If you thought the Goldman Sachs banker who did the deal to get Greece into the euro might have been chased out of the City of London, think again.
Antigone Loudiadis, more widely known as “Addy”, has been richly rewarded by the bank for her dealmaking prowess and now sits atop one of Europe’s fastest growing insurance companies, Rothesay Life.
The 52-year-old, who lives with her family in a vast stucco house in west London, was one of the brightest stars in Goldman’s Fleet Street headquarters.
While she lists her nationality as Greek, her education was as English as can be. Schooled at Cheltenham Ladies’ College, she went on to Oxford University before joining JPMorgan, and then Goldman, gaining partner status in 2000.
Colleagues describe her as “fiercely clever”, although by some accounts, she was simply fierce. It is said some of her staff would pretend to be on the phone when she walked past them in the office to avoid her infamous rollockings.
Although her Continental twang remains hard to place, her fluency in Greek and strong connections in the country were instrumental in winning the lucrative mandate to create the financial deals that would flatter the country’s debts.
Christoforos Sardelis, former boss of Greece’s Debt Management Agency who worked on the trades with her, told Bloomberg she was “very professional – a little bit aggressive as is everyone at Goldman Sachs”.
But she was trusted by the government which, it should be remembered, was far more right wing than the Syriza party.
What it most liked about her seems to be the way she could magic away the country’s dismal financial position. The trade she came up with is reported to have made the bank hundreds of millions of dollars, although only Goldman knows the true figure.
Reports suggest she was paid up to $12m a year by the time she was named co-head of the investment banking group. Not that it wasn’t a stressful job. In an interview in 2005 she told the Wall Street Journal she was “your typical Type A workaholic smoker” with a “stressful schedule”.
Goldman moved her to head Rothesay Life which it set up in 2007 to buy big companies’ pension funds. She is likely to get a multimillion-pound payday when, as the City expects, Rothesay floats next year with a potential value of £3bn.
It’s easy to laugh off Donald Trump’s fact-free comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists. And easy to poke fun, as Jon Stewart did, at Trump’s grudging admission that some Mexican immigrants might be “good people.”
But there is a serious issue here, and mainstream media interviewers have neglected to ask Trump about it – and that’s Trump’s history of pointing the finger of rape at innocent men of color. I’m talking about his high-profile effort years ago that fanned racial tensions after perhaps the most notorious rape in New York City’s history.
In 1989, a white, female investment banker was viciously raped and nearly murdered while jogging in Central Park. Police quickly pinned the crime on five Black and Latino youths, aged 14 to 16, after extracting rape confessions (soon to be retracted). Mainstream media piled on behind the police – abandoning usual hedge words of “accused” or “alleged” – by referring to the accused rapists as a “wolf pack” and “park marauders.”
A racially-charged lynch mob had formed, and real estate mogul Donald Trump used his money to try to lead the mob. A dozen days after the attack, as the 100-pound rape survivor emerged from a coma, Donald Trump bought a full-page ad in all four New York dailies with the banner headline: “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!”
Trump’s ad spoke of “roving bands of wild criminals” who “roam our neighborhoods”; it decried a “permissive atmosphere which allows criminals of every age to beat and rape a helpless woman and then laugh . . .”
The ad blamed civil liberties concerns for permissiveness and, ultimately, the Central Park rape: “Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS” [capitalization in the original]. Trump called for killers to be “executed for their crimes.”
We know now – after the five convicted Harlem youths had collectively served more than 40 years in prison for the crime – that they had not raped anyone. Sarah and Ken Burns’ documentary, “The Central Park Five,” shows that the wrongful imprisonment resulted partly from police/prosecutorial misconduct and an abridging of the youths’ civil liberties.
Needless to say, if the youths whose alleged crime sparked Trump’s ad had been put to death, we would have had five more men of color innocently executed in our country. Thirteen years after the Central Park rape and Donald Trump’s full-page ad, it became clear – thanks to a jailhouse confession confirmed by DNA testing – that the culprit, acting alone, had been a convicted serial rapist.
