PDA

View Full Version : US Attorney General Eric Holder: some banks too big to prosecute



Gerarddm
03-06-2013, 07:39 PM
This infuriates me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html


If Teddy Roosevelt could break Standard Oil, what the hell is Holder saying here? Migod.

Get me another AG, Mr. President. Or give this one marching orders.

hanleyclifford
03-06-2013, 08:16 PM
If it infuriates you, why don't you make the connection that it is time break up the big banksters...and that includes the Federal Reserve System which feeds these parasites.

JBreeze
03-06-2013, 08:19 PM
He's just following the Geithner Doctrine....here is an explanation from the former SIGTARP Neil Barofsky:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/neil-barofsky-geithner-doctrine-lives-on-in-libor-scandal.html#dEw7TfdFvBcXPfYa.99

The following is a graph from Syracuse University that shows the trend:

http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/include/timeline.png


I guess it was a target-rich environment in the past, with Martha Stewart, Enron, etc., but everyone is law abiding now.

Here is the link to the Syracuse U report:

http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/

ccmanuals
03-06-2013, 08:25 PM
Wouldn't the responsibility for passing serious bank regulations fall on Congress?

JBreeze
03-06-2013, 08:38 PM
How about enforcing the laws that currently exist?

Example: Jon Corzine signed the "Sarbanes-Oxley" certification as the head of MF Global....MF Global co-mingled customer funds. MF Global is bankrupt. Why wasn't this prosecuted?

Janet Tavakoli is a sharp person who knows finance - her take on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-tavakoli/renewed-hope-that-jon-cor_b_1466744.html

S.V. Airlie
03-06-2013, 09:01 PM
Holder ain't no Teddy Roosevelt.

TomF
03-06-2013, 09:52 PM
No. But congress ain't gonna pass new laws to regulate anything either. Anyone think Boehner or McConnell would entertain such?

elf
03-06-2013, 10:07 PM
My sitting senator is on it.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2013, 07:08 AM
No. But congress ain't gonna pass new laws to regulate anything either. Anyone think Boehner or McConnell would entertain such?Why bother making MORE laws, if the gov. won't enforce them?

TomF
03-07-2013, 08:32 AM
Why bother making MORE laws, if the gov. won't enforce them?While this is somewhat rhetorical, it's also true. You're currently in the middle of sequestration. Apparently the laws you now have are so byzantine that they're all but unenforceable - doubtless a relic of effective lobbying and past partisan battles.

Given that, which current services would you prefer to be preferentially cut, in order to increase the manpower devoted to prosecuting the Banks enough to be successful? Bearing in mind that this is the sector most able to afford the smartest lawyer gunslingers out there, and the existing laws are apparently twitchy enough to be unenforceable with current resources.

Either simplify the laws so that there's less room for the gunslingers to find wiggle room (the Boehner/McConnell problem), or massively step up your funding for prosecutorial lawyers. While taking the money from somewhere else, during this sequestration period. You choose.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2013, 08:43 AM
Look, I consider Holder as Obama's whipping boy. When something an incident, a possible illegal activity comes to light, Obama just points to Holder and states that the Attorney Gen will look into it and he himself, as president, is horrified over what happened...Followed by a wink. Outcome; the issue conveniently disappears and everyone forgets.

ccmanuals
03-07-2013, 12:16 PM
Look, I consider Holder as Obama's whipping boy. When something an incident, a possible illegal activity comes to light, Obama just points to Holder and states that the Attorney Gen will look into it and he himself, as president, is horrified over what happened...Followed by a wink. Outcome; the issue conveniently disappears and everyone forgets.

got any examples?

Osborne Russell
03-07-2013, 12:20 PM
Look, I consider Holder as Obama's whipping boy. When something an incident, a possible illegal activity comes to light, Obama just points to Holder and states that the Attorney Gen will look into it and he himself, as president, is horrified over what happened...Followed by a wink. Outcome; the issue conveniently disappears and everyone forgets.

