Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE: Attorney General Eric Holder to step down this year? Not so fast. (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anybody who objects to Spitzer, (20+ / 0-)

    needs to rethink priorities.   He's the only one that has tried to hold banks and Wall Street accountable.  Guess that makes him too stupid.  

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 12:30:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So it's ok to use state funds for personal use? (0+ / 0-)

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 12:57:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Spitzer gave the only rational explanation of why (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, mmacdDE, dkmich, SoCalSal, nancyjones

      there have not been criminal prosecutions of the more visible senior Wall Street executives that I have heard. It was on a show on CSPAN or PBS and Spitzer said it was nearly impossible to show criminal intent. Most senior executives have learned that if they are doing anything that is legally questionable to make sure that the management is fully briefed on the topic by both in house counsel, and special outside counsel. A file is created showing the diligence provided to the senior management and that it is on advice of counsel that they have approved a particular course of action. If these executives follow that pattern it makes it nearly impossible to indict them for criminal conduct. That doesn't mean the bank can escape civil liability, but it makes it very difficult to show criminal intent of the senior executives.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 12:59:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can information obtained in criminal cases (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        be used in civil cases? Because that alone seems like a reason to go after banks in criminal cases. I'd bet the majority of people don't know they've been taken. The banks admitted mass fraud when they settled the robo-signing settlement.

        If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

        by AoT on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:24:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes they can and do use information from criminal (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, patbahn

          cases in civil matters. The issue is prosecutorial discretion. Nearly all prosecutors, and it's even more true for federal prosecutors, won't file a criminal complaint unless they feel they have a very high probability of a conviction on the criminal charges. The DoJ would not file a criminal charge to go fishing. They would view that as unethical. Plus a criminal complaint would make discovery more difficult, rather than easier. Goldman Sachs would spend $1 billion fighting a criminal complaint against its senior executives but would rather pay that $1 billion in a civil fine without the time and cost of litigation.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:12:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  you check the actual record (0+ / 0-)

        sure a memo from counsel may say "X, Y and Z"
        but there are always emails that say

        "Time to bleed Grandma".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site