of torture and allowing the US to unabashedly and openly conduct war crimes.

According to one memo, in order for the physical infliction of pain to be considered torture, it would have to be “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death”.

After the memos were released, former President Barack Obama made sure to announce that no one would be prosecuted for these crimes and would go on to casually remark some years later that “we tortured some folks“.

Yet the effects of that torture, including confessions made under duress and extreme violence, continue to render the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo guilty and perpetuate their ongoing suffering. Obama’s inaction undoubtedly set a precedent of impunity – one that would be justified over and over again.

Mere weeks before US senators voted the NDAA into law, the UN published a report on the abuses at Guantanamo Bay by the special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, Fionnuala Ni Aolain. Ni Aolain was the first independent UN investigator to visit the facility in its nearly 22 years of operation.

The 23-page report, which renewed the global spotlight on Guantanamo, is a scathing critique of the government’s treatment of current and former detainees and a thorough indictment of the US government’s systematic crimes of extraordinary rendition, arbitrary detention, and deliberate and extensive mechanisms to deny individuals their rights.

“Several US government procedures establish a structural deprivation and non-fulfilment of rights necessary for a humane and dignified existence and constitute at a minimum, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment across all detention practices at Guantanamo Bay,” the special rapporteur writes.

With just 30 remaining out of the nearly 800 prisoners the detention centre once held, Ni Aolain is also careful to address post-Guantanamo life for former prisoners, and how their conditions maintain the prison’s cruelty. “For many former detainees, their current experience in their home or third country merely becomes an extension of arbitrary detention in Guantanamo, with some even expressing that they wish to return,” the report states.

But renewed attention on the crimes at Guantanamo has also meant renewed denials by the US government. Despite the formal critiques, American officials blithely dismissed the special rapporteur’s detailed review in a generic response that could have just as easily been written before her visit.

Thoroughly consistent with all its efforts to deny the violence at Guantanamo, the US’s reply was not just a categorical rejection of the report, but a powerful symbolic refusal – at the highest levels – to pursue any remedies, let alone any semblance of accountability, for its victims.

To this end, the US insisted that it disagreed “in significant respects with many factual and legal assertions”, and that it was “committed to providing safe and humane treatment for detainees at Guantanamo, in full accordance with international and US domestic law”.

Despite testimony by countless former prisoners and even former guards at Guantanamo and CIA black sites, the US government continues to double down on its assertions, demonstrating that no individual, human rights organisation or institutional body – much less one without actual authority over the US – could move the US to respond any differently.

Nevertheless, the US stated that it would be “carefully reviewing” the recommendations and “will take any appropriate actions, as warranted”.

What would actually warrant a change though? The US has been continuously condemned for its operations and treatment of those incarcerated to no avail.

In fact, over the last 13 years, the US has been subjected to three evaluations of its human rights records under the Universal Periodic Review process. Every one of the reports repeatedly called attention to the abusive conditions at Guantanamo and urged its immediate closure. And for every official criticism, the US government issued a response denying allegations of inhumane treatment while justifying its policies at Guantanamo and lack of action.

Not only did the brutality continue under Obama, but since 2010, the restrictions in the NDAA, especially in blocking funds to release and transfer Guantanamo detainees, have increased. Obama, like every other president, elected not to veto the bill.

Facade of accountability

Although the US finally allowed a UN torture investigator’s visit to Guantanamo without restrictions, it was not to invite accountability. It was instead to promote the facade of accountability after 22 years by allowing the visit in the first place – only to categorically reject any wrongdoing. In other words, the US is not committed to accountability but to the creation of contested narratives that have long outlived the truth. Government impunity, after all, was built into the War on Terr0r’s legal infrastructure.

It is telling that, in the wake of a UN report on Guantanamo, US lawmakers would pass the NDAA once more with bipartisan support and seemingly no debate either on Capitol Hill or in the media about the provisions related to the detention centre. For years, US lawmakers proudly boasted about prolonging the torture at Guantanamo, but now there doesn’t even seem to be a need to address what has become an inevitability.

If the last 20 years have taught us anything, it is that there has never been, nor is there likely ever to be, any accountability for this disastrous and deeply Islamophobic project that has no conceivable end.

[…]

Via https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/guantanamo-why-us-not-close

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Tens of thousands of mothers are suing the makers of Tylenol for using the popular over-the-counter pain reliever during pregnancy, which resulted in them giving birth to babies diagnosed with autism.

Tens of thousands of mothers are suing the makers of Tylenol in a class-action lawsuit that claims its use during pregnancy led babies to be born with autism.

