Tag: banks

Former Obama White House Counsel – and Goldman Sachs’s Former Top Lawyer – Kathryn Ruemmler Testifies Before Congress, Says She Was ‘Used’ by Jeffrey Epstein

The Epstein stain is very hard to get rid of.

Among the many people exposed by the DOJ document releases as being connected to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, was former Barack Obama White House Counsel and former Goldman Sachs chief legal officer Kathryn Ruemmler.

We have reported here on TGP about how the evidence of her close relation ship with Epstein led to her resignation from her job at Goldman Sachs.

And yesterday (15), Ruemmler testified before the House Oversight Committee, calling the convicted sex offender a ‘masterful liar’.

She said Epstein used her to ‘legitimize’ himself, but had to acknowledge that he ‘referred paying clients to her law practice.’

The New York Post reported:

“Ruemmler, who resigned as Goldman’s top lawyer earlier this year after previously undisclosed communications with Epstein became public, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday that she maintained years of dealings with him because of those business relationships.

‘I did not see any evidence of ongoing criminal conduct or misconduct of any kind by Epstein during the time I dealt with him’, Ruemmler told lawmakers in her opening statement, adding that she ‘would have immediately reported him to law enforcement’ had she seen evidence that he was abusing women or girls.”

Keep reading

De-Banked: It’s Only A Matter Of Time Before It Happens To You

“We are writing to inform you that we cannot continue serving you.

As a result of this decision, your account will be closed within 14 days from the date of this letter.

Any remaining account balances will be sent by check to the address we have on file.”

Sooner or later, expect your bank to send you a letter like this.

They won’t even tell you why they are closing your account, and you will probably have trouble opening accounts at other banks.

De-banking is a disturbing and growing trend.

In short, the ruling elite – parasites, more accurately – have weaponized the banking system to enforce conformity to their preferred narrative.

If you don’t lap up their lies about Covid, climate, elections, wars, rising crime, or whatever the media is hyping as the “current thing,” expect the financial hammer to come down on you without warning.

You could lose your ability to take payment from your customers and pay your bills at the drop of a hat.

We’ve seen banks close the accounts of prominent doctors critical of the Covid mass hysteria and politicians opposed to schemes to centralize power on a global level (globalism).

However, for every example of a bank closing a high-profile person’s account, hundreds – or thousands – of other ordinary people likely receive the same despicable treatment but are never heard from.

Keep reading

Why Have Central Bankers Gone Radio Silent On The Digital Currency Agenda?

During the 2020 pandemic hysteria there was a mad rush by globalist institutions like the WEF, IMF, BIS and numerous national central banks to speed-run the concept of “CBDCs” (Central Bank Digital Currencies) into the mainstream consciousness. The idea of digital currencies rooted to a blockchain ledger was presented as a solution to the pandemic. A number of globalists asserted that digital exchange would be necessary because “paper money carries the covid virus.”

This was, of course, complete nonsense. There was zero evidence that shifting to digital would prevent the spread of the virus in any way. But, as I’ve said for years now, covid was their big play. It was intended to become a nexus point for a global coup; the “New World Order” takeover. The elites figured the population was so terrified that they would agree to anything without a logical reason.

They were wrong, at least in the long run. The virus was a dud (which seemed to catch them by surprise) and the death rate was minimal (0.23% median IFR). The public eventually woke up to the deception and the agenda was forced to dissolve, largely due to nearly half of all US states blocking the mandates. If Americans could live just fine without restrictions, then the rest of the world was going to follow.

I mention the pandemic once again because the attempted coup gave the general public a once in a lifetime insight into the plans and motives of the globalists. This event changed everything. Millions of people who once thought that “conspiracy theorists” were crazy just had their eyes opened to a dark reality. There really is an international cabal. They really do make evil plans in smoky rooms. They really do want a “New World Order.”

Keep reading

Banking On Magic

Monthly Budgets Under Assault

American consumers are being squeezed. Between high grocery prices, rising utility bills, and hefty prices at the pump, little float remains in monthly budgets. An unexpected medical bill or car repair is all it takes to blow the household budget.

We’re all living through stressful macroeconomic crossroads here in mid-2026. For a while, it appeared the post-pandemic inflationary dragon had been slain. We were promised inflation would soon return to the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.

But that was before the U.S.-Israel attacked Iran and a new energy shock was triggered. Perhaps the MOU negotiations and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with UN evacuation, will soften things in the months ahead. Nonetheless, we do not expect there to be long-lasting relief.