A question journalists might pose to candidate Trump today, especially when he’s discussing the issue of rape: “Mr. Trump, are you a serial racist?”
Raymond Santana, who was 14 at the time of the Central Park rape and wrongfully served seven years in prison for it, is unlikely to get the apology he seeks from Trump for helping to fuel the frenzy: “It says a lot about [Trump’s] character,” said Santana. “If he can give the death penalty to 14-year-old, 15-year-old kids, then there’s nothing he would not do. Those are characteristics of a tyrant, not characteristics of a president.”
For anyone who doesn’t currently read alternative news, this will come as a surprise, but for those who have been keeping up with the myriad cabalistic shenanigans, this latest intelligence concerning the fall of the family Rothschild is a breath of fresh air in a choking smokescreen meant to confuse the sane among us.
Baron David de Rothschild could soon be locked up for a good long while in a prison cell, breathing some stench of his own creation. He has been indicted over a fraud scheme brought to light by expatriots living in Spain.
French police have been directed by a judge to locate Rothschild to bring him in for questioning. His crime?
He, and his company, the Rothschild Financial Services Group, are accused of falsely advertising an equity release loan scheme, bought into by more than 130 pensioners between 2005 and 2008.
This, a petty crime, compared to the suspected legacy of the Rothschild family which links them to the financing of Nazi experiments, and milking entire nations of their hard-earned money and resources through bribery, fractional banking, murder, and pedophilia, might be what sinks a strong arm of the cabal which has been running the world along with a few other families.
More recently, the Rothschilds have tried to force local credit unions out of business in an effort to gain more control over the fractional banking system, and to make Americans more dependent on the debt-slavery system the family helped to create.
Rumors abound that the cabal crime syndicate (Bilderberg’s, Committee of 300, Illuminati, etc.) is crumbling due to planned mass arrests and this may or may not be true, but arresting even one powerful member of the Rothschild family is certainly a good start.
The answer may surprise you…
People like to talk nasty about Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s CEO, and obviously a shareholder. The same goes for Bill Gates. He purportedly owns millions of shares of Monsanto stock as well. But who are the real owners of Monsanto? The answer might be shocking.
The real owners of Monsanto stock are institutions, and people who hide behind those institutions, not individuals like Gates and Grant. According to multiple sources, five investment funds are the top shareholders in Monsanto, with the Vanguard Group, Inc. at the top. You can view the rest below.
As you can see, the number of shares held by institutions dwarfs the number held by individuals, including those who do Monsanto’s dirty work in the public arena.
The Vanguard Group owns over $3 trillion in investments in different, and mostly hated, companies like Monsanto. They also hold the world’s largest companies such as: Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, Capital Research Global Investors, and FMR (Fidelity) are all the key owners of – well, essentially the world. And this includes Monsanto. You could say that just four companies control all the big banks and all the major companies on the planet.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve is comprised of 12 banks, represented by a board of only seven people, which comprises representatives of the “big four,” …which in turn are present in all other entities.
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy – including Agribusiness.
What should really be concerning is who owns Vanguard. Why are they not in the public eye as GMO labeling is heavily debated, and countries claim suicide rates, death of their food supplies, and poisoning from GM Agrichemicals?
What should be concerning is the money trail supporting the ‘funny’ science that keeps coming out about biotech foods. Or that according to a report that was released last summer, the global elite have up to 32 TRILLION dollars stashed in offshore banks around the globe, which can fund lawsuit after lawsuit against the people who are tired of being poisoned.
It means that seven people and their overlords are likely poisoning the entire planet through biotech, Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Big Banks.
It is the invisible tentacles of this octopus that are strangling us. This is what must be stopped.
Even as military spending soars in China, in which there is an attempt to shift to a “domestic-demand-led economy from exports”, billionaire investor, George Soros says in the Bretton Woods conference at the World Bank that there may be another World War III with China, according to sputniknews.
Otherwise, it is likely that Chinese leaders would have an external conflict with a US ally in order to keep the country together and hold on to power.
“If there is conflict between China and a military ally of the United States, like Japan, then it is not an exaggeration to say that we are on the threshold of a third world war,” Soros said, according to MarketWatch.