A study from the NIH found that pregnancy exposure to acetaminophen, the main ingredient in Tylenol, may increase a child’s risk for autism and ADHD.

Karleen DeGroodt is among the mothers in the lawsuit and discussed her use of Tylenol during pregnancy and her son’s autism during an appearance on NewsNation’s “Prime.” (Full article.)

Last October, a federal judicial panel consolidated dozens of these lawsuits alleging that acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol and generic versions of the drug, can cause autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

TorHoerman Law is one of the law firms representing these mothers, and they have produced the following video explaining the lawsuit.

Co-defendants in the lawsuit are CVS Health, Rite Aid Corp, Safeway Inc, Target Corp and Walgreens Boots Alliance, which are being charged with failing to warn consumers about the risks of Tylenol.

Kenvue has suffered some setbacks in recent weeks in trying to get some of the lawsuits dismissed, with one of the reasons given to dismiss the lawsuits being that the FDA had approved the product and its labels.

Kenvue Inc cannot immediately appeal a federal judge’s order allowing lawsuits claiming that its popular over-the-counter painkiller Tylenol can cause autism in children of mothers who take it during pregnancy, the judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan on Thursday ruled that Kenvue, formerly Johnson & Johnson’s consumer health unit, had not shown any basis for allowing the unusual step of an appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before final judgment in the case.

In April, Cote denied Kenvue’s motion to dismiss one of the lawsuits on the grounds that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Tylenol’s label preempted any state law claims. Had she ruled in the company’s favor, it would have ended the entire litigation. (Source.)

The amount of studies published in the medical journals linking Tylenol taken during pregnancy to babies born with autism is overwhelming.

Here are just a couple of the more recent studies published this year (2023).

Acetaminophen causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children: no valid rationale for controversy

Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics – June 14, 2023

Abstract

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens

Wall Street on Parade

:Remember all of that sensational social media buzz in 2016 about a politically-connected ring of pedophiles operating out of a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C.? The story was debunked by Snopes but not before it had gone viral.

While the pizza parlor was getting plenty of attention, an actual, highly sophisticated, child sex-trafficking ring had been operating with impunity for more than a decade out of the largest bank in the United States, JPMorgan Chase.

Based on astonishing internal documents from JPMorgan Chase obtained during discovery in a federal lawsuit and filed on the court docket last week, it now appears that the U.S. Department of Justice has turned a blind eye toward this bank’s facilitation of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking crimes for more than 16 years, during the administrations of four separate Presidents of the United States.

The heavy-lifting for what should have been a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice in this matter is now being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the U.S. Virgin Islands in a civil lawsuit, using the law firm, MotleyRice.

A new document filed last week with the federal court in Manhattan that is hearing the case shows that on September 6, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (part of the U.S. Department of Justice) followed up on a subpoena it had issued to Bear Stearns, demanding to receive “a list of accounts at other financial institutions that Bear Stearns has either transferred money to or received money from on behalf of Mr. Epstein….”

The peculiar thing about this letter is that a federal law enforcement agency is asking a private bank to help it locate Epstein’s other bank accounts when it has that information easily accessible at two federal databases: the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Federal Reserve System which handles the wiring of funds between banks and others.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice has a Financial Investigations Guide that specifically lists those two sources as key government databases to tap when conducting a financial investigation into money laundering or other criminal financial activity.

One reason that comes to mind as to why a federal prosecutor would ask a private bank like Bear Stearns to provide outside banking relationships for Jeffrey Epstein, instead of getting that information directly from reliable government databases, is that the prosecutor didn’t want to know or was instructed by higher ups to stand down.

This is the same U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida that had received a deeply investigated case from the Palm Beach County Police Department, documenting that Epstein had sexually assaulted dozens of schoolgirls at his Palm Beach home. Under a secret non-prosecution agreement, this same U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed not to prosecute Epstein or his accomplices for federal crimes. Epstein ended up with a lenient 18-month jail sentence in 2008, which morphed into 13 months, the bulk of which was a work release program where Epstein was driven by his limo driver to an office each day.

Because of that abysmal failure by the U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein was able to continue his sexual assaults of underage girls and arrange for his rich pals to do the same, from his release from jail in Palm Beach County in July of 2009 until the Justice Department was shamed by the Miami Herald’s “Perversion of Justice” newspaper series in November of 2018 into arresting Epstein on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors on July 8, 2019. (Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial a little more than a month later, on August 10, 2019. His death came the day after an appellate court released 2,000 pages of previously sealed documents, including the names of politicians and other powerful men that a victim alleged were part of his sex ring. The New York City Medical Examiner ruled that Epstein’s death was a suicide.)

