Prosecuting the banksters for the financial crisis

4 posts / 0 new

Thom was discussing the financial crisis today on the radio show, and he mentioned that banksters have not been prosecuted for their actions that caused the financial crisis. In Barack Obama's latest Rolling Stone interview, he was asked why hadn't any banksters been prosecuted by the federal government. His response was:

"First of all, we're a nation of laws. So in some cases, really irresponsible practices that hurt a lot of people might not have been technically against the law. They might have been the wrong thing to do, but prosecutors are required to actually build cases based on what the law is. That's part of the reason we've passed Wall Street reform: to make much clearer what is prohibited and what is not, to set up rules and regulations that say, "You can't do this, and if you do do it, there are going to be consequences."

"Now, that isn't to say that there may not be more wrongdoing out there. One of the things people have not been clear about, for example, is this recent housing settlement. It was based on banks violating civil laws with those auto-penning of foreclosures, and it was narrowly drawn so that banks have to put up billions of dollars to help families who have been affected, but it still leaves in place the possibility of prosecution. It doesn't provide any criminal immunity whatsoever. We've set up a task force not just with the federal government, but with state attorney generals, that as we speak are actively going through all the records, issuing subpoenas. They will, on the basis of law, make determinations as to whether there are prosecutions out there."

Is the President right? Other than auto-penning foreclosures, is there nothing than these SOBs can be formally charged with?

Read more:

Exodus2221's picture
May. 25, 2012 7:38 pm


What crimes do you think were commited?

If your are bleating about "prosecuting" people shouldn't you have a crime to begin with?

Let's not worry about evidence or motive yet, let's just start with the CRIME?

Calperson's picture
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

See Title 18 sections:

11. Bribery, graft and conflicts of interest

19. Conspiracy

25. Counterfeiting and forgery

31. Embezzlement and theft

41. Extortion and threats

42. Extortionate credit transactions

43. False personation

47. Fraud and false statements

63. Mail fraud

73. Obstruction of justice

77. Peonage and slavery

79. Perjury

81. Piracy and privateering

95. Racketeering

96. Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations

Title 18 is about 2400 pages long. More items apply, but this would be a good start. BTW there is NOTHING SECRET about these laws which were already on the books well before the 2000 electiion.

Law Enforcement (i.e. lack thereof) under these Administrations is heinously Selective and by allowing the statute of limitations to run on many of these crimes has become party to them and becomes guilty itself of conspiracy-after-the-fact in doing so.

Rodger97321's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

how about fraud.

some would say that MERS itself is against the law.

there have been alot of cases where peolple would report their income and the mortgage broker would raise their income on paper without borrowers knowledge to allow the mortgage to go through, ie. liars loans where not all perpetrated by both parties many involved only the broker.

i think it is rediculouse for the pres to sugest his (and his prosecuters) hands are tied because no crimes have been commited. i found this vid after about 1 min of searching.

J DAILEY's picture
Feb. 23, 2012 6:43 am

Latest Headlines

One Iowa Caucus Delegate Comes Down To Coin Toss

The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.

Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 31 points in N.H.: Poll

Sanders was at 61 percent support in the University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, followed by Mrs. Clinton, at 30 percent

Martin O'Malley suspends presidential campaign after Iowa caucuses

The announcement came after O'Malley barely registered in Iowa against his better-known rivals Clinton and Sanders, failing to meet already low expectations

Why New Hampshire Outcome is Bad for the TPP

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump won big last night, but the real loser wasn’t the Republican establishment or Hillary Clinton: it was the Trans-Pacific Partnership and everything it represents.

At this point, it’s almost a cliché to draw comparisons between the Trump and Sanders campaigns.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system