When energy costs spike, they don’t just stay at the pump. They weave their way into the price of just about everything you buy, eat, or touch. And right now, as the Federal Reserve transitions into a new era under inbound Chair Kevin Warsh, the combination of elevated oil prices, persistent consumer price inflation, and nosebleed stock market valuations have created an abundance of risks that are not being properly appreciated.

In short, your purchasing power is being eroded, the new Fed chief is caught between a political rock and an inflationary hard place, and the stock market is behaving like gravity doesn’t exist. To understand why your monthly budget is under assault, we must look at how inflation is composed.

Economists love to talk about core inflation. This metric conveniently strips out food and energy prices because they tend to be volatile. It’s the economic equivalent of saying, “Aside from the rain, it’s a perfectly dry day.”

But as consumers, we live in the real world. We can’t choose to skip buying food or filling the gas tank.

Invisible Tax

Right now, the headline numbers are singing a discordant tune. The May 2026 Consumer Price Index (CPI) report clocked in at a stubborn 4.2 percent year-over-year inflation. The April Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index – the Fed’s preferred metric – sat at 3.8 percent. Both are a country mile away from that 2 percent target.

Thanks to ongoing geopolitical friction and conflict with Iran, a barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude – the light sweet stuff – spiked above $100 a barrel in May. It has since dropped to about $69. However, this is well above the $57 price that a barrel of WTI crude fetched at the start of the year. Moreover, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been drained to a 43-year low. Refilling it will put an elevated price floor under the price of oil in the months ahead.

Higher oil prices haven’t just been an inconvenience for commuters. Rather, they’re a supply shock that behaves like an invisible tax on the entire global supply chain. When a barrel of oil crosses the triple-digit threshold, a domino effect ripples through the economy.

For starters, diesel fuel gets much more expensive. The trucks delivering fresh produce to your supermarket, the container ships bringing electronics across the ocean, and the delivery vans bringing packages to your doorstep all pass those fuel surcharges directly down the line.

Modern farming is also incredibly energy intensive. From petroleum-based fertilizers to the diesel that runs massive harvesters, expensive energy directly translates to more expensive eggs, milk, and bread.

So, too, there’s the rising input costs for petrochemicals. These are the building blocks of 95 percent of manufactured goods, including packaging, synthetic fabrics, medical devices, and construction materials.

When energy prices rise, it doesn’t take long for transitory spikes to harden into long-term, sticky consumer price inflation. Businesses can absorb higher input costs for a month or two, but eventually, they protect their margins by changing the price tags. That is exactly what we are seeing play out across the retail landscape today.

Oil prices may be moderating. But the impact on consumer prices from the oil price spike is here to stay.

This is why consumer prices will never return to where they were last year, and certainly not to where they were in January 2020. Not unless new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh gets his productivity miracle… 

Keep reading

The UK’s Latest “Debanking” Scandal Should Give Everyone Pause

UK-based readers may recall the moment almost exactly three years ago when the word “debanking” entered the mainstream British English lexicon. The prestigious London-based private bank Coutts had just decided to close Nigel Farage’s bank account due to his unsavoury political views and alleged Russian connections. That decision turned out to be very costly.

Almost immediately, Farage did what Farage does best: he whipped up a massive media frenzy. In next to no time two senior banking scalps had been claimed: those of Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of Coutts’ parent bank and “Big Four” lender, Natwest (formerly known as the Royal Bank of Scotland) and Coutts’ chief executive Peter Flavel.

Within a month, Natwest’s share price had slumped 8%, wiping £1 billion off its market cap, much of which was being propped up with public funds, and generating juicy returns for short-selling hedge funds. As we reported at the time, the resulting scandal drew much-needed public attention to a long-standing but accelerating trend — the “de-banking” of people and organisations with politically inconvenient views:

[T]his is hardly a one-off event: as I reported a couple of weeks ago, banks on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly debanking their customers, often without explanation. I gave the example of California-based writer, activist, and social and political commentator Elad Nehorai, whose political views and ideals could not diverge more from those of Nigel Farage. Yet he, too, had his account at Bank of America, his bank of many years, summarily closed with no apparent warning or explanation…

Without a bank account, it is almost impossible to participate in the economy. And it is getting more difficult as cash becomes harder and harder to access and use. As Alex Lo writes for South China Morning Post, “Banking is a fundamental utility like water and electricity, and that’s precisely why democratic societies are increasingly turning to its use as a method of censorship and repression.”

