This will be short and very sour.
(As we all know by now) Eric Holder said this yesterday:
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.
Forget the following for a moment, which I wrote yesterday in a comment, and which I strongly believe:
It is arguable at best what severe damage to our economy would be caused by the heads of some of these institutions being taken out in handcuffs, and even prosecuted under RICO statutes, when the criminal activity is so pervasive and is their basic policy.
Confidence would be eroded, says Holder. So what? And for how long?? And that's even a maybe that it would be eroded at all, even in the short term. I believe it would actually help to restore confidence in these institutions.
The long term effect would be quite clear, however, AND beneficial....not to mention, it would foster more competition, and make for better executives, and better industries overall which have institutions that are too big to fail/jail.
I said forget that for a moment, because I thought of a better question for Mr. Holder,
a man who is an attorney, and who routinely deals with minutiae under the law, and strictly literal legal language, as well as theoretical constructs designed for possible future scenarios:
You stated that you cannot “prosecute” or “bring criminal charges” against these institutions. Do you only mean for bank fraud and other "white collar crime"? What about rape? What about murder?
If a bank exec wanted to rape and murder, all he would apparently have to do is send a few memos around and publicize (intra-company publicize) his intentions and his plans (which of course would make it a felony in the first degree); thus making it a company-wide action. And this would apparently make him untouchable from prosecution??
If Holder is to be allowed to make a statement as he made above, I need assurances where he would draw the line. It's bad enough they are too big to be prosecuted for white collar crimes...but...
if the very notion of "prosecuting", and "bringing a criminal charges" (he was not specific about what criminal charges he is talking about) would upset the national and global economies...then, would he EVER charge a bank(er) with ANY crime??
Is this so outrageous a thought?
Mr. Holder, if what you are doing is angling for your post-government private industry job, perhaps you should ensure that you do your present job, while you still have it.
You can always get a job at Fox News or something if the banks won't have you. They would love another token on their staff who lays down like a lamb in front of their lineup of blathering and screaming conservative talking heads.
I would love to say I am being facetious here, about everything, but, sadly, I am really not.
Guess which one is guilty of more RICO predicates and -directly or indirectly- more deaths:
or
Capitalism does not have to be like this!!!
Please check out Aldus Shrugged, a brutal satire, about a job creator who does not think he is The Creator; a novel that will make you feel good.