Skip to main content

View Diary: Wm. Daley Says it is not the President's Job to Prosecute Wall St. - It's Hollywood's. (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ugh. No, that's not what he said. (11+ / 0-)

    He said that pols shouldn't be announcing who should be prosecuted and who shouldn't.  

    He didn't say nobody should be prosecuted.

    He didn't say Hollywood should prosecute, but in reference to a documentary, he said he was in a different position than a filmmaker.

    Or, for that matter, a blogger.  It's one thing for an anonymous person to yell that someone somewhere should be prosecuted for something.  It's another for a person in power to do it.  One's merely gas, the other's a question of civil liberites.

    If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

    by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:32:17 AM PST

    •  Tell that To Bradley Manning (20+ / 0-)

      Obama has a huge amount of power and influence.

      Action is the antidote to despair---Joan Baez

      by frandor55 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:39:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does Daley give his guestimate on Manning? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        second gen, amk for obama

        No.  That would be wrong.

        There's a process by which people's rights are protected that don't include politicians noodling over who should be jailed next.  That's a blogger's "job".

        If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

        by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:32:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bradley Manning's rights are being (9+ / 0-)

          protected?  Is that what you're saying because if that is then just WOW.

          •  Would a guesstimate by Daley on guilt help? (0+ / 0-)

            I mean, I know your point is to somehow drag Manning into this diary and say that the system blows and therefore any old shit is as good as gold

            BUT

            I have a very simple question about Daley and the calls in this diary.  

            Do you want Daley to give his guestimate on guilt, either in Manning's case or any other?

            Yes?  No?

            If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

            by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:56:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You know, even if he was lying (9+ / 0-)

              he could say that we all know that some things that were going on were not on the up and up and that the SEC and other financial watchdogs in the government are doing their best to track down and stop those types of people from doing harm to our market.  That would be too crazy for some people though I guess...

              Too crazy because Daley's job is to bring the love from Wall Street to the White House - to fill the 2012 war chest.  He couldn't possibly acknowledge wrong-doing or suggest that this Administration is intent on helping to stop said wrong-doing.  Hell, what if one of their biggest supporters was guilty of some of the crimes?  That would be bad.  If they went after him, there'd be no big checks in the mail...

              People don't have the right to operate under a separate set of laws or outside of the law in this country.  The Obama Administration is not protecting anyone's rights in this situation.  They are giving special deference to a small elite group and in reality diminishing the rights of everyone else by ignoring the wrong-doing.

              But they've got young Bradley Manning naked and catatonic in some cell!  They call him an enemy of the state, but the bankers who've systematically stolen our national wealth - they're best friends for life.

              •  The ICFC (inquiry into the causes of the financial (6+ / 0-)

                crisis) -- a government commission -- recently came out with a report that stated bluntly that the financial crisis was caused by massive frauds committed by a particular list of people.

                Given that, anyone like Daley who claims that the President shouldn't start singling out people to prosecute is just spreading information.  The list of people to prosecute was already found by an impartial commission, folks.

                Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:56:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  OMFG. (0+ / 0-)
                he could say that we all know that some things that were going on were not on the up and up and that the SEC and other financial watchdogs in the government are doing their best to track down and stop those types of people from doing harm to our market.

                Of course, that IS what's happening.  It's pointed out in the comments.  And sneered at.

                That sort of vague pablum is precisely the sort of shit that would get creamed on daily kos if it were said by anyone other than someone trying to score cheap points on Daley.

                They call him an enemy of the state, but the bankers who've systematically stolen our national wealth -

                Yes, well, let us know which statute is violated by whatever you're complaining about and we'll send it to the AG.   But unless you can think someone can be iindicted for being "banksters", you're wasting your time and mine.

                If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

                by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:36:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I've represented plenty of defendants (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mmacdDE, blue jersey mom, Badabing

            in  federal custody treated similarly to Bradley Manning.  I don't understand why nobody gives a damn about any of the thousands like him.

            •  I do. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, Badabing

              Child of a criminal defense attorney.  I don't even really believe in jail except in very extreme cases where it is apparent that people are actually dangerous.  

            •  Oh Bullshit (7+ / 0-)

              Please list a single name out of all of the thousands of people who are being held in Federal pre-trial detention under the same conditions as Bradly Manning.

