![]() Of course, half a million is a mere one fifth of the population of Brooklyn, which is itself larger than the combined populations of Seattle, San Jose and San Francisco, and would be the country's 4th largest city if it were on its own. But probably this adds up to half a million people that the shop will be closer to than any Manhattan Apple Store. I won't mention the G train because, as someone else commented, that train is a joke. Hard for some, very easy for others: the entire population (112,000-ish people, and growing) of Williamsburg (this location is at its center, and it's all within 15 minutes walking distance), and the entire population served by the L & J trains (i.e., Bushwick & East New York, north part of Bedford-Stuyvesant), and even parts of Manhattan near the L train (Stuyvesant Town & northern part of East Village). Fun facts! Fuhgeddaboudit! edited July 2016 On the other hand, it has the 2nd-highest cost of living in the U.S., but the lowest per-household income of any county within 100 miles in any direction. ![]() Is that really his call? Isn't his mandate to prosecute criminals? I believe his words of March 6th in which he said that he didn't like prosecuting crime in big banks if it would hurt the economy. Personally, I think that's a non-credible explanation. ![]() He re-explained his words to congress: that when he said "difficult" he meant that the difficulty was that it would be a decision that would impact innocent people (the bank's clients and stockholders?) but that he actually would charge them. And to show that I'm not biased here, I will point out that Holder later said that quote, while accurate, was misconstrued. Perhaps she now agree with holder's public statement to congress that some banks " ar e so large that it is very difficult to make a decision to prosecute them". Curiously it was Loretta Lynch (who was at the time a lower level DOJ employee) who brought the criminal charges against the company, but now that she succeeded Holder as head of DOJ, she isn't doing much with those charges now. I only suggest that you read the Executive Summary, one page long, starting on page one. It just seems interesting, if not relevant to Apple, other than being across the street from this company, which I won't name here: just read the link above to learn more. My only source of information to this story is a bit of googling I'm not an authority on this topic. The top levels of the DOJ (as opposed to the lower levels, including Loretta Lynch at the time) didn't want to prosecute criminals if doing so would put the US economy into recession. To be fair, the criminal events were 10-20 years ago, and the company paid record fines, and may have stopped laundering drug and rogue nations' money now, but nobody was held personally accountable for the criminal activity. ![]() It says in this report that Eric Holder personally stated to congress in Mathat he wouldn't prosecute them for money laundering because that could throw the world economy into a tailspin. The new Apple site is right across the street from a company that congress wrote and published just ten days ago as having been a front for criminal activity, specifically doing business with a handful of sanctioned countries and laundering drug money.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |