be covering this.

Excellent observation and analysis, dinkytron. Like a little bird landing on the lectern, the Panama Papers symbolize a turning point.

I posted this as an OP and hope it proves useful here. The info still stands. Here's my link missing from the news coverage:

After his exit from the US Senate, Phil Gramm immediately found a job at Swiss bank UBS as its Vice Chairman. Gramm today works in the Wealth Management department, where he brought on, among others, former President Bill Clinton.

Who would have thought President Clinton and Sen. Gramm -- the two key figures in repealing Glass-Steagall -- would work together in Wealth Management at a Swiss bank?

Since the New Deal, Glass-Steagall had protected the US taxpayer from the Wall Street casino by law. After its repeal, the US taxpayer got put on the hook for, among other things, the most recent $16 trillion Wall Street bailout.

In September 2008 on DU2 I described the situation: Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

If you don't like the way I write about it, you may enjoy what Robert Scheer thinks about Phil Gramm.



https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-overview.html

Until Sunday and the Panama Papers, this information wasn't much interest to the USA's "news media." They don't like to disturb their owners and operators any more than they have to. That way, it makes things appear more "democratic."

This needs to be shared widely.

And UBS reciprocated by paying Bill Clinton $1.5 million in speaking fees and pouring donations into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

<“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”>

The WSJ article the Atlantic is citing goes on to say there is no evidence of any link between Hillary's help and the subsequent money pouring from UBS to the Clintons.

Does anything less than a written agreement or a tape recording not constitute evidence? This quid pro quo speaks for itself to anybody who is not willfully blind.

If you're a person that gets your news from them you may not even know about it. I've sent links to my family and friends, everyone else should do the same. Here's a good comprehensive source:

http://panama-papers.site/