You never thought that about Gonzalez.

Dan McCosh
03-07-2013, 12:24 PM
Lanny Breuer made a similar remark attempting to explain why there have been virtually no bank prosecutions, despite the obvious fraud. Then he resigned.

David W Pratt
03-07-2013, 12:39 PM
CC:
Fast and Furious?
New Black Panthers intimidating voters?
Failure to enforce Defense of Marriage Act?
Just off the top of my head

CWSmith
03-07-2013, 12:47 PM
When the Attorney General of the United States admits some banks are simply too big to prosecute, it might be time to admit we have a problem -- and that goes for both the financial and justice systems.

So much for the liberal President I thought I voted for 4 years ago.

hanleyclifford
03-07-2013, 01:10 PM
So much for the liberal President I thought I voted for 4 years ago. I wonder if you guys will ever figure it out: both parties are in on it.

ccmanuals
03-07-2013, 01:18 PM
CC:
Fast and Furious?
New Black Panthers intimidating voters?
Failure to enforce Defense of Marriage Act?
Just off the top of my head

I would add to that failure to prosecute Bush and Cheney for treason.

PhaseLockedLoop
03-07-2013, 01:39 PM
I wonder if you guys will ever figure it out: both parties are in on it.

It's very seldom I agree with you, but in this case of course you're right. To Democrats only now becoming aware of it, I can only borrow a remark from youth:

Light dawns on Marblehead.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2013, 02:09 PM
got any examples?Umm yes! You have a short memory don't you. Expected. Note his responses during congressional her8ings. Withholding info, Basically pleading the fifth. Not giving 8info requested. Appears he has used this approach often and expected, the issues raised are conveniently forgotten. I expect it now. Ho9meland security and all that!

ccmanuals
03-07-2013, 02:14 PM
Umm yes! You have a short memory don't you. Expected. Note his responses during congressional her8ings. Withholding info, Basically pleading the fifth. Not giving 8info requested. Appears he has used this approach often and expected, the issues raised are conveniently forgotten. I expect it now. Ho9meland security and all that!

Just as I thought. You have none.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2013, 02:19 PM
I just couldn't decide which o0ne! As expected from a terminally forgetful o0f a lib, I would expect no9 other re3sponse. What happened to arms for drugs deal? Right, nothing! .

ccmanuals
03-07-2013, 02:25 PM
I just couldn't decide which o0ne! As expected from a terminally forgetful o0f a lib, I would expect no9 other re3sponse. What happened to arms for drugs deal? Right, nothing! .

Arms for drugs? That was Iran Contra under Reagan.

If you meant Fast and Furious.....
Then what happened that prompted Darrell Issa to drop the whole thing?
Think about it.
Use the google. It's your friend.

S.V. Airlie
03-07-2013, 03:15 PM
Ah, might have been. Of course you would blame a repub anyway for everything. How about the military and money for ex? Is that closer to home for ya? What's the excuse there? Can't blame Reagan, he is dead. Second thought, you can!

skuthorp
03-07-2013, 03:34 PM
From another thread, how about sooling this man, or his present day equivalent, on to them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/el-salvador-iraq-police-squads-washington
After all there is precedent.

ccmanuals
03-07-2013, 05:04 PM
Ah, might have been. Of course you would blame a repub anyway for everything. How about the military and money for ex? Is that closer to home for ya? What's the excuse there? Can't blame Reagan, he is dead. Second thought, you can!

"military and money for ex?"

What in the world are you talking about?

Gerarddm
03-07-2013, 05:28 PM
Airlie, it is difficult to follow you when you substitute numbers for letters. I feel dyslexic. Please stop doing that.


BTW, thread drift of my own thread: Reagan should have been impeached over Iran-Contra.

