Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, September 16, 2016

Lauren McCauley, CommonDreams: Though President Barack Obama is set to leave office in matter of months, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not willing to let him go without a full explanation as to why his administration refused to jail the Wall Street banksters behind the 2007-2008 financial crisis. In a letter sent to Department of Justice inspector general Michael Horowitz on Thursday, Warren demanded an investigation into why the DOJ refused to file criminal charges against individuals despite "serious indications of violations of federal securities and other laws," uncovered by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) probe into the causes of the economic crash. Warren said her staff reviewed thousands of documents recently made public and identified "11 separate FCIC referrals of individuals or corporations to DOJ in cases where the FCIC found" such evidence.



Liberal Blog Advertising Network


Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The DOJ has not filed any criminal prosecutions against any of the nine individuals. Not one of the nine has gone to prison or been convicted of a criminal offense. Not a single one has even been indicted or brought to trial."

Warren notes that her staff review "identified potentially illegal activity at 14 corporations (including five that were implicated in multiple referrals)." Though there were five corporations that reached a settlement with the DOJ, not one was criminally indicted or brought to trial.

The corporate criminals examined in the FCIC documents included most of America's largest banks -- Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual (now part of JPMorgan), and Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America) -- along with foreign banking giants UBS, Credit Suisse, and Societe Generale, auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers, credit rating agency Moody's, insurance company AIG, and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The FCIC presented DOJ with evidence that these institutions gave false representations about the loan quality inside mortgage-backed securities; misled credit ratings agencies; overstated assets and earnings in financial disclosures; failed to disclose credit downgrades, subprime exposure and the financial health of their operations to shareholders; and suffered breakdowns in internal company controls. All of these were tied to specific violations of federal law.


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The reason is government - hence, some politicians and their friends - created policy that was the genesis of the '08 financial meltdown.

Franklin Raines
Bill Clinton
Barney Frank
Tom Donilon
Larry Summers
Richard Holbroooke
Leland Brendsel
Timothy Howard
Peter Orszag
Bruce Vento
Bob Bennett
Kit Bond
Steve Friedman
Maxine Waters
Tim Geithner
Roger Ferguson
Andrew Cuomo
Alan Greenspan
Frederic Mishkin

Warren is just flapping her gums. A serious investigation would drag all of the people I named into it. That list of names has powerful ties to government. No way any of those people will go down thus no bankers will go down either.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-09-15 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3


That is certainly one nasty bi-partisan list.

#2 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-15 12:51 PM | Reply

Better late than never, I guess. Would have had a better chance of gaining traction years ago though.

#3 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-15 01:09 PM | Reply

It would be like every other recent Congressional investigation, a show that will change nothing.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2016-09-15 01:35 PM | Reply

Warren doesn't want a Congressional Investigation. There has already been a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) Investigation whose findings have been completely ignored by the Justice Department. Warren wants prosecutions, but at this point the statute of limitations may be more important than the FCIC findings.

#5 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-15 02:18 PM | Reply

I hope Warren gets traction......but will she keep it up once Hillary is in office?

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2016-09-15 02:25 PM | Reply

Wait- those bankers that pay Hillary hundreds of thousands of dollars for closed door speeches??

Nothing about nothing and nothing more.

#7 | Posted by Jimbob43 at 2016-09-15 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's like she hasn't been in office for all these years? She's a banking expert right? So why doesn't she read Hillary's secret WS speeches and tell us what they really mean. What's especially funny is that 1 day after all the bad news on Wells fargo hits, she doesn't even mention them. Oh that's right it's owned by warren buffet.

She's like elliot spitzer. She talks a good game, but she's heavily biased and her attacks are highly partisan. Jeff J has an excellent list that would have been highly interesting. After all Geithner was in charge of the NY Fed and overseer of ALL of the WS banksters!!!!! However with a D next to his name you can BET she'd never even mention him

#8 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2016-09-15 06:35 PM | Reply

Warren: I'm going to investigate all the rich bankers.

