Eric Holder: I didn't prosecute bankers who caused the crisis for reasons unrelated to my $3M/year lawfirm salary
The two biggest fails of the Obama administration:
Not prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes.
Not prosecuting any banksters for malfeasance and incompetence in causing the recession.
It would be illogical for the federal government to prosecute its owners.
Read The Divide, by Matt Taibbi to fathom just how morally bankrupt the Eric Holder Justice Dept was. This is again one of those places where Obama campaigned that he’d do different, but he didn’t.
This and Griftopia are required reading.
Couple things we have to remember about the reporting he did during and after the financial crisis for Rolling Stone - NONE of any of the charges that he made ever had to be walked back, corrected, etc…
He leveled direct shots at very specific individuals and organizations.
The other thing is that the reporting and the books make it easier to understand what exactly happened.
So the next time some jerkoff right winger says that the entire world almost cratered because “the government forced banks to give loans to poor people” you can shove that right bank down their idiot, Fox News watching throats.
It’s interesting that they declined to prosecute based on laws that didn’t quite fit the crimes, and the fact that decision making within the banks was too complex to weed out targets for prosecution.
It is my hope that some day the government will come up with some other means to prosecute large and complex organizations. Perhaps even some type of laws that target illegal interstate commerce…
I’ve always said, it would have been interesting if Al Capone had been charged with some alternative crime like tax fraud rather than the police giving up because there was no such law on the books called “Big Mean Crime Boss Murderer Bootlegger Who May Not Have Directly Done Those Crimes”. Of course, we all know that Al Capone shortly after the repeal of prohibition and retired to a manse in Connecticut where he lived a long and pleasant life.
For me, letting these companies fail seems the more logical approach. It would save us billions in bail-out money and we wouldn’t have to prosecute anyone.
On the other hand, if we do want them to stay afloat and hand them wads of cash to cover their losses, the 'who do we prosecute?" question seems easy enough to me. Prosecute the person at the top. That would make those salaries seem almost reasonable if they knew that salary comes with accepting responsibility for their actions.
That type of cretin is unlikely to be swayed by your “facts” and “evidence”
He does have a family, you think third-world power tactics don’t work in America?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.