Holder: Central Banks/Wall Street too Big to Sue | Drudge Retort

Thursday, March 07, 2013

Holder: Central Banks/Wall Street too Big to Sue

The notion of too big to jail just got very serious as the nation's chief attorney agreed with the idea that financial institutions are too large to prosecute.

US Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill today, and discussed the lack of criminal cases against financial institutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Holder's remarks today may add fuel to that fire.

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," he said. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

Posted by paneocon at 06:48 AM | 26 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Advertisement

Menu

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

Author Info

Joined 2008/11/02
Visited 2013/05/22

Status: user

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

AP CEO: Sources Less Willing to Talk (33 comments) ...

Arends: College Tuition is a Scam (52 comments) ...

IRS Official Over Targeting Now Handles ACA (43 comments) ...

Obama: Rush Limbaugh's fault I can't get anything done (41 comments) ...

Cancer treatments more expensive under ObamaCare (14 comments) ...

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

A moment of refreshing honesty from AG Eric Holder. Be complicit in taking down the economy and walk away rich and free because you're "too big to fail"

#1 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-07 06:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Attorney general says big banks' size may inhibit prosecution

Holder's admission bolsters criticisms that federal prosecutors are deeming some banks "too big to jail," a charge that lawmakers and consumer advocates have routinely made in the wake of recent bank settlements. Although the government has issued record multimillion-dollar fines in these cases, critics say without criminal charges, the agreements amount to a slap on the wrist.

Stunning" is how Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) described Holder's remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. "After hearing today's testimony, big bankers know that if they commit financial crimes, they can expect a passive response from the Justice Department."

"How can that not be an admission by DOJ that they believe Dodd-Frank doesn't end ‘too big to fail'?" he said. Still, "it isn't clear to me why ‘too big to jail' would stop DOJ from going after individual wrongdoers."

"You expect trouble bringing a criminal to justice when he flees to a hostile foreign country, but it's shocking that the Justice Department cannot pursue criminal activity when somebody simply walks through the doors of a Wall Street megabank," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

www.washingtonpost.com

Folks when Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)are on the same page that the banks are too big, can we please get some action to break these "catastrophes in the making" before 2009 looks like a dress rehearsal?

#2 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-07 06:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well can you blame him, those bankers are his buddies that have padded his pockets for years. Why would he.

#3 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-07 07:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Too big to prosecute? Time to break them up.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-07 07:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Reminds me of Boehner and his crying jag on the house floor demanding the American taxpayer save bushs CEO legacy (to big to fail).
But make no mistake, if the exact opposite had happened (prosecution) paneo would be here whining on how the Obama administration is antibusiness.

#5 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-03-07 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Too big to fail has now become too bigger to fail.

#6 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-07 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

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,"

So it's all a house of cards and the only thing that keeps it from crashing down on all of us is our willingness to maintain the illusion that its not? Game over, folks.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But make no mistake, if the exact opposite had happened (prosecution) paneo would be here whining on how the Obama administration is antibusiness."

Clearly Panny has a partisan interest in what he focuses on and in how much he's bothered by it all, and obviously that is a common habit among the hyper partisans of the Retort and of the world, but that doesn't mean the story isn't newsworthy. Myself, I'll just thank him for getting it right for once.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

To big to fail is too big to save. Any institution whose size places the nation at risk needs to be either nationalized or broken up. The nation cannot be beholden to threats from private industries.

And as we see in nature, cutting down the big trees allows for the forest to thrive.

#9 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

In a traditional democracy, the liberal class functions as a safety valve. It makes piecemeal and incremental reform possible. It offers hope for change and proposes gradual steps toward greater equality. It endows the state and the mechanisms of power with virtue. It also serves as an attack dog that discredits radical social movements, making the liberal class a useful component within the power elite.

But the assault by the corporate state on the democratic state has claimed the liberal class as one of its victims. Corporate power forgot that the liberal class, when it functions, gives legitimacy to the power elite. And reducing the liberal class to courtiers or mandarins, who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric, shuts off this safety valve and forces discontent to find other outlets that often end in violence. The inability of the liberal class to acknowledge that corporations have wrested power from the hands of citizens, that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty have become irrelevant, and that the phrase consent of the governed is meaningless, has left it speaking and acting in ways that no longer correspond to reality. It has lent its voice to hollow acts of political theater, and the pretense that democratic debate and choice continue to exist.

--Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

The inability of the liberal class to acknowledge that corporations have wrested power from the hands of citizens, that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty have become irrelevant, and that the phrase consent of the governed is meaningless, has left it speaking and acting in ways that no longer correspond to reality. It has lent its voice to hollow acts of political theater, and the pretense that democratic debate and choice continue to exist.

Holy NW Flag.

#11 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Clearly Panny has a partisan interest in what he focuses on and in how much he's bothered by it all
#8 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Hagbard, what in the world are you babbling about.

#8 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE
Myself, I'll just thank him for getting it right for once.

Thanks, I think. You have mastered the backhanded compliment, congradulations.

#12 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-07 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12

I shouldn't have said for once. That was unfair and uncalled for. You said something yesterday that surprised the hell out of me and that I totally agreed with (escaping me now but I was distracted yesterday). Though I can't imagine you ever writing anything ever again that comes anywhere close to the sheer brilliance you displayed last week when you wrote " ".

#13 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#13 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Going for the backhanded compliment hall of fame?

#14 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-07 09:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jeepers, creepers.

#15 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-07 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Where'd you get those peepers

#16 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-07 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

If they are that big, they clearly represent a threat to the american people and government - and should be treated as such by the same administration that thinks drone strikes could be used against US citizens on US soil.

Oh, who am I kidding? That's for poor people who can't fight back except for in the most limited of ways. Who knew - the Obama administration has become more transparent. They don't even try to hide their disdain for the poor, or their in-bed collusion with the rich.

#17 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2013-03-07 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe he could hit them with drones?

#18 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-03-07 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rwingers wouldn't pay for all the lawyers it would take to sue the banks.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just another obama product at reducing our constitutional rights.

#20 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-07 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#19 partisan hack that you are, doesn't see how Obama and Dodd Frank have fully participated in their transformation. Why are you so stupid?

#21 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-03-07 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#21 um, because I read one of your posts?

That could do it.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't even pay attention much to corky anymore, nothing but party hacking at its best.

#23 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-07 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who knew - the Obama administration has become more transparent. They don't even try to hide their disdain for the poor, or their in-bed collusion with the rich.

#17 | Posted by zeropointnrg

Deserves repeating.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dorky we ALL know you have ZERO knowledge about banking and finance, yet constantly pretend to have some great understanding. The comment this time...

Rwingers wouldn't pay for all the lawyers it would take to sue the banks

How Fing stupid can one post be? You strive to out do yourself daily.

#25 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-03-08 08:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rwingers wouldn't pay for all the lawyers it would take to sue the banks.
#19 | POSTED BY CORKY

I know you are often confused but this one is easy. The US Justice Department is lead by US Attorney General Eric Holder and he says the government that you love and we Rwingers pay for is unwilling to pursue the big banks. Hows that big government thing working for you now CORKY?

#26 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-03-08 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

Advertisement