A federal appellate court that looked at the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein case and its failure to inform his victims’ about its non-prosecution agreement, called it “a national disgrace.”

Throughout this period, the largest taxpayer-backstopped, federally-insured bank in the United States, with media darling Jamie Dimon sitting at its helm, was somehow able to engage in more than 9,000 money transactions for Epstein, which “had a combined value of over $2.4 billion,” according to court evidence introduced by the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Those transactions included the following amounts of hard cash according to documents obtained by the U.S. Virgin Islands:

“In the year 2003, Epstein was able to withdraw highly suspicious amounts of cash totaling $175,311. In 2004, he withdrew $840,000. In 2005, he withdrew $904,337. In 2006, he withdrew $938,625. In 2007, he withdrew $526,000. In 2008, he withdrew $469,000. In 2009, he withdrew $165,011. In 2010, he withdrew $253,397. In 2011, he withdrew $260,000. In 2012, he withdrew $290,000. In 2013, he withdrew $197,152.”

So let this sink in for a moment. The Justice Department’s U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida was supposedly on a subpoena hunt in September of 2007 to learn the names of any other banks that might be laundering money for Epstein. But, somehow, despite government databases being readily available to provide the name of his most important bank, JPMorgan Chase, Epstein was able to withdraw millions of dollars in hard cash from that bank, unimpeded for years – when any cash withdrawal of $10,000 or more should have blown the whistle on Epstein and stopped his operation.

During the financial crisis in 2008, JPMorgan Chase bought the collapsing Bear Stearns and, apparently, obtained its records. The U.S. Virgin Islands was able to obtain during discovery the internal emails at JPMorgan Chase, where its anti-money-laundering personnel express curiosity as to why Bear Stearns got a subpoena in the Epstein case but it didn’t, despite being Epstein’s primary bank.

In a January 10, 2011 internal email at JPMorgan Chase, Maryanne Ryan, the Vice President of Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) Operations, emails William Langford, then Global Head of Compliance at the bank according to his LinkedIn profile (and a former executive at FinCEN who should have intimately understood the need to be filing Suspicious Activity Reports for Epstein’s massive cash withdrawals).

Ryan reveals the following: that JPMorgan Chase “never was served a subpoena,” which she admits that she finds “odd, since we were his #1 bank and actually Bear got one in 07.” Ryan also reveals in this email that “Steve Cutler” has approved Epstein to remain as a customer at JPMorgan Chase’s Private Bank. Steve (Stephen) Cutler was the former Director of Enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission prior to becoming General Counsel at JPMorgan Chase. According to the transcript of the deposition of Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of the bank, as part of the U.S. Virgin Islands’ lawsuit, Cutler worked in the office directly next door to Dimon and reported to Dimon.

Dimon also stated in his deposition that he had never heard of Epstein and didn’t know he had accounts at the bank until Epstein’s arrest in 2019. It raises much skepticism on Wall Street that Cutler, who reported to Dimon, would have failed to get permission from Dimon before deciding to keep this Level 3 registered sex offender at the bank and look the other way at hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals year after year.

For example, another internal email filed with the court shows that on October 24, 2008 an employee writes that it is his understanding that JPMorgan Chase “requires top of the house ok for clients who are convicted felons.” He cites this chain of approval as follows: “PCS Legal [Private Client Services Legal] to Asset Mgt Legal to Cutler to Jaime Daimnon [Jamie Dimon].”

Other internal documents show that Epstein was catered to at the bank because he referred large accounts from ultra wealthy individuals, notwithstanding the fact that the anti-money-laundering personnel at the bank were regularly circulating media reports about Epstein’s scandalous history.

The head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida at the time Epstein was let off the hook with the secret federal non-prosecution agreement was Alex Acosta. Donald Trump made Acosta the head of the U.S. Department of Labor – a key federal agency in preventing human trafficking. Acosta resigned in 2019 after news reports focused on the secret non-prosecution agreement Acosta has presided over for Epstein in the Palm Beach County case.

The U.S. Department of Justice has failed to bring charges against JPMorgan Chase despite what appears to be a mountain of evidence that it laundered money for Epstein through four different Presidents and their appointees at the U.S. Department of Justice: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.

[…]

Via https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/08/new-court-documents-suggest-the-justice-department-under-four-presidents-covered-up-jeffrey-epsteins-money-laundering-at-jpmorgan-chase/