              Here are the conditions Manning is currently being held under:

               

              Amnesty International wrote in January 2011 to the U.S. Secretary of Defense about his detention, writing that he was being held in a 72-square-foot cell, with no window, furnished only by a bed, toilet and sink, with meals taken in his cell, no contact with other pre-trial detainees, and with one hour outside the cell every 24 hours for exercise. There was access to a television when it was placed for limited periods in the corridor just outside his cell, and he was allowed to keep one book and one magazine in his cell—according to Leigh and Harding he had requested Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason—but otherwise no writing materials, though access to them was given during allotted times. He was being shackled during attorney and family or social visits.
              In addition to the maximum-custody conditions, Amnesty wrote that he was being held under a "Prevention of Injury" (PIA) assignment, which entailed checks by guards every five minutes, and no sleeping during the day; his lawyer David Coombs—a former serviceman and military attorney—said he was not allowed to sleep after 5 am, and if tried to, he was made to stand or sit up. Amnesty wrote that the PIA assignment also involved him remaining visible at all times, including at night. This meant he had no access to sheets or a separate pillow; he was required to sleep in boxer shorts, and had experienced chafing of the skin from heavy blankets.  David House, the computer scientist who is allowed to visit him twice a month, told reporters in December 2010 that Manning's mental and physical health were deteriorating.  Manning's lawyer told The New York Times in March 2011 that Manning had been required to strip naked, had been left in his cell without clothes for seven hours, and had been required to stand naked outside his cell for inspection. A Marine spokesman said a brig duty supervisor had ordered that the clothing be removed, and said it was in accordance with brig rules.

              Now, just supply the name of a single person in Federal pre-trial detention, who is forced to be naked 7 hours a night, stand at attention naked every morning, must respond to his guards every 5 minutes, is held in solitary confinment, and is prohibited from sleeping and exerecising in his or her cell.  Oh yes, and who has been declared NOT to be a danger to himself or others by mental health professionals employed at the federal detention facility.  

              I have $100 that says you can't name a single person.        

        •  Concerned about Manning's rights? (10+ / 0-)

          If true, why is Obama allowing them to torture him before he's even been charged with a crime?

    •  Amazing, so tell me again who AG Holder reports (21+ / 0-)

      to?  And this is what Daley said:

      Pressed a bit further, Daley refused once again to say whether “it is illegitimate or not” for the people to demand jail time for the culprits of the crash. “Politicians should not get involved. Producers, directors can do that. But politicians should not get involved.”

      Day in and day out we hear politicians stating their intent to 'go after and investigate certain people'.  Case in point Darrell Issa, who wants, 'lots and lots of investigations.'

      Get a grip.  Politicians make laws every single day, and to pretend that the President is not responsible for rubber stamping the continual torture going on, or that he is responsible for the endless wars or the entirely failed HAMP program is laughable at best.

      “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

      by Badabing on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:40:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um. NEITHER ONE should be noodling (6+ / 0-)

        over who might be guilty of crimes.  It's wrong for either one of them.

        It's wrong for everyone from top to bottom.  Being accused in the press of criminal actions is a threat to civil liberties, when it comes from an official.  

        Leave the accusations to an anonymous blogger who can't name a person or a law that's been broken and nobody cares about.

        If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

        by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:34:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have a theory (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue jersey mom, shrike, cheforacle

        as to which specific crimes were committed, along with sufficient evidence to guarantee a conviction?  Or a general sense of something went wrong so someone should pay?  I distinctly recall a lot of bankers (note the proper spelling) losing a lot of their own money, which cuts against a finding of criminal intent.  The point being, it's nothing to lose a lot of money, through negligence alone.  

        The problem was always with incentives, and the Dodd-Frank bill at least did something to address those, as well as to limit the "fat tail" risk of credit-default swaps, by requiring the holding of adequate capital against them and wind-up authority.  

        There might well have been crimes committed, though I'd look at mortgage origination by small players.  In terms of deterrence, losing a shit-ton of money is generally sufficient.  Vengeance?  That's not my style, or Obama's.  (Whether or not Daley speaks for Obama is irrelevant -- of course he does, but there's nothing wrong with what he said.)

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:06:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the FCIC already pointed out who to prosecute (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, cpresley, Badabing

          Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report.  Look it up.

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:57:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Cases should be going through (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman
          The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sustained, in substantial part, securities fraud claims against Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE:C) and certain of its senior officers – including Citigroup's former CEO Charles Prince, former CFO Gary Crittenden, and former Chairman Robert Rubin – centering on Citigroup's collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs").

          link

          Of course, this was back in November that it was found that it was ok to go ahead and pursue a lawsuit.  As of February, Rubin was speaking before the Democratic Governors Association.  His protegee's are still running the whole Wall Street swindle.

          That crimes were committed is incontrovertible.  That they have been known about and overlooked by the administration is also entirely incontrovertible.

          WikiLeaks and Net Neutrality; our last, best hopes.

          by chipmo on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:23:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a civil suit (0+ / 0-)

            entirely different.

            "incontrovertible" is not an argument.  Without more, it's not enough to accuse the administration of acting in bad faith.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:33:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  If wishes were horses, kossacks would be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen

      ken starr's.

      One bitter fact is two bit hacks populate the third rate fourth estate who are truly the fifth columnists.

      by amk for obama on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:47:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Par for the course, isn't it? (8+ / 0-)

      I have to laugh at a bunch of these comments.  They obviously didn't read Daley's exact words.  They only read the diary's twisted headline, which was good enough for them.  Manufactured outrage gone amuck. Again.

