View Full Version : Obama "UNCHAINED" the Wall Street banksters.

08-18-2012, 05:48 AM
Bush regime: 1,300+ convictions, including 130+ VP's and 200+ CEO's.

Clinton regime: 1,800+ prosecutions with 1,000+ going to jail.

Obma regime: 0 jailed, 0 convicted, 0 brought to trial, 0 charges filed.

Wrap your head around that ...

Bush - 1,300+ convictions.

Clinton - 1,000+ convictions.

Obama - Zero attempts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And why the difference in prosecuting the law?* The GAI report reveals that the Department of Justice upper echelon is stacked with attorneys, including Eric Holder,* from law firms representing the very same companies involved in the financial meltdown of 2008, as well as financial corporations with questionable actions during the Obama administration...AIG, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, ING, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wilmington Trust, and John Corzine's MF Global.
These very same DoJ attorneys also happen to be some of Obama's biggest bundlers for Obama's 2008 bid for president.**

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/who_really_unchained_wall_street.html) </span>

This is where our resident leftists go silent ...

08-18-2012, 06:07 AM

The author to your link won't even give his real name.


08-18-2012, 07:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL

The author to your link won't even give his real name.

Q </div></div>

What a mullet you are.

Most writers use a pen name ... especially in this day and age of moonat crazy leftists on iont jihads across America and Eurabia.

Did you have anything to dispute the stats provided?

What's that?

You don't?

What's that?

You will instead sacrifice your dignity to defend the lies the regime tells you?

But ... we all already knew that.

08-18-2012, 09:03 AM
Obama can't toss them in jail after taking all their bribery money 4 years ago.


08-18-2012, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Most writers use a pen name </div></div>

No they don't.


08-18-2012, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama can't toss them in jail after taking all their bribery money 4 years ago.

eg8r </div></div>

Snoopy's real objection is that he doen't like reality.

08-18-2012, 11:20 AM
The trend in the Obama years has been down on such prosecutions.

However, the question raised here is that there are zero cases. I suppose it depends upon what is being counted.

Other apparently more neutral reports place the annual cases on financial fraud at over a 1,000 a year (even while acknowledging that the number of cases is historically low).


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During the first 11 months of the 2011 fiscal year, the federal government filed 1,251 new prosecutions for financial institution fraud. If that pace continues, TRAC projects a total of 1,365 prosecutions for the fiscal year. Thatís less than half the total a decade ago. </div></div>

Here (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/prosecutions-for-bank-fraud-fall-sharply/)

Then there's the following explanation:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The declining number of fraud prosecutions in 2011 may reflect the increasingly widespread use of deferred prosecution agreements, a less-aggressive legal strategy that allows companies to voluntarily report their own misconduct and avoid harsh consequences in court. Since 2008, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have both adopted deferred prosecution tactics and put less emphasis on punitive measures for financial crimes, according to The New York Times.

What the report says is a broader, decade-long trend toward fewer fraud prosecutions may stem in part from more federal resources being directed toward anti-terrorism efforts in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, as suggested in a 2008 New York Times article about declining stock fraud cases.

Besides losing personnel to counterterrorism agencies, regulators have had to contend with political opposition and difficulty getting funding, which may have also played a role in limiting their ability to pursue cases. Congressional Republicans have made a number of attempts to weaken organizations like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This week, the CFTC's 2012 budget was slashed by about $100 million as a result of congressional pressure. Earlier this year, the House Appropriations Committee cut the 2012 budget request for the SEC by $222.5 million.

While financial fraud cases are down by more than half from where they were a decade ago, a number of cases are currently active or have been recently settled, including multiple prosecutions for mortgage fraud, insider trading and embezzlement. </div></div>

Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/financial-fraud-prosecution_n_1095933.html)

Now, if you've been paying attention at all, the above explanation about the settlements instead of prosecutions ought to ring a bill.

We've had multi-billion dollar cash settlements, and the complaint at the time from both left and right observers was that the companies settling such large cases were not held to account on any admission of criminal wrong-doing, just being allowed to make very large cash penalty payments. All true, and yet at the same time, they were forced into huge settlement payments, because there was that threat of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads.

So these guys plea bargained out of criminal charges, which is not quite the same as portrayed in the original post, which implies they are simply going free with no government attention. They are going free after they've been forced into big financial repayments and penalties.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2012, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama can't toss them in jail after taking all their bribery money 4 years ago.

eg8r </div></div>


Obama couldn't toss them in jail for a number of reasons.

1. We couldn't survive the Bush Administration's economic crash without tryng to avoid a chain reaction of failing banks, so agreements were made between Paulson and the bank CEO's in private, which President Obama has to learn about, over time.

Tarp was not implemented by President Obama, and throwing all of the bankers in jail, would have been defeating. Stability is what we have needed to maintain through the recovery, which has beenn obstructed by Repiglicans.

We couldn't have a situation where all of a sudden the entire ATM system crashed all over the world, and in this country.

2. Recovering from this unprecedented economic crash, involved more than just our country.

We had to go forward carefully, and slowly, until we could find out everything that was hidden, or intentionally made so complex, that even Greenspan said he couldn't figure it all out.

3. The assertion that no one has gone to jail, is totally false.

4. When the president stepped into the Bush worst legacy since the great depression, no president had ever had to inherit a collapsed GLOBAL economy, while stuck in the middle of two raging wars, and a budget that was dying on the vine, and unprecedented debts with all of the interest, pulling us down into the pit.

This has been no time for knee jerk responses.

What we do know is that the first thing that should have been done was to reverse the repeal of Glass/Stegall, but of course, the Repiglicans blocked that effort, and blocked every effort to legislate for more regulations, and daylight, back into the financial industry.

Just as Bush blocked state efforts to avoid the on-going predatory lending, reckless banking and corruption in the banking and lending industries.

Obama recognized what the problem was, has been honest in his duscussions about it, as regards the reckless behavior of Wall St. CEO's and others, but given the stated intended obstruction of the Repiglican Party, ad his limitations as president, what we have going on is loads of investiagations into that corruption, as we are still struggling to maintain some balance and confidence in the market.

Hence, a big reckless crack down would be self defeating, in many ways, even now.

Hence, we now have the Romney Campaign getting all of the Wall St. contributions. What does that tell you?

I'm sure that's entirely fine with your team!

08-20-2012, 08:10 AM
He took a record load of bribes (as defined by the lefties on this board) from Wall St. No way could he turn around and toss them in jail.


08-20-2012, 09:10 AM
So your defense of the regime is that they let the high level executives pay corprate fines in lieu of prosecution ... IOW using the money of investors ... and instead prosecuted lower evel employees?

That has been the entire Sherlock.

Even when you get it, you still don't get it.

08-20-2012, 11:59 AM
No, the story is that these financial crimes and criminals are in the BANKING SECTOR, not specifically Wall Street, although it's tricky to parse them out, and they are not unrelated.

As you should know anyway, something like 80% of all prosecutions get settled with plea bargains. But this shocks you in this case? Gosh, pleas bargains-- how <s>UN</s>USUAL!!!