Skip to comments.'Too big to jail' [Why Obama's DOJ won't REALLY go after Wall Street]
Posted on 06/26/2014 7:45:09 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
.... Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer seemed to hit hard in December 2012 when he announced that global banking giant HSBC would pay the government a fine of $1.9 billion....
In March 2013 Breuers boss, Attorney General Eric Holder, went before the Senate Finance Committee to explain why HSBC wasnt indicted for these crimes. He said some banks may be too large to prosecute without wrecking the economy. Holders too big to jail comments caused an immediate uproar. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said big bankers know that if they commit financial crimes, they can expect a passive response from the Justice Department.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldmag.com ...
Wall Street is the Obamocrats gravy train and visa-versa. They’re in bed together, and nobody’s kicking the other one out of bed.
Wall Street and the big investment banks are Obama’s biggest supporters. They are the ones pulling the strings. No way Obama is going after them in any meaningful way. This is all a pose with the key players winking and nodding at each other.
Eric Holder is also apparently “too big to jail”, either.
If Congress wants to start with impeachment proceedings, Eric Holder is a good place to begin.
Not that there isn’t plenty of ammunition and stacks of indictable offenses to work with.
“Too big to” anything is unacceptable. If they are too big, then they need to be reduced in size, at least to the size where they are accountable.
The Sherman antitrust act was created because Standard Oil and other trusts had become monopolies. But duopolies, and oligopolies are just as bad in their risk to the economy.
And just plain too big needs to be seen as another reason to break up such corporations.
So if they are too big to be accountable in a time of crime or crisis, then when there is no crisis, they need to be carefully broken up, minimizing the threat and restoring balance to the economy.
Not particularly hard, as long as the division is into two or more viable companies. No spinning off of unprofitable or debt ridden branches, but even division of the good and the bad.
The fix is in:
‘Plath said, we need regulators with a career interest in going after the bad guys, and not in getting a job with the financial institutions they are supposed to be policing. Now, Plath said, theres a revolving door between the regulators and the industry they regulate. They come and go at will. It renders the regulatory structure toothless.
‘A case in point: Remember Lanny Breuer, the prosecutor we met at the beginning of this story? Just three weeks after delivering his tough speech announcing HSBCs $1.9 billion penalty, he left the Justice Department to take a job with legal heavyweight Covington and Burling. Through a spokesman, Breuer declined to comment for this story, but according to the firms official biography of Breuer, the former prosecutor is now the firms Vice Chairman and one of the leading trial and white collar defense attorneys in the United States.’
Why is Holder still there? They have enough to impeach him.
Why Obama’s DOJ won’t REALLY go after Wall Street:
Wall Street is a major source of the democrats big money.
Four words that revealed our nation succumbed to Fascism:
“Too big to fail.”
If they are are “too big to jail” they are obviously too big period, and should be broken up under the trust laws.
The problem is too many laws. Many laws are ambiguous. Many laws are contradictory. Execs have dozens if not hundreds of employees who’s job is to create legally mandatory reports to prove the execs aren’t breaking the law (execs are assumed guilty).
No prosecutor is going to want to face the defense a good legal team could put up. The prosecutor is the one who’d be on the defense trying to explain contradictory and overreaching laws and why the execs extensive paper trail is wrong. The prosecutor would need a believable insider who could prove that the exec knowingly broke law A for some reason other than complying with law B. Even if the exec knew he was breaking law A but also knew law B gave him justification it would be a hard case to prosecute.
At least that’s how it looks to me as someone with no legal background but who had a small responsibility on those reports to prove the exec is innocent. (My execs did nothing wrong that I know of but I saw lots of ways they could while being impossible to prosecute because of the reports)
Constitutionally, Obama and his pals are sitting ducks in a shooting gallery that a blind man could hit.