Osborne Russell
03-07-2013, 07:28 PM
Umm yes! You have a short memory don't you. Expected. Note his responses during congressional her8ings. Withholding info, Basically pleading the fifth. Not giving 8info requested. Appears he has used this approach often and expected, the issues raised are conveniently forgotten. I expect it now. Ho9meland security and all that!

Who was Gonzalez?

CWSmith
03-07-2013, 10:01 PM
I wonder if you guys will ever figure it out: both parties are in on it.

No, it's just not that simple. For some it's true values. For others, a lack of courage. Americans would not forgive them a second dip, even if it is vital to our well-being. Voters have short memories and that condemns them to mediocre politicians. It's true - we get the government we deserve.

CWSmith
03-07-2013, 10:11 PM
Sorry. That sounds arrogant. What I mean is that the Republicans worship wealth. They tell it plainly in every election. Democrats claim to fight for the little guy and fairness, they claim to recognize that fairness to all means something, but they never have the courage to admit that some things come with a price. They bend their values to get money to gain re-election. They disappoint me.

Keith Wilson
03-07-2013, 10:12 PM
Here's a list of the largest banks. (http://www.relbanks.com/worlds-top-banks/market-cap) Most of 'em aren't US firms. This is what Mr Holder actually said:


I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

elf
03-07-2013, 11:10 PM
The fact of the matter is that none of these institutions is "American" in any particular sense, any more than any of them is "British" etc. Wherever they're incorporated, if Congress gets on their tail too agressively, they'll just reincorporate themselves in some nation which won't pester them.

And it won't affect their business processes in any way, either.

About the only thing that can be done is to pursue individuals for their personal unscrupulous behavior which, of course, requires expenditures on the US government's part to build an airtight case.

The Regressives aren't going to go for that, and most of the Dems won't either, as they're both dependent upon the system to pay for their reelection campaigns.

If you don't like the way the system is going right now, about the only thing you can do is join and work for organizations which are trying to separate elections from private financing.

CWSmith
03-07-2013, 11:20 PM
The Regressives aren't going to go for that, and most of the Dems won't either, as they're both dependent upon the system to pay for their reelection campaigns.

I am convinced that money is the greatest threat to good government with minimum content voters a close second.

John Smith
03-08-2013, 06:52 AM
I took my stand, no pun intended, when I said I could not convict average people when big people don't even get arrested.

This is a movement that needs to be joined. Average people on juries need to take the same position.

DorinKi
08-12-2013, 01:48 AM
The policy of double standards there ...

skuthorp
08-12-2013, 05:36 AM
Quote Eric Holder: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

Let's face it, the people have lost control of their country. The bankers, lawyers, corporations call the shots and blackmail the politicians into subserviance if they can't buy them straight out. If any institution is "too large to prosecute'' then they control the country, not the Congress, Senate, President or the SC.

Rum_Pirate
08-12-2013, 07:59 AM
The fact of the matter is that none of these institutions is "American" in any particular sense, any more than any of them is "British" etc. Wherever they're incorporated, if Congress gets on their tail too agressively, they'll just reincorporate themselves in some nation which won't pester them.

And it won't affect their business processes in any way, either.

About the only thing that can be done is to pursue individuals for their personal unscrupulous behavior which, of course, requires expenditures on the US government's part to build an airtight case.

The Regressives aren't going to go for that, and most of the Dems won't either, as they're both dependent upon the system to pay for their reelection campaigns.

If you don't like the way the system is going right now, about the only thing you can do is join and work for organizations which are trying to separate elections from private financing.


You mean as big as BP in the Gulf ? ?

Obama certainly went after BP.

How many of these 'too big' banks are bigger than BP?

Waddie
08-13-2013, 02:13 AM
No. But congress ain't gonna pass new laws to regulate anything either. Anyone think Boehner or McConnell would entertain such?

It's not just those you mentioned. Obama has surrounded himself with financial sector people. They sit on most of the real power positions in his administration. You can't just hang this on Congress.

regards,
Waddie