PDA

View Full Version : 'Why Aren't We Prosecuting Wall Street?'



Qtec
12-06-2011, 12:05 PM
60 minutes. Watch it. (http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/60-minutes-asks-why-arent-we-prosecuti)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Part one of the program begins, with the second part of the video at the bottom of the page, and a link to the final portion that's contained in the 60 Minutes Overtime report:

Steve Kroft: Do you believe that there are people at Countrywide who belong behind bars?

Eileen Foster: Yes.

Kroft: Do you want to give me their names?

Foster: No.

Kroft: Would you give their names to a grand jury if you were asked?

Foster: Yes.

But Eileen Foster has never been asked - and never spoken to the Justice Department - even though she was Countrywide's executive vice president in charge of fraud investigations. At the height of the housing bubble, Countrywide Financial was the largest mortgage lender in the country and the loans it made were among the worst, a third ending up in foreclosure or default, many because of mortgage fraud.

It was Foster's job to monitor and investigate allegations of fraud against Countrywide employees and make sure they were reported to the Board of Directors and the Treasury Department.

Kroft: How much fraud was there at Countrywide?

Foster: From what I saw, the types of things I saw, it was-- it appeared systemic. It, it wasn't just one individual or two or three individuals, it was branches of individuals, it was regions of individuals.

Kroft: What you seem to be saying was it was just a way of doing business?

Foster: Yes.

In 2007, Foster sent a team to the Boston area to search several branch offices of Countrywide's subprime division - the division that lent to borrowers with poor credit. The investigators rummaged through the office's recycling bins <span style='font-size: 20pt'>and found evidence that Countrywide loan officers were forging and manipulating borrowers' income and asset statements to help them get loans they weren't qualified for and couldn't afford.</span> <span style="color: #990000">Earth to eg8r!!!!</span>

Foster: All of the-- the recycle bins, whenever we looked through those they were full of, you know, signatures that had been cut off of one document and put onto another and then photocopied, you know, or faxed and then the-- you know, the creation thrown-- thrown in the recycle bin. </div></div>
Q

Qtec
12-06-2011, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lehman Brothers Holdings had its whistleblower. Now it appears Citigroup had one, too.

His name is Richard M. Bowen III.



And in written testimony prepared for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and posted on the commission’s Web site, Bowen said he started issuing “warnings in <u>June 2006 </u>and attempted to get management” to addresses related “critical” credit risks.

He says he was worried about the fact that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>60% of the roughly $50 billion of prime mortgages that Citigrup bought and sold annually were “defective.”</span> Bowen said, “a mortgage file that is not underwritten to Citi policy, or it does not contain all policy-required documents, is considered a defective file.” </div></div>

read it (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/04/07/meet-a-citigroup-whistleblower-richard-m-bowen-iii/)

Q

eg8r
12-06-2011, 01:04 PM
"We" aren't prosecuting WS because they bought and paid for the President of the US. Obama would never let that happen. He needs their money again pretty soon.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-06-2011, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lehman Brothers Holdings had its whistleblower. Now it appears Citigroup had one, too.

His name is Richard M. Bowen III.



And in written testimony prepared for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and posted on the commission’s Web site, Bowen said he started issuing “warnings in <u>June 2006 </u>and attempted to get management” to addresses related “critical” credit risks.

He says he was worried about the fact that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>60% of the roughly $50 billion of prime mortgages that Citigrup bought and sold annually were “defective.”</span> Bowen said, “a mortgage file that is not underwritten to Citi policy, or it does not contain all policy-required documents, is considered a defective file.” </div></div>

read it (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/04/07/meet-a-citigroup-whistleblower-richard-m-bowen-iii/)

Q </div></div>

Without the greed and corruption in the Mortgage industry, and on Wall St., the financial Institutions, and ratings institutions, the nod-wink going on at the SEC, for Bush's "Ownership Society" and Greenspan's stupidity "Laissez Faire" Friedman philosophies, aka his BS "Free Market" economics, insisting that corporations would regulate themseslves.......none of it could have happened.

It wouldn't have mattered how many people wanted to buy more than they could afford....NONE OF THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED!

Republican policies...that's what created this disaster.
G.

Soflasnapper
12-06-2011, 02:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We" aren't prosecuting WS because they bought and paid for the President of the US. Obama would never let that happen. He needs their money again pretty soon.

eg8r </div></div>

Not a bad guess, and it makes some sense.

But there are other considerations. Countrywide went bad enough early enough to be bought out at fire sale prices by Bank of America, in 2008. These bad practices predated their termination date as an independent company, pre-sale. Most of these crimes would have occurred in the run-up to the bubble's bursting, in the go-go days, c. '05-'06. It's fairly likely that the statute of limitations has run on any such offenses, making them immune from successful prosecution.

In addition, since Countrywide operated in most states, you have to account for the state AGs and DAs bringing no prosecutions. Those aren't subject to the president's direction to cease and desist, and are independent actors.

What you'll find is about a 2005 Bush administration move, through the Comptroller General's office rulings that the state AGs could not prosecute the various mortgage lending companies under state law, since they were federally chartered.

An unprecedented move, as the Comptroller General's office generally does nearly nothing that anybody can tell, a semi-antiquated office that is a relic of an older time, basically.

LWW
12-06-2011, 02:16 PM
Because they own the regime.

Next question?

Gayle in MD
12-06-2011, 02:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We" aren't prosecuting WS because they bought and paid for the President of the US. Obama would never let that happen. He needs their money again pretty soon.

eg8r </div></div>

Not a bad guess, and it makes some sense.