      The DOJ prosecutes, not elected politicians.  How quickly they forget what happens when politicians get involved in prosecutions, like Rove's involvement in the Former Alabama Gov Don Siegelman's.  These guys were pretty outraged about that, yet demand the Dems turn around and do the same thing?  Bizarre, if not laughable.

      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

      by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:50:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't read today's news headlines (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen, amk for obama, Loge

          huh (see my comment below)?

          Helps to do that now and again.

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

          by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:04:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I guess I have to retract (15+ / 0-)

          my praise of Obama for decided not to defend DOMA, since clearly it was inappropriate for him to be involved in that decision.

          •  who's being prosecuted (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Inland

            under the DOMA?

            You're comparing apples to oranges.

          •  Actually, that was done in court. (0+ / 0-)

            Explained in a statement, but that's court action.

            What you're suggesting is that Daley noodling over who should be prosecuted next is equivalent to a court action, which is precisely backwards.   We don't have our elected officials just give their druthers on who they'd like to see prosecuted...for something...next.  It's a civil liberties issue.

            If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

            by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:49:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Point is, (12+ / 0-)

              the independence of the justice department is a myth. The White House regularly exerts power over the JD -- from deciding where KSM should be tried (with Rahm trying to work out a deal with Graham) to decisions involving gay rights. I don't know if that's the way it should be; it's just the way it is, so it's selective to claim that the White House couldn't in a general way press for prosecutions of the banksters. In terms of saying so and so should be prosecuted, I'm not sure (although the White House in the form of Joe Biden had no compunction about calling Julian Assange a terrorist.)

              In any case, the problem here, as always, is the context. Had Obama been tough, instead of soft, on the banksters, no one here would have a problem with these words. But then if Obama had been tough, instead of soft, on the banksters, he wouldn't have hired the POS to be his COS. And so it goes.

              •  No, that's precisely NOT the point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shrike

                It's not better if the AG noodles over people's guilt than if Obama does it or the USA does it.

                I know you're working hard to blame Obama, but you're blaming him for not doing something he shouldn't do.  Period.

                In the USA, we don't have elected officials speculating over people's guilt like they were bloggers.   Or prosecutors, either, for that matter.

                it's just the way it is, so it's selective to claim that the White House couldn't in a general way press for prosecutions of the banksters.

                Of course, people are being prosecuted, which is information that is sneered at by people who wish Daley would assert that being a bankster is a felony.  Bloggers like what bloggers do; bloggers don't care about actual prosecutions, bloggers care about someone flapping their gums.

                If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

                by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:41:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  whoops, you did again (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cpresley, aliasalias, Badabing, TomP

                  projected your Obama fixation onto me. I'm not interested in blaming Obama. I'm interested in not having the banks rec the country. Again.

                  The mild prosecution of a few low-level banksters is a joke, especially compared to the diligence with which Obama-Holder has prosecuted, for example, illegal immigrants.

                  There's nothing stopping Obama from announcing that bank executives should pay for what they did to the country. Nothing except his ideological and temperamental inclinations.  

                  I suspect you know deep down that the banksters have gotten away with murder, but to admit such would to indirectly criticize Obama, whom you've never, not once, criticized (I shit you not, people) in more than 54,000 comments. If anyone can find one comment in there critical of Obama, I'll send you a cash prize.

                  •  Heh. And you do it again. (0+ / 0-)

                    First you say:

                    The White House regularly exerts power over the JD -- from deciding

                    Then you say you're not about blaming Obama.

                    Then you go back to:

                    There's nothing stopping Obama

                    Not only are you blaming Obama, but you're blaming him for something NOBODY in the admin should be doing.  It's wrong for any elected official or prosecutor to noodle about prosecutions.  

                    There's nothing stopping Obama from announcing that bank executives should pay for what they did to the country

                    Which, of course, would be denounced as weak beer because it's not prosecutions at all, but merely setting up some vague enemy for doing some vague thing.

                    But maybe you can teach him how to avoid any follow up question, like "who are you talking about" and "how should they pay" and "what crimes did they commit?"

                    Because that's the thing about you being a nobody blogger who can just throw stuff out: you refuse to answer those questions, change the subject to an ad hom, and you can pat yourself on the back for having a good day, and nobody gives a shit.

                    It's a little different when you don't have the power to take the fifth and you have to go back to work the next day and the question is still hanging out there.  Unlike you, Obama doesn't have the ability or the interest in declaring himself too pure to divulge details, and he has to govern, not put out weakass slogans.

                    But what do you care.  You're not about helping anyone, or punishing anyhone,  you're about you patting yourself on the back because you think you've won some sort of point on the blogosphere.  You're not a very serious person.