Hillary: I'll make you the new Secretary of State if you don't investigate too hard.

Warren: You mean I could get as rich as you and Bill?

Hillary: Yup.

Warren: I'm yours to command, My Lady.

#9 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-09-15 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Obama failed, and fooled, America by not bringing those responsible to justice. What happened was a crime' and the fact that nothing was done proves that the law is intended to protect the elites and keep the little people down.

#10 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-15 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1



She Stumped for Hillary.

That's Funny!

#11 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-09-16 12:19 AM | Reply

Finally someone trying to unite the two parties.

#12 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2016-09-16 10:44 AM | Reply

While I like going after bankers and having more transparency, it is depressing seeing what I had known would happen... that Republicans and James Comey had shattered the political neutrality of the FBI.

Because the FBI opened the floodgates and allowed themselves to be used as political tools by the Republicans against Hillary Clinton, I cannot condemn Warren for now using them as political tools against the financial sector (just like with Republicans opening the floodgates of money in politics, while I am against the tools being available seeing as they are destructive towards our democracy, I do not believe in unilaterally disarming and have no problem with politicians I support USING those tools).

But, now everyone knows that cooperation with the FBI will only give them ammunition that will be gift-wrapped for your political opponents after the investigation is over. So, no one associated with a high profile case will EVER cooperate with the FBI again, even if they have committed no crime.

To summarize, Republicans have destroyed public respect for the Supreme Court (by refusing to consider Garland) and they have destroyed public respect for the FBI (by publicly castigating her instead of just releasing their recommendations, and then releasing their case files on her for public consumption as they have NEVER done in the past). What sacred institution will Republicans destroy next?

Btw... I do not think that this will lead to any prosecutions. Instead it will probably lead to a public release of candid interviews that the FBI had with movers and shakers in the financial sector. I am sure there will be statements in there that they do not want to be public. It will stir up public hatred because it will become clear that they positioned themselves to profit with no regard for the consequences to the country as a whole. But, we will also probably find out that what they did was mostly legal. So, it will hopefully point the discussion back to WHY Congress has allowed these actions to be legal when they are bad for the economy and the country.

And, I actually have no problem with Warren pursuing this course of action. The precedent has already been set. The FBI will NEVER get a candid interview in high profile cases like these again. So, there really is no harm in releasing the candid interviews that the FBI does have and trying to learn from them (aside from the somewhat unfair witch-hunting aspect that is sure to pop against the financiers up once public anger is sufficiently riled up).

#13 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-09-16 11:16 AM | Reply

What about the Wells Fargo mess.

Wells Fargo agreed to a plea that they did no wrong and paid a minimal fine (a couple three days of profit).

The leader of that Wells Fargo consumer unit is about to leave with about $125 million in compensation benefits.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2016-09-16 12:10 PM | Reply

Warren Seeks Investigation of Failure to Jail Banksters

I'll save her some time: They own the government.

Focus on fixing that. Ban campaign donations. They are nothing more than legal bribery.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-09-16 12:11 PM | Reply

"Warren is just flapping her gums. A serious investigation would drag all of the people I named into it. That list of names has powerful ties to government. No way any of those people will go down thus no bankers will go down either.

correct. This will go nowhere legally, but the ignorant and lazy masses on the Left will agree with this liar making fools of themselves.

I don't if I should feel bad for Warren or worse for the people who agree with her. Warren must have been told at some point that she's wrong about most of what she says to the American people. I would love to see a debate between Warren and Trey Gowdy! But, then all of the Left would start screaming abuse!!!

#16 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2016-09-16 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'll save her some time: They own the government.

Of course! I encourage you to dig a little deeper. You will finally understand more about the Iraq war and why the old Iranian leadership loved us and the new hate us (but 90% of the Iranian people love US).

It's the banking system.

#17 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2016-09-16 12:17 PM | Reply

While I might agree with her sentiment--there is no case for any of these entities or people to be brought to some kind of criminal justice.

The statute of limitations for criminal fraud, etc. by the bank(s) or person(s) has expired.

#18 | Posted by MURPHY at 2016-09-16 12:45 PM | Reply

Of course! I encourage you to dig a little deeper. You will finally understand more about the Iraq war and why the old Iranian leadership loved us and the new hate us (but 90% of the Iranian people love US).

It's the banking system.

#17 | Posted by LastAmerican

So why do you resent the one senator who at least TRIES to stand up against them?

Where are the republicans on bank reform? With their heads in the sand as usual.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-09-16 01:16 PM | Reply

So why do you resent the one senator who at least TRIES to stand up against them?
Where are the republicans on bank reform? With their heads in the sand as usual.


Because they don't actually care about banking reform. They just want to score points on their political opponents. They know they don't have a winning argument so they go for the false equivalence.

"Hillary Clinton has not been perfect since the beginning of time, so she is just as bad as the Republicans who are trying to rig the system to their own (and their donors') advantage."

#20 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2016-09-16 03:50 PM | Reply

19...see 8. She's a fraud!

#21 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2016-09-16 09:23 PM | Reply

#21, Geithner, a lifelong Rethug who converted to Independent while serving under Obama is a fraud, liar, and bagman for organized Wall Street criminals.

#22 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-16 11:09 PM | Reply

As a general rule there is no statute of limitations for fraud or murder. But, some laws are for the exclusive benefit of the banksters and that is why a statute of limitations may already be in effect.

etal can probably fill us in, although it may not be the same in every State and Delaware and New York are most likely legally in bed with the banksters.

#23 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-17 07:01 AM | Reply

I agree 100% with her, and that it was Obama's (or was it his Chief of Staff Rahm, the dual citizen and slickster's decision) to give immunity to his Wall Street cousins, while 300 million Americans lost retirements while paying these sleazebags off and making them as fraudsters whole and us $20T in debt. I turned on Obama when he turned on America and gave the money changers a pass for corruption and opened our borders for cheap NYC nannies.

You go girl, and make the DNC corrupters like DWS and Schumer squirm because it does make them worried that there will be PR repercussions and they will be held accountable. Make the millennials informed.

#24 | Posted by Robson at 2016-09-17 07:42 PM | Reply

24 yeah power to the people, hooray OWS. Pound conservatives, up the buffet rule!!!!

Just ignore that buffet owns Wells Fargo and bank America , was the largest investor in synthetic credit default obligations, and took burger king to Canada to invert ownership, using G3 hedge fund and with all that it has Obama's approval!!

#25 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2016-09-18 08:32 AM | Reply

"and with all that it has Obama's approval!!"

Are you actually suggesting if Congress sent a bill eliminating inversions to Obama's desk, he'd veto it?

For God's sake, man, put the blame where it belongs: the bought-and-paid-for politicians who won't lift a finger to rewrite the inversion laws.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-09-18 08:40 AM | Reply

LOL What I've clearly laid out the case. It's not 'bad' if it's linked to those close to Obama and his minions. If you think WB doesn't have 110% approval from BHO you are fooling yourself.

#27 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2016-09-18 02:40 PM | Reply

"If you think WB doesn't have 110% approval from BHO you are fooling yourself."

If you think a bill to halt inversions isn't being impeded by Republicans, you're an idiot. Ryan could bring up a vote this week if he chose.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-09-18 02:43 PM | Reply

#25...That's exactly what I said. The money changers always usurp ethics for profits regardless of their background. Buffet from Omaha is no different from the profiteers of Manhattan. The absurdity is that Democrats like Buffet are always well meaning honest and compassionate. Money changers are what they are...greedy.

#29 | Posted by Robson at 2016-09-18 07:38 PM | Reply

This is something the GOP pols have definitely been pushing with congressional investigations.

#30 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-09-18 07:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

Drudge Retort