Why banks won't be held accountable under Obama/Holder

[MannyGoldstein]

I posted the following as a response to an OP a few weeks ago, but it keeps haunting me as I read about the latest wet kiss to Citigroup. Here's what I wrote:

"I spoke with someone high up in DOJ a few weeks ago. An old buddy of mine. We were ingesting adult beverages.

The problem with going after banks, he explained, is that only the people at the top know the bad stuff that's happening - the lower folks only know their jobs, not how their jobs contribute to the big-picture scamming. But if they go after the people at the top, it will hurt the bank and many of the innocent lower folks might lose their jobs. The DOJ is very mindful of how awful it was when Enron was prosecuted. So no serious prosecutions will happen, on purpose.

(Yes, this is really what passes for rational thought at the DOJ.)"

So that's what's going on, I think. Apparently, prosecuting Enron was a huge mistake. So absent an epic sea change, the bankers get to savage us until at least 1/20/2017. What happens after that is for us to decide over the next 2 or so years.

[leftstreet]

1. The banks should have been nationalized

DURec

[Scuba]

2. + Eighty Gazillion

[jwirr]

3. IF there had been any meaningful reform of the system then not prosecuting the banksters might

make sense but they left them in place with no new controls on the peoples money. They have done nothing to protect us from more crimes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Of course you talked with someone high up