                    If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

                    by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:35:01 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  +1 (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mattman, greeseyparrot, cpresley, Badabing

                      We're up to 54260 comments, without a critical word of Obama, which is an accomplishment actually.

                      Of course I mention Obama when I talk about the issues I care about; he's president -- his name comes up.

                      The difference between you and me is that I both praise and criticize him, depending.

                      •  Heh. As proof you're not fixated on Obama (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TenthMuse

                        you raise your new fixation: me and whether I'm praising Obama.  Like that's different.

                        Don't worry, everyone is spellbound by your bloggy tactics, nobody has noticed that you've managed to dodge the issue of who should pay, how, and for what.

                        It's really sad: you're so anxious to avoid addressing those issues, you'd rather look like a person who is obsessed about me.  Frankly, you seemed MORE serious when you were using your obsession about Obama to dodge the issues.  Using me is a little sad and icky.

                        If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

                        by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:03:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  One's a question of legal interpretation, (0+ / 0-)

            the other is the application of laws to specific facts.  Analogy doesn't hold up.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:07:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  It does if you tell the truth about it. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, neroden, Badabing

          Then, it prosecutes even more aggressively than GW Bush.

          If your issue is still Democrat vs. Republican, you've been punked by the Oligarchy.

          by MrJayTee on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:29:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  And if Holder doesn't prosecute? (10+ / 0-)

        Can you justify why Holder has not (or doesn't in the future) prosecute some Wall Streeters?

        And why can Obama speak about prosecuting or hunting down terrorists but not Wall Street thieves?  

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:58:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inland, Loge

          you've probably missed some.

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

          by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:03:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Close, but no cigar. (8+ / 0-)

            Actually, not so close.  Inside trading did not bring down the financial system.  

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:10:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course it had a hand in it (0+ / 0-)

              Many things had a hand in bringing down the financial system.  Hedge fund crimes was part of it.  We've been screaming about that here for a couple of years now.

              "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

              by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:26:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Insider trading has been going on forever. If it (10+ / 0-)

                had a hand in the collapse, it was, at best, beyond infinitesimal.  From the article you link to:

                Prosecutors allege Sri Lankan-born Rajaratnam made $45 million in illicit profits through tips from former friends and associates.

                bold mine

                $45 million?  Those guys put that much out in a single sneeze.  In fact, I'm surprised this is the biggest insider trading prosecution in a generation.  Compared to the trillions lost in the collapse, this is nothing - and unrelated.

                The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                by accumbens on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:35:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I knew it wouldn't satisfy you, of course (0+ / 0-)

                  you want to make excuses for this silly diary.

                  That's ok.  I expected nothing less.

                  But there are many other ongoing investigations, I've linked to a few below.

                  Not that you're really interested, of course.

                  Have a pleasant day.

                  "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

                  by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:43:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't be ridiculous. I'm not defending this diary (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Badabing, Loge

                    In fact, I've posted a comment elsewhere in this diary regarding Obama wanting to increase funding a task force on financial crime at the DOJ.

                    The fact is you are simply wrong about this insider trading case being a part of the financial meltdown.  So instead of taking your ball and going home, just say, "Thanks, I misinterpreted the implications of this case."  But you seem intent on something other than addressing what I responded to.

                    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                    by accumbens on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:52:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Are you saying (0+ / 0-)

                      that hedge fund managers had nothing to do with the financial meltdown?

                      I don't care if they prosecute these people for insider trading or anything else, as long as they're prosecuted.  Just like I don't care they put Al Capone behind bars for tax invasion instead of murder, as long as it put him behind bars.

                      It achieved the same purpose.

                      "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

                      by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:27:16 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Are you changing your argument? (0+ / 0-)

                        Sure, it's possible some hedge fund managers were involved, although the real culprits seem to be those associated with major organizations.  Some hedge fund managers saw what the Lehman Bros. types were doing and bet against them, cleaning up in the process.  The big problem was that banks and insurance companies were holding securities that were worth nothing or of unknown value.  That's where the truly big money was.

                        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

                        by accumbens on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:41:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  The FCIC was quite clear on the causes... (6+ / 0-)

                ...of the financial crisis.  Insider trading didn't have any role in it whatsoever.  Massive, systemic criminal fraud, however, did.

                Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:12:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  No, stupidity and short-sightedness did (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shrike

              Neither is necessarily a crime.  The DOJ did a trial run with two Bear Stearns traders, and they lost big time.  There were people on the jury who said they'd invest money with those traders, whose long bets on the housing market were the first failures of the crisis, in August 2007.  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:10:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  That's insider trading. (9+ / 0-)

            Ripping off other rich people.   Now link me to one who's getting prosecuted for stealing from the rest of us.

            ...

            ...

            yeah, there isn't one.  Because it's just business.

            They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

            by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:33:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not even close. What about the FCIC report? (4+ / 0-)

            It named specific companies and specific departments at those companies which committed major frauds.  Prosecutions?  I don't see any.

            Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

            by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:02:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Don't you think "who" and "for what" matter? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shrike

          Unlike bloggers, prosecutors can't just ignore those questions, or respond vaguely.  They have to name names, cite acts or omissions, and find some federal statute they broke.

          But amazingly enough, everyone's mad at Daley for not assuring us that he'll find someone to prosecute for something under some statute, as if that's actually helpful and not merely venting.  At least, I'd HOPE it would be merely venting and not a signal to just round up a few people for a show trial.

          If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

          by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:39:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, do you want a list of the investigations that (12+ / 0-)

        Darrell Issa is planning?

           

        In investigating the impact of regulation on job creation, the committee plans to ask why the economy hasn’t “created the private sector jobs the president has promised,” and he’s calling in business leaders to explain “about the government regulations that are doing the most harm to job creation efforts.”

            “The committee will examine how overregulation has hurt job creation and whether the administration intends to try and abuse the regulatory process to implement regulations that Congress would reject,” according to an outline of committee hearing topics.

            The committee will also delve into international affairs in new depth, examining corruption in Afghanistan and the WikiLeaks disclosures. Issa plans to request testimony from National Security Adviser Tom Donilon to discuss whether the Obama administration has a strategy for combating the leaking of such sensitive information, and he also will call on constitutional experts to discuss how the government can stop organizations from leaking documents of a sensitive nature.

            Issa is also pushing a broad investigation of the foreclosure crisis, but he wants to dig deeper into the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – conservatives have long complained that these government-backed housing giants have escaped scrutiny. The committee will also dig into the administration’s foreclosure mitigation program, calling the Federal Housing Administration’s chief and non-government experts. Issa and Cummings have agreed that foreclosures should be the topic of one of the committee’s first hearings.

            Issa also wants to study why the financial crisis commission couldn’t reach consensus last year. He’d like to call Phil Angelides and former Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), the chair and ranking member of the committee, to determine if there was any agreement on the panel in relation to the cause of the meltdown.

            The Food and Drug Administration is also going to get a good look, especially in the wake of Issa’s outspokenness about a recall of Motrin.

        http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/...

        And it is not like the Democrats haven't pushed AG Holder to do his fucking job:

        House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the other California Democrats are calling for an investigation into the foreclosure fraud scandal that has forced the nation's biggest banks to halt foreclosures in 23 states.

        "It just shows the irresponsibility of the banks, so eager were they to securitize those loans they didn't care almost what they were," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in an interview with HuffPost on Tuesday.

        Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Ally Financial (formerly known as GMAC) halted foreclosures in 23 states after employees admitted in sworn depositions that they didn't verify information in thousands of foreclosure documents.

        The California delegation sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan demanding an investigation into "possible violations of law or regulations by financial institutions in their handling of delinquent mortgages, mortgage modifications, and foreclosures."

        Another example of a Democratic telling AG Holder to do his fucking job:

        Dear Attorney General Holder:

        I am deeply concerned about the facts that have come to light regarding the demise of Lehman Brothers and the accounting manipulation that contributed to it. I respectfully ask you to commission a task force to investigate the Lehman situation as well as other companies that may have engaged in similar accounting manipulation with a view to prosecution of employees or agents who contributed to any violations of the law.

        According to the Report of the U.S. Trustee-appointed Examiner Anton R. Valukas, Lehman presented a misleading picture of its financial condition to the public by using extensive repurchase agreements known as Repo 105 transactions. The Examiner found that "Lehman did not disclose its use - or the significant magnitude of its use - of Repo 105 to the Government, to the rating agencies, to its investors, or to its own Board of Directors." The result was to conceal its holdings of bad assets and to temporarily remove approximately $50 billion of assets from its balance sheet at the end of the first and second quarters of 2008. The Examiner found that Lehman used Repo 105 transactions for no other articulated purpose than to shrink its balance sheet at the quarter-end, in a manner that deceived investors and creditors about its true financial state and misleading others.

        We must work tirelessly to reduce the incidence of financial fraud in order to restore trust and confidence in the financial markets. A task force investigation and taking appropriate Federal actions in these matters will contribute to these goals.

        Sincerely,

        Christopher J. Dodd
        Chairman

        Give it a rest edwardssi, again, who in the hell do you think AG Holder reports to?

        “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

        by Badabing on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:11:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, DOJ investigations (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shrike, Loge

          Goldman Sachs

          Markit

          Lehman Bros/UBS

          I found within a minute.  Anyone with a Google can find them.  I'd list more but I had to leave for a doctor's appt.

          I'm sure that won't do for you, though.

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

          by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:40:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And the outcome of those 'fake investigations' (4+ / 0-)

            you list?  Oh, right a slap on the wrist by the complicit SEC,  now I remember.

