tion and then upper management looked at the situation and decided to let it go. In other words they did not pursue any kind of legal or other recourse. Now is that a story? If you have never worked for a bank that looks like kind of a story doesn't it?

I have worked for a bank. I have many years as a banker working in a number of different areas within the bank. Pretty wide experience from lending to retail to the back systems etc. So I have a pretty broad experience in banking. Let me interpret this story from the ridiculous version that you're getting to what it really means. Alright I'm gonna do the bank translation. Here's what this means. When you hear that specialists flagged something do you hear "Oh my God the top experts in banking had an opinion but the bosses overrode it"? Is that what you're hearing? Because you shouldn't be hearing it that way. When you hear that a specialist flagged something that just means there was a big transaction and maybe it had a lot to do with cash. That's it. The reason that a specialist would flag a transaction is just because it's a big dollar amount and maybe cash is involved. That's it. That's the whole story.

Do you know how often there's a big transaction with cash involved? All the time. All the freaking time. And those specialists probably flag all of them. Do you know the banks, you know if you do any transaction over $10,000 and maybe the dollar amounts changed since I was a banker but in the old days anything over $10,000 got flagged. Do you know how many times I as a banker flagged a transaction? I personally as a bank teller flagged a lot of transactions because there was something about them that I needed a supervisor to look at. Something about it. There was an ask beyond my responsibility. Maybe it was just a big dollar amount. Maybe it was a complicated transaction. I wanted to make sure it got done right. Maybe there was something about it that was non-standard. It got flagged. It means nothing that specialists flagged the transaction. And when you see that their superiors looked at it and decided it wasn't worth pursuing what you have described is every day at a bank. That's every day at the bank. Every day underlings bring things to their boss and they say here's some things that are non-standard. What do you think? And the boss says okay okay okay okay okay. Pretty much all of the things that get flagged as non-standard eventually get approved.

What is missing in this CNN story? What is missing is how often this happens and what percentage of things that get flagged end up being illegal. What is your guess? If you hear a story with no context, "Specialist flagged some transactions in the bank," what does your brain go to? Well your brain automatically thinks incorrectly that this must be an unusual bothersome kind of thing in which you know you really have to worry about it. They leave out the context. The context is how often do things get flagged in the bank and then they just get approved because that's just the process. That's the normal banking process. The normal banking process is people flagging stuff all the time and then bosses saying that's okay. I'm glad you flagged it but I see no problem. Ordinary ordinary business reported as extraordinary. Alright now that's fake news isn't it? Would you say if something that's completely ordinary is reported the opposite as if it's extraordinary isn't that fake news? In what way could that not be fake news?

Because imagine how this could have been reported also accurately. Deutsche Bank is a bank like normal banks. Okay normal. They have processes in which anything that's non-standard or a big dollar amount for example gets flagged by people who watch this stuff. They check it with their superiors and 99% of the time or whatever the percentage is there's nothing wrong with the transaction and the superiors approve it and it goes through. That is called banking. What I just described is banking. Flagging thing