However, the resulting government inquiry concluded that customers were not being “debanked” for political reasons. As a result, not only has debanking continued but debanked customers now face the prospect of being blocked from setting up new accounts at other banks, as the Telegraph reported on Monday:

Banks are planning to block “debanked” customers from setting up accounts with other lenders, potentially leading to innocent people being effectively locked out of the financial system, The Telegraph can reveal.

Lobby group UK Finance is developing a platform that will allow banks to share data on their customers where they detect “markers of economic crime”.

Lloyds, Barclays and Revolut have already started sharing data about customers, leading to accounts being frozen or closed, The Telegraph understands, following a pilot in 2024.

The data-sharing platform will build on that pilot to make a UK-wide system, which could automatically bar people from opening another account.

But concerns have been raised that thousands of innocent customers and businesses who have been debanked unfairly could be barred from opening up an account with another bank, effectively leaving them locked out of the financial system.

The latest victim of the debanking trend is the left-wing news website The Canary, which has accused the Lloyds Banking Group of “withholding a substantial amount of our money”  after nearly a decade of use. The news outlet — which brands itself as “radical working-class media” — says “Lloyds has not explained why it has taken this action… despite multiple communications from us”.

Keep reading

Doug Casey on Swap Lines, Secret Bailouts, and the Weaponization of the Dollar

International Man: While the term “swap line” sounds technical and harmless, it seems like it’s just a euphemism for a bailout.

What does it say when Washington starts extending swap lines to countries like Argentina and the UAE?

Doug Casey: First, we should define what a swap line is. It basically amounts to the US giving a foreign country X amount of currency in dollars, and the other country paying for it by giving the US the same amount in their currency. For decades, US dollar swap lines were mostly reserved for major allies and core financial centers around the world.

It’s a problem, however, with countries whose currencies have no value outside of their boundaries. A country that gets a swap line from the US is trading its paper for liquid and fungible dollars. The US may then get stuck with UAE dirhams or Argentine pesos. It’s trading real money for play money, Monopoly money.

In the case of Argentina, that swap line may never be repaid. The US might wind up being stuck with a bunch of worthless Argentine pesos.

When the US gives a foreign country a swap line, it basically creates those dollars out of nothing. They enter the banking system and debase the dollar. Doing so gives the US some leverage over a country that takes the swap.

But it’s a pretty expensive way of getting leverage.

International Man: In Argentina’s case, the US framed the swap line as a stabilizing measure. But was this really about financial stability, or was it about propping up a politically important ally at a critical moment?

Doug Casey: Since Milei is Trump’s new BFF, the swap was intended to help Argentina’s perennially weak economy, thereby helping Milei. That’s great for the moment, but now Argentina has to deal with another $30 billion of debt. I would’ve recommended Milei default on all of Argentina’s debts to the IMF, the World Bank, and the US—that might have worked during Milei’s first few months. “I’m sorry, everyone. We just don’t have the ability to pay right now. Wait until I set things straight.” I’m not sure that Argentina would’ve been punished badly for that. Third World countries default all the time.

Instead, Argentina taking the swap just indebts them by another $30 billion. The way to look at this is that future generations of young Argentines are being turned into serfs in order to repay that swap line, along with the rest of the debt.

Milei should have called a spade a spade and admitted bankruptcy instead of going further into debt to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

Argentina’s financial situation under Milei is very strange. The country theoretically owns two million ounces of gold. A million of those ounces were already sitting in London. But then, as soon as Milei got into office, he physically transferred another 440,000 ounces to London, saying that they were safer there. Which is an obvious lie; there’s no reason to think they’ll ever return.

That’s on top of buying 24 F-16s from Denmark—totally useless planes for Argentina—for another $350 million, plus $150 million per year in maintenance. And failing to abolish the central bank, which was a centerpiece of his election campaign. And worse, using the central bank to maintain the peso at ridiculously high levels, which is serving to bankrupt thousands of small businesses.

These stupidities might make the $30 billion swap seem necessary.

Keep reading

JPMorgan DEI Executive FIRED After Dumping Garbage on Street, Stealing Knicks Trashcan in Viral Video

The woman seen in a viral video dumping garbage on the street and then stealing the Knicks trashcan is a JPMorgan DEI executive.

The executive, Angie Baez, 40, was fired after the video went viral and the New York Post contacted JPMorgan about her actions.

Baez reportedly skipped work to attend the Knicks parade after the New York-based team won its first NBA Championship in more than five decades.