He asked the US to make a “major concession” so that it can permit China’s currency to join the International Monetary Fund’s basket of currencies, making the yuan a “potential rival” to the dollar as a global reserve currency.
China too needs to make major concessions so that its economy can be reformed, and accept the rule of law, says Soros. While letting the yuan to be a market currency would create “a binding connection” between the two systems, the agreement would be difficult. However, the alternative to this would be “global catastrophe.”
“Without it, there is a real danger that China will align itself with Russia politically and militarily, and then the threat of third world war becomes real, so it is worth trying,” he adds.
Ironically, Geroge Soros has always called on imposing greater taxes on the wealthy, but he has collected a huge fortune by not making his tax payments on time. The bill, though, may be due.
Meanwhile, there are other indications of World War III too. “Instability in Ukraine, chaos in Syria, conflict in the East China Sea-the trigger points for World War III are in place,” according to theatlantic.
The Times has reported that people involved in a series of Canadian uranium-mining deals channelled money to the Clinton Foundation while the firm had business before the State Department. And, in one case, a Russian investment bank connected to the deals paid money to Bill Clinton personally, through a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee. There were a number of transactions involved, and corporate name changes, but, basically, a Canadian company known as Uranium One initially wanted American diplomats to defend its Kazakh uranium interests when a Russian firm, Rosatom, seemed about to make a move on them; and then, after the company decided to simply let Rosatom acquire it (through Rosatom’s alarmingly named subsidiary, ARMZ), Uranium One needed State Department approval. (The approval was necessary because Uranium One controlled American uranium mines and exploration fields, a strategic asset.)
The Times sums it up this way:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million … Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
The Times says that the donations were not properly disclosed—the paper confirmed them by looking at Canadian tax records. Complicating matters, Uranium One’s corporate forebear had acquired the Kazakh interests after its major shareholder, Frank Giustra, travelled with Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan in 2005 and met with the country’s leader. Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, according to the Times, and so was not involved in the ARMZ dealings. But Giustra has put tens of millions of dollars into the foundation’s work; the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which bears his name, is a formal component of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. And Ian Telfer, the Uranium One chairman, whose family foundation donated the $2.35 million dollars, said that it had done so because he wanted to support that coöperation: “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years.” He told the Wall Street Journal that he’d pledged the money in 2008, before the sale was on the table. Telfer also said that he’d never talked about uranium with Hillary Clinton. After the story came out, Giustra issued an angry statement, calling it baseless speculation and “an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign.” He added a note of Canadian admonishment: “You are a great country. Don’t ruin it by letting those with political agendas take over your newspapers and your airwaves.”
Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, told the Times, “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless.” There have been reports that other companies—Boeing, for example—gave money to the foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State and they had business before the department. The Uranium One story is more troubling, and potentially damaging, because of the personal ties, the foreign interests, the opacity, and the denouement, which involves Putin allies publicly gloating over Russia’s increased dominance of the world’s uranium supplies. The Times was tipped off to the story by a forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, which a Clinton campaign spokesman has called a “smear project.” The Clinton people and others argue that Schweizer has an expressly conservative agenda, visible in his previous work, and ties to Republican candidates. The Times’ public editor, Margaret Sullivan, addressing those concerns, said that, though she was troubled by the way the Times had described its relationship with Schweizer as “exclusive,” the paper had done its own reporting, and the story addressed valid questions about a Presidential candidate.
Here are five:
1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn’t “intervened.” The Clinton spokesman wouldn’t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc’d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive—an e-mail, say—the Times doesn’t seem to have it.
This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust? Doing so becomes harder when the money is less visible, which leads to the second question:
2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Times writes, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me: the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation.
Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) Minassian added, “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work.
This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms. Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled.
And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.
3. Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”
4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds.
5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016? The optimistic view, if you support Hillary Clinton or are simply depressed by meretriciousness, is that the Times reporters combed the Schweizer book and that this story was the worst they found. The pessimistic view is that it was an obvious one to start with, for all the reasons above, and that some names that stand out less than Uranium One and ARMZ will lead to other stories. Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?