But there are other considerations. Countrywide went bad enough early enough to be bought out at fire sale prices by Bank of America, in 2008. These bad practices predated their termination date as an independent company, pre-sale. Most of these crimes would have occurred in the run-up to the bubble's bursting, in the go-go days, c. '05-'06. It's fairly likely that the statute of limitations has run on any such offenses, making them immune from successful prosecution.

In addition, since Countrywide operated in most states, you have to account for the state AGs and DAs bringing no prosecutions. Those aren't subject to the president's direction to cease and desist, and are independent actors.

What you'll find is about a 2005 Bush administration move, through the Comptroller General's office rulings that the state AGs could not prosecute the various mortgage lending companies under state law, since they were federally chartered.

An unprecedented move, as the Comptroller General's office generally does nearly nothing that anybody can tell, a semi-antiquated office that is a relic of an older time, basically. </div></div>


So, are you saying that they weren't prosecuted because the Bush Administration protected them? That is the story I have read about, and that was before President Obama or the Democratci Majority ever took over.

In fact, the first regulatory efforts took place after the Dems took the majority.

G.

eg8r
12-06-2011, 03:23 PM
So basically what you are saying is too little too late and if anything could be brought to trial at this point Obama would squash it.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
12-06-2011, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....Without the greed and corruption in the Mortgage industry, and on Wall St., the financial Institutions, and ratings institutions, the nod-wink going on at the SEC, for Bush's "Ownership Society" and Greenspan's stupidity "Laissez Faire" Friedman philosophies, aka his BS "Free Market" economics, insisting that corporations would regulate themseslves.......none of it could have happened.
It wouldn't have mattered how many people wanted to buy more than they could afford....NONE OF THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED!
Republican policies...that's what created this disaster. G.</div></div>Gayle -- Not really.
Its the usofa financial system. A system where apparantly the bookies and punters all leev the track broke.
Wellkum to the usofa.
mac.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/punt/aalookout.jpg

Soflasnapper
12-06-2011, 06:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So basically what you are saying is too little too late and if anything could be brought to trial at this point Obama would squash it.

eg8r </div></div>

No. There is no mechanism for the POTUS to control the actions of the AG, whether to bring or not bring charges. Other than a very blunt instrument-- firing him or her. And then, still no guarantee that the next person holding the job will make the 'right' decision, i.e., the one the POTUS favors.

These are independent offices, and if the POTUS leans on the AG, it is a serious issue. There's been no showing of Obama forcing Holder TO prosecute, nor to STOP prosecution, in any case of which I'm aware.

Gayle in MD
12-06-2011, 07:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So basically what you are saying is too little too late and if anything could be brought to trial at this point Obama would squash it.

eg8r </div></div>

No. There is no mechanism for the POTUS to control the actions of the AG, whether to bring or not bring charges. Other than a very blunt instrument-- firing him or her. And then, still no guarantee that the next person holding the job will make the 'right' decision, i.e., the one the POTUS favors.

These are independent offices, and if the POTUS leans on the AG, it is a serious issue. There's been no showing of Obama forcing Holder TO prosecute, nor to STOP prosecution, in any case of which I'm aware. </div></div>

Which is why we will never see Holder, like we saw Gonzo, saying "I don't remember, I don't recall" 197 times during a Senate investgation, while this President is running the White House.

G.

eg8r
12-06-2011, 08:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no mechanism for the POTUS to control the actions of the AG</div></div>My take on your incessant repeating of this statement is merely to hide the truth. We all know that people of power, specifically the Presidents position, have the ability to coerce people into doing what they want with promises of future rewards, or simply to do it as a "favor" that could be repayed at some time in the future. Come one now, be honest, Obama came from Chicago corruption. Do you not think he is quite aware of the power of his position?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Other than a very blunt instrument-- firing him or her. And then, still no guarantee that the next person holding the job will make the 'right' decision, i.e., the one the POTUS favors.
</div></div>I firmly believe that other than just being a tool, you are merely trying to be "technically" correct knowing that it would never hold any water in the "real" world.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No. There is no mechanism for the POTUS to control the actions of the AG...Other than a very blunt instrument-- firing him or her. ...and if the POTUS leans on the AG, it is a serious issue.</div></div>LOL, you have flipped around so much you look like a fish flopping on a boat. Basically what is happening is the more you talk the more your statement agrees with what I have said.

He is bought and paid for and will not allow WS to be sued.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-06-2011, 09:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no mechanism for the POTUS to control the actions of the AG</div></div>My take on your incessant repeating of this statement is merely to hide the truth. We all know that people of power, specifically the Presidents position, have the ability to coerce people into doing what they want with promises of future rewards, or simply to do it as a "favor" that could be repayed at some time in the future. Come one now, be honest, Obama came from Chicago corruption. Do you not think he is quite aware of the power of his position?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Other than a very blunt instrument-- firing him or her. And then, still no guarantee that the next person holding the job will make the 'right' decision, i.e., the one the POTUS favors.
</div></div>I firmly believe that other than just being a tool, you are merely trying to be "technically" correct knowing that it would never hold any water in the "real" world.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No. There is no mechanism for the POTUS to control the actions of the AG...Other than a very blunt instrument-- firing him or her. ...and if the POTUS leans on the AG, it is a serious issue.</div></div>LOL, you have flipped around so much you look like a fish flopping on a boat. Basically what is happening is the more you talk the more your statement agrees with what I have said.

He is bought and paid for and will not allow WS to be sued.

eg8r </div></div>

Unbelievable!

Your ignorance is stunning!

Dream on, dunce.
G.

LWW
12-07-2011, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you have flipped around so much you look like a fish flopping on a boat. Basically what is happening is the more you talk the more your statement agrees with what I have said.

eg8r </div></div>

They do that a lot.