The New York Post reported:

A woman caught on video emptying a public trash can on the street, then stealing it during New York City’s Knicks championship parade, was a director at JPMorgan Chase — who was fired Tuesday over the incident, The Post has learned.

Angie Báez, 40, was promoted to executive director of community and industry engagement for card and connected commerce at JPMorgan Chase more than a year ago, according to her LinkedIn profile.

She previously served as executive director of diversity, equity, and inclusion at New York-based review website the Infatuation, which Chase acquired as part of its broader push into lifestyle and experiential content.

Sources say the bank looked into the incident after the video surfaced and a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson told The Post, “This employee is no longer with the company.”

Báez could not be reached by The Post for comment Tuesday. Sources noted she had attended the parade in her personal capacity.

The Knicks-themed trashcan was eventually returned to the Department of Sanitation.

“First, we would reiterate previous comments that dumping trash onto the street and stealing public property for your own personal use are both illegal, antisocial behaviors, and not what New Yorkers do,” the department said in a statement to NBC News.. “On top of all that, doing both on camera is incredibly stupid.”

Keep reading

DOJ Probes JPMorgan, Bank of America, Over Political Account Closures

Federal subpoenas hit JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo this week, ordering the banks to name every customer they cut off and to say why.

The legal fight is about fraud statutes and prosecutorial reach. A blunter question sits underneath it. When a bank shuts your account over your politics, where are you supposed to go?

The demands came from the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., run by Jeanine Pirro.

Her prosecutors asked the banks for lists of people who were “debanked” and for the reasons behind shutting them out. Some of the subpoenas reach back more than a year.

The investigation tests whether the account closures violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, a law built to chase bank fraud.

Debanking amounts to financial exile. A private institution decides your views, or your line of work, make you a liability, and your access to checking accounts, payroll, and credit can vanish.

There’s no hearing, no judge, and often no warning beyond a card that stops working. The power to do this sits with the bank, and the person on the other end rarely gets to argue back.

Last August, President Trump signed an executive order telling banking regulators to root out “politicized or unlawful debanking” and to penalize it. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency later reviewed the nine largest banks and reported it had found early signs of the practice. Pirro’s office went further on its own, opening the criminal probe without waiting for a referral from those regulators.

The banks’ defense is the one you’d expect. They say they shut accounts only over legal, regulatory, or financial risk, never over belief. That explanation is convenient and hard to check because the standards live inside the banks and the people affected almost never see them. When the threshold for losing your account is “risk” defined by the institution that benefits from defining it loosely, almost any disfavored customer can be folded in.

For the crypto industry, the probe puts a name to a years-old grievance. Digital-asset firms watched their accounts close across 2022 and 2023 and called it “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” a nod to a 2013 Obama-era program that pushed banks to drop industries the government disliked. The pattern repeats because the method works. You don’t have to outlaw an activity if you can cut off the money that keeps it alive.

That is the chilling effect in its purest form. People and businesses learn that the wrong affiliation can cost them a bank account, so they grow careful about what they say, fund, or build. The punishment never needs a courtroom to land, and it teaches everyone watching to keep their heads down.

JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo have mostly declined to comment on the subpoenas. JPMorgan has disclosed that it faces “reviews, investigations and legal proceedings” tied to the executive order.

The records Pirro wants would show, customer by customer, who the banks decided to drop and why. People shut out of the financial system for their views have spent years being told it never happened.

Keep reading

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Government is big. Elected and unelected officials wield enormous amounts of power. But lately I have found myself wondering whether we are paying attention to the wrong institution.

What if the most powerful institutions in America are not governments at all?

What if they are banks and payment processors?

A few years ago, during COVID-19, a friend of mine owned a small shop in Northern California. It was the kind of place many young mothers loved. They sold raw milk, organic cotton sheets, natural baby products, books, toys, and healthy foods. It felt like an old-fashioned mercantile reimagined for modern families.

One day, she made a comment on social media praising CBD. I do not remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “Of course, we can raise children without CBD, but why would we want to?”

Whether you think CBD is wonderful or terrible is beside the point. The issue is not whether she was right. The issue is whether she had the right to say it.

Not long afterward, her credit card processing company terminated her account.

The company processing her payments had nothing to do with the social media platform where she made the comment. Yet somehow, a statement made on one platform became a problem for an entirely different company that controlled her ability to process payments.

The fallout was immediate. Roughly $30,000 was frozen. She struggled to make payroll. Because the company handled other operational functions as well, portions of her business became difficult to run. It took months of legal back and forth before she finally regained access to her own money.