            “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

            by Badabing on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:44:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  so, are you interested in investigations, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sviscusi, shrike

              or just what you believe to be the proper conclusions of those investigations?  

              Should the DOJ be concerned with what can hold up in court?

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:12:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  So very wrong it's laughable (8+ / 0-)

            First, you articles are from 2008-2009 just talking about investigations. The first involving GOldman Sachs was resolved by payment of $300 million fine and restoration of $250 million to investors.  Not small potatoes, but certainly no frog walk and not devastating to GS in any case.

            I suggest you read a recent article by Joe Nocera in the NY Times.  For example:

            The only two people on Wall Street to have been prosecuted for their roles in the crisis are a pair of minor Bear Stearns executives, Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, whose internal hedge fund, stuffed with triple-A mortgage-backed paper, collapsed in the summer of 2007, an event that anticipated the crisis. A jury acquitted them.

            What's even more pathetic, under Reagan when the S&L industry collapsed:

            In time, nearly 1,000 savings and loans — a third of the industry — collapsed, costing the government billions. According to William K. Black, a former regulator who teaches law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, “There were over 1,000 felony convictions in major cases” involving executives of the thrifts. Solomon L. Wisenberg, a lawyer who writes for a blog on white collar crime, said, “The prosecutions were hugely successful.”

            That is partly because the federal government threw enormous resources at those investigations. There were a dozen or more Justice Department task forces. Over 1,000 F.B.I. agents were involved. The government attitude was that it would do whatever it took to bring crooked bank executives to justice.

            Yes, just a little research can go a long way in clearing things up.

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:12:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Following your links.... (5+ / 0-)

            First link - 04/29/10 11:07 PM  -  Nearly a year old.  Refers to an investigation, not criminal charges. Article also mentions civil charges, which i've heard nothing else about.

            Second Link - July 14, 2009 09:43 EDT  -  this happened over a year and a half ago.  Again, haven't heard anything else on it.  Again, nothing about actual charges. Doesn't take nearly that long to decide to prosecute a person who robs a bank.  

            Third Link - October 2, 2008, 12:28 pm -  See where I'm going with this?  From the article:

            Federal prosecutors in Washington, DC are reportedly considering whether “to charge David Shulman, who ran the auction-rate-securities business for Swiss banking giant UBS, with insider trading for selling his own holdings of auction-rate securities ahead of that market’s collapse,” the WSJ reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.

            Incidentally, that would have been Bush's DOJ.

            Google has failed you, [brother/sister]

            They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

            by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:21:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So what's your point about Issa? (0+ / 0-)

          What does that have to do with your diary?

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

          by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:16:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Unless the President tells the DOJ (10+ / 0-)

        not to prosecute.

        Like when he gave a speech in public stating that those who tortured on Bush's orders wouldn't be held accountable?

        The DoJ answers to the President, and the AG serves at his pleasure.

        Will the revolution be easier if we HR each other a lot?

        by JesseCW on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:28:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama made the right call (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE

          The most important thing is not to continue the torture programs, which actually stopped under Bush once Jack Goldsmith replaced John Yoo at OLC.  The second most important thing is to get things done as POTUS, which couldn't have happened if Holder put Rumsfeld or Cheney in the dock.  Third, there's no guarantee any of those convictions would hold up, and from Obama on down, everyone knew it.  The jury might buy the defense's inevitable fear argument, plus proving specific criminal intent (as with wall st. issues) would be very hard -- they by all accounts relied on bona fide, if flat wrong, legal advice.

          I think we need to learn to distinguish between Justice and Vengeance.  

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:16:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, what? (7+ / 0-)

            The air rushing into your moral vacuum is making it hard to hear.

            If your issue is still Democrat vs. Republican, you've been punked by the Oligarchy.

            by MrJayTee on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:34:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So you agree with me that (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cpresley, Badabing, MrJayTee, Johnny Q

            the DoJ does in fact answer to the President, and that its his call to make.

            Thank you for ceding my point in its entirety.

            Will the revolution be easier if we HR each other a lot?

            by JesseCW on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:25:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  True in part (0+ / 0-)

              I think the President can veto a prosecution but he can't order one -- the DOJ lawyers have independent responsibilities to the Court.  Here, the President's comments mooted the issue, but it's still not certain whether there would have or could have been prosecutions that Obama blocked.

              Regardless of whose call it is to make, I'm not willing to infer bad faith from outcomes, without a more fulsome discussion of the underlying legal arguments.  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:45:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Are you serious? (5+ / 0-)
            Obama made the right call
            I think we need to learn to distinguish between Justice and Vengeance.

            I think we need to learn to distinguish between bullshit and the rule of law.

          •  Sweeping torture under the rug (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greeseyparrot, MrJayTee

            is a crime itself.  Obama put himself in the dock with that "looking forward" bullshit.

