Immediately after the release on July 15 of the finally-declassified “28 pages” of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attack on the United States, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued this hard-hitting statement urging immediate follow-up Congressional action:

“These new revelations are a chilling description of Saudi ties to terrorists, Saudi payments to terrorists, and Saudi obstruction of U.S. antiterrorism investigations. While the pages do not reach a conclusion regarding Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks, they provide more than enough evidence to raise serious concerns. These concerns should be addressed and proved or disproved in court, but loopholes in America’s antiterrorism laws make that impossible. Congress must immediately pass the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, introduced by Senators Schumer and Cornyn and myself, to ensure any nation that conspires against the American people can be brought to justice.”

JASTA, as the bill is known, was passed by the Senate in May. On Tuesday, Sen. Blumenthal, joined by representatives of families who lost loved ones in the bestial 9/11 attack, held a press conference on the steps of the New Haven Federal Courthouse, to demand that the House of Representatives also pass it now so that it can become law. “Saudi Arabia sponsored and supported terrorism, according to some of these recent revelations. There’s evidence of it, and these families deserve their day in court,” said Blumenthal.

Mary Fetchet, founder of “Voices of September 11th,” with her husband Frank, who lost their 24-year-old son that day, spoke in support Senator Blumenthal’s call for the House of Representatives to pass JASTA, “so that all Americans can feel confident that those who are funding terrorist acts are held accountable.”

She situated the urgency of this action in light of the wanton “carnage” spreading across the world:

“Acts of terrorism are happening regularly, innocent lives are lost, families are destroyed, communities are damaged. The recruitment of young people to ISIS and other terrorist groups is happening, both here and abroad,” Fetchet said. “I ask, how are these operations funded? Who is supporting the operatives as they plan, recruit and carry out these horrific events? We can capture, kill, and investigate the trail of evidence, but I am convinced that unless we hold those accountable for funding terrorism, our communities and countries, both in the U.S. and abroad, will be constantly dealing with the carnage.”

Florida Sen. Bob Graham summed up the situation after the public release last Friday of the long-classified 28 pages of the report by the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, in an admonition reported by Florida Public Radio station WFSU Monday evening:

“I’ve described it as being like pulling the cork out of the bottle. You’re happy that you’ve opened the bottle, but we’ve got a lot of work to do with the liquid that’s inside that bottle.”

Florida Bulldog intrepid editor Dan Christensen Tuesday published a new article, pointing to yet more “liquid inside that bottle.” Christensen draws attention to a one-page “Executive Summary” of a September 2005 “joint FBI-CIA intelligence report assessing the nature and extent of Saudi government support of terrorism,” which Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released last Friday, along with the redacted 28 pages.

According to Christensen, the existence of the 2005 assessment was previously unknown; Congress had required it be produced in a classified annex of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Not only were significant sections of the released one-page summary blacked out, but so was half of the one-paragraph, accompanying transmittal letter for the annex signed by FBI’s Robert Mueller and CIA director Porter Goss!

‘s attempted whitewash of the Saudis (“there is no evidence that either the Saudi government or members of the Saudi royal family knowingly provided support for the attacks of 11 September 2001 or that they had foreknowledge of terrorist operations in the Kingdom or elsewhere”—emphasis added), is followed by the admission that:

“There is evidence that official Saudi entities, [blacked out] and associated nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), provide financial and logistical support to individuals in the United States and around the world, some of whom are associated with terrorism-related activity…. The Saudi government and many of its agencies have been infiltrated and exploited by individuals associated with or sympathetic to Al-Qaida.”

Christensen’s article, “28 Pages Connect Saudi Prince To Al Qaeda Leader, Supporters Of 9/11 Hijackers,” otherwise features new leads to Florida contained in the 28 pages, and rubs in the Saudi Royal Family to the Bush family.

“The Saudi ambassador who met with President George W. Bush at the White House two days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 had connections to a major al-Qaeda figure and other Saudis suspected of helping two of the suicide hijackers while they were in the United States,”

The Republican Party convention’s passage Monday of a Glass-Steagall plank for its platform, featured by Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort at his press conference, following upon the Democratic Party Platform Committee’s unanimous vote to include passage of Glass-Steagall in its platform, has set bank lobbyists into high gear, and generated a wave of teeth-knashing in Wall Street’s press. Every outlet from the Wall Street Journal to Barrons, to The American Banker, and in-between, ranted against the proposal to reinstate FDR’s Glass-Steagall law. After all Wall Street had done to rig arguably the worst presidential election in U.S. history!

Amidst the refrain that political platforms are non-binding and often don’t get implemented, Wall Street has to acknowledge that restoration of Glass-Steagall has been adopted by both parties, not because of the parties, and certainly not because of their candidates, but because it is a burning national sentiment.

The Hill wrote: “The embrace of Glass-Steagall by both parties is a telling indication of how unpopular Wall Street remains with the public, years after the financial crisis…”

Bloomberg, too, admitted that the Republican Party plank should not come as a “total surprise, given there’s little love of global investment banks in Washington right now.”

Barrons acknowledged: “The Democrats and Republicans are in agreement on one thing in this presidential election, and of all things, it’s about banking regulations. Both parties, it seems, are calling for a return of Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era banking law whose repeal in 1999 is credited by some for causing the financial crisis.”

Politico quotes two reporters from the Financial Times on how Wall Street is now “on edge… Presidential candidates do not have to follow party platforms, but big banks will be troubled by the cross-party support for legislation inspired by the 1933 Glass-Steagall act because such ideas can gain a life of their own once in official documents. Any prohibition barring investment bankers from operating under the same roof as federally insured deposits would pose an existential challenge to Citigroup, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and, to a lesser extent, Goldman Sachs.”

So, too, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods investment bank’s Brian Gardner issued a note warning that Wall Street should not dismiss the possibility of Glass-Steagall being adopted: “There could be a unique political coalition forming to make changes to Dodd-Frank while at the same time reinstating the old separation between commercial and investment banking… There is an unappreciated risk that Glass-Steagall might be reimposed in 2017 or 2018… regardless of who wins the presidential election.”

Meanwhile, take note that with the July 14th addition of Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) as a co-sponsor of S1709, one tenth of the U.S. Senate is now co-sponsoring the Senate bill to restore Glass-Steagall.