When this happened, I called my own credit card processing representative. Before I could even finish explaining the situation, he knew exactly what I was talking about.

He told me he had been flooded with calls from businesses looking to switch processors because similar things were happening across the country. Businesses were scrambling to regain access to money they believed was theirs.

It was part of a broader pattern that many people have already forgotten.

During COVID-19, I lost count of the number of conferences, organizations, and educational programs that suddenly found themselves unable to process payments or fundraising. Then came the Canadian trucker protests. Regardless of where someone stood politically, a lot of people suddenly realized that modern power does not always arrive wearing a government uniform. Sometimes it arrives as an email informing you that access to financial services has been suspended.

What concerns me is that all of this happened before we have even become a truly cashless society.

Last weekend, I was in Austin speaking at an event for the Brownstone Institute. As I walked around the city, I noticed a surprising number of businesses no longer accepted cash.

The answers were remarkably consistent. Cash creates more work. Cash can be stolen. Cash requires counting. Cash requires bank deposits. Cash slows things down. Cash creates security concerns for employees.

These are all legitimate concerns. In fact, I understand them better than most people because I have lived them.

My brother owns restaurants in California and has chosen to operate cashless businesses. His reasoning is efficiency. Most business owners making these decisions are trying to reduce theft, simplify accounting, and protect employees. The incentives are understandable.

That is what makes this conversation so interesting.

Rarely do we lose freedom because someone announces they are taking it away. More often, we surrender small pieces of it because convenience, safety, and efficiency seem like fair trade-offs in the moment.

I found myself standing in one Austin business that displayed signs supporting inclusion, immigrant rights, and various social justice causes. I asked the young man behind the counter a simple question.

“If we are concerned about making society accessible to everyone, why require a bank account, a smartphone, a QR code, and a digital payment platform just to buy a cup of coffee?”

He looked genuinely surprised.

After thinking about it for a moment, he said, “Maybe you’re right.”

What struck me was not his answer. It was that the question had never occurred to him.

Keep reading

‘This Has to Be Stopped’: Alarm As Trump’s Crypto Firm Set to Get Federal Banking Privileges

Critics expressed alarm on Tuesday amid a new report suggesting that President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency firm is about to get federal banking privileges.

As reported by NOTUS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the coming weeks is expected to approve a national trust bank charter for World Liberty Financial, the crypto startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Were it to receive the charter, NOTUS explained, World Liberty Financial would receive “significant legal and financial benefits,” including being able “to settle financial transactions akin to Venmo or PayPal on the World Liberty Financial platform, through which the Trump family could receive a cut.”

David Wachsman, a spokesperson for World Liberty Financial, dismissed concerns about conflicts of interest, telling NOTUS that “none of [the company’s] leadership or employees work for the US government,” even though the president and his entire family stand to personally benefit from the charter’s approval.

Corey Frayer, director of investor protection for Consumer Federation of America, told NOTUS that here was simply no precedent for a sitting president being granted such privileges for a company he founded by a comptroller whom he personally appointed.

“For the first time in history, a president is leaning on a bank regulator to give his private enterprise the implicit backing of the federal government,” Frayer explained. “It’s outrageous.”

Diana Henriques, a veteran financial journalist best known for her extensive coverage of the Ponzi scheme run by disgraced financier Bernie Madoff, also expressed horror at the prospect of the OCC carrying out the president’s bidding.

“The guardrails continue to fall,” Henriques wrote. “It is functionally impossible to regulate a bank owned by the president. Yet it can imperil the entire banking system if it runs off the rails. For heaven’s sake, this has to be stopped.”

Derek Martin, vice president at Focal Point Strategy Group, wrote that there is “no other way to interpret” the NOTUS report “than Trump using the government to advance his own firm’s interests.”

“World Liberty Financial’s entire brand—and reason for existence, basically—is ‘We are affiliated with Trump,’” Martin added. “This is just the latest way they’re leveraging it.”

Government watchdogs for months have been raising alarms about the president having his own cryptocurrency firm, which has received massive investments from foreign governments since its founding in 2024.

According to NOTUS reporter Jeff Stein, Trump has reported personally earning $57 million from World Liberty Financial so far, a number that could get significantly higher if the firm is granted its charter.

An analysis published by Forbes last month estimated that Trump has nearly tripled his wealth since returning to office, going from a net worth of $2.3 billion in 2024 to $6.5 billion in 2026.

Keep reading