            You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

            by Johnny Q on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:48:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The duty to prosecute (0+ / 0-)

              only arises with respect to acts that meet the standard under domestic law, including the specific intent requirement.  Moreover, the text of the Convention Against Torture does not completely remove discretion -- it both says that normal procedures should be followed and only requires that allegations be "submitted" to the appropriate prosecutor and that the government have jurisdiction.  Either way, there's a legal case not to prosecute (as well as a practical one), and it's such that it's not possible to argue that it makes Obama "complicit."  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:01:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Diff btw rove and obama. (7+ / 0-)

        Rove orchestrated the railroading of a rival politician who was innocent.

        Obama orchestrated the refusal to hold wall street accountable for their theft of trillions from the american people..

        you get the difference, right?

        They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

        by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:36:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're really stretching. (0+ / 0-)

          Have fun with that.

          "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

          by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:41:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Half of your comment is missing (5+ / 0-)

            The part where you tell me how that is a stretch.   This thing is apparently still buggy like that.  care to repost?

            They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

            by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:43:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Provide proof (0+ / 0-)
              Obama orchestrated the refusal to hold wall street accountable for their theft of trillions from the american people..

              I want evidence from you to substantiate that accusation.  Substantial evidence.

              Otherwise, it's a stretch.

              "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

              by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:48:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, here's some circumstancial evidence. (7+ / 0-)

                A)  Obama is POTUS, and in charge of the entire executive branch of government.

                B) DOJ is part of the executive branch.  They are in charge of prosecuting crimes.

                C) with the caveat that I'm no attorney, I'm reasonably certain that widespread fraud resulting in the acquisition of at least 1.5 TRILLION dollars from the American taxpayers violates at least a couple of our laws.

                D) The DOJ is not prosecuting them, and therefore derelict in their duty of enforcing the law.

                E) It therefore falls to POTUS to either direct them to prosecute, or appoint an AG who will do his job.

                F) Obama has done neither, and is therefore ultimately responsible for allowing the biggest heist in the history of the world to go unpunished.

                "orchestrated" was a rhetorical flower, i admit it.  Maybe he actively told the DOJ not to prosecute.  We have no way of knowing that, as that sort of thing isn't generally made public; so that line of thinking is, as you correctly pointed out, devoid of hard evidence.

                However, it is certainly not a stretch to say that Obama is at the very least passively allowing the financial giants to get away with, and even reap huge rewards from, their crimes.

                They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

                by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:09:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But he's just one man! (7+ / 0-)

                  Granted, one man at the top of the most powerful entity that ever existed, but still....hidden forces, looking forward not back, he's not a king,  blah blah blah.

                  A powerful and righteous man...who has no power and has no choice but to give in to the enemies of what's right.  What pretzles are the minds of these rationalizers.

                  If your issue is still Democrat vs. Republican, you've been punked by the Oligarchy.

                  by MrJayTee on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:39:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  (C) is supported by the FCIC report (3+ / 0-)

                  Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, for those who have forgotten.

                  Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                  by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:05:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Can't provide proof (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  shrike

                  Of course.

                  Hyperbole.  You guys thrive on it.

                  "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK

                  by edwardssl on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:11:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What part of the in the FCIC report do you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Whimsical Rapscallion

                    need to see?  you are amazing.

                    The bipartisan panel appointed by Congress to investigate the financial crisis has concluded that several financial industry figures appear to have broken the law and has referred multiple cases to state or federal authorities for potential prosecution, according to two sources directly involved in the deliberations.

                    The sources, who spoke on condition they not be named, declined to identify the people implicated or the names of their institutions. But they characterized the panel's decision to make referrals to prosecutors as a significant escalation in the government's response to the financial crisis. The panel plans to release its final report in Washington on Thursday morning.

                    In the three years since major lenders teetered on the brink of collapse, prompting huge taxpayer rescues and amplifying an already painful recession into the most punishing downturn since the Depression, public indignation has swelled while few people who played prominent roles in the crisis have faced legal consequences.

                    That may be about to change. According to the law that created the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the panel has a responsibility to refer for prosecution any evidence of lawbreaking. The offices that have received the referrals -- the Justice Department, state attorneys general, and perhaps both -- must now determine whether to prosecute cases and, if so, whether to pursue criminal or civil charges.

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                    Read the report here, only do us all a favor.  Stop telling us bullshit.

                    http://www.fcic.gov/...

                    “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

                    by Badabing on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 12:02:46 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  So what? (0+ / 0-)

                    you can't prove the sky is blue.

                    They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

                    by Whimsical Rapscallion on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:10:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  No one is stretching anything, you have a blind (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greeseyparrot, neroden

            fold on.  

            'The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off' comes to mind.

            “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

            by Badabing on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:46:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  "Theft of trillions," (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE, edwardssl, shrike

          so I take it wall street firms still have that money and didn't teter past the brink of insolvency?  If you're referring to TARP or the Fed lending programs, that money not only has largely been paid back but it was lent legally.  Mortgage origination?  The loans were largely made by separate institutions and then re-sold.  And even to the extent a lot of the loans were fraudulent, the first line of defense is with the consumer, and second, with banking regulators who signed off on these exotic products.  (I think there is a ton of civil liability out there, but very little in the way of criminal.)

          If you're talking about Don Siegelman, he's actually guilty -- or so a jury found and an appeals court upheld.  I'm skeptical jury verdicts would hold up in some of the wall street cases, which is the simplest explanation for why they havent' been brought, but once there is a jury verdict, "innocent" is a bit strong.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:20:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You've illustrated my central point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, Johnny Q

            that the rich do not pay for their crimes.

            re:DS?  Juries find lots of innocent people guilty.  Especially juries hand-picked by the prosecution.  Especially when said prosecution is politically motivated.  That's what railroading means.  Doesn't work w/o a guilty verdict.

            They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

            by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:24:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You've also illustrated my point, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edwardssl

              which is that your argument is completely circular.  The question facing the DOJ is whether there was a crime committed that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  And your assessment of each is based on the very assumption that a crime either was or was not committed.  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:28:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Question was answered by the FCIC. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Badabing, Whimsical Rapscallion

                Not answered to the certainty of a conviction, but answered enough to justify indictments.  Seriously, has EVERYONE forgotten about the FCIC?

                Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:15:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The FCIC, if I recall, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  shrike

                  used the phrase "fraud" mostly in connection with mortgage originators, who are generally not what we speak of when we speak of "Wall Street."

                  Anyway, I am agnostic about prosecutions, but what I'm not willing to do is leap to the assumption that the DOJ is acting in bad faith based on assessment of prosecutorial outcomes.  

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:29:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Resonable doubt. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                greeseyparrot, Badabing

                Is a barrier to conviction, not prosecution.  Don't even get me started on the "Less than 100% chance of success means it's not worth doing" school of thought.

                 My argument is that they choose to prosecute some (eg: Seigelman) with very little evidence, all circumstantial, and go to great effort and expense to convince a jury to convict.

                Conversely, they often choose NOT to prosecute despite a wealth of hard evidence readily available to the public (Eg: bush war crimes, widespread fraud of banksters, almost every other Very Rich Person suspected of wrongdoing)

                i don't think it's circular at all.  it's part and parcel of class warfare, and the forbes 400 are not only winning, but have convinced most of us that they are on OUR side.  As long as money can buy influence, attention, jurists, and politicians, this unmitigated disaster will continue.

                They didn't take baby steps when they saved the Rich.

                by Whimsical Rapscallion on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:24:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The FCIC disagreed with you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Badabing

            "criminal fraud" is the phrase they used, if I remember correctly.

            Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

            by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:05:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  She's pathological (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shrike

      Never let the facts get into the way of a good made up rant diary.

    •  Here's a thought (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cato come back, Badabing

      President Obama is having dinner with Eric Holder.

      The President says, "Eric, I think we should go after these folks.   How is the DOJ dealing with this.  By the way, how are the wife and kids?"

      •  And Holder says "which folks?" (5+ / 0-)

        And Obama says, "You know.  Them.  Wall Street".

        And Holder says, "okay, what crime are we talking about?"

        And Obama says, "Being greedy banksters".

        And then Holder gets ready to say something sarcastic about Obama being so helpful in narrowing it down, and instead says that the fish is delicious.

        See, here's a thought: you can't prosecute someone on a thought.  So far, I can't even get a section of the USC code that people are supposed to be prosecuted under.  And Daley is supposed to be cheering on prosecutions in the abstract?  Like the diary.

        If you want a link, I'll look for a link. If you really want it. Just ask.

        by Inland on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:44:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right as (4+ / 0-)
          Fraud Causes Growing Inequality, Which Undermines the Economy

          Growing inequality is very harmful to our economy. Indeed, if wealth is concentrated in too few hands, the "poker game" ends, as one or two fat cats are left with all of the chips. See this, this, this and this.

          Fraud benefits the wealthy more than the poor, because the big banks and big companies have the inside knowledge and the resources to leverage fraud into profits. Joseph Stiglitz noted in September that giants like Goldman are using their size to manipulate the market. The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading (representing up to 70% of all stock trades) and high proportions of other trades as well). This not only distorts the markets, but which also lets the program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider information. See this, this, this, this and this.

          Similarly, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley together hold 80% of the country's derivatives risk, and 96% of the exposure to credit derivatives. They use their dominance to manipulate the market.
          Fraud disproportionally benefits the big players (and helps them to become big in the first place), increasing inequality and warping the market.

          http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/...

          “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

          by Badabing on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:07:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  As usual, you haven't heard of the FCIC? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Badabing

          They specified who had committed what crimes, which should be a blueprint for prosecutions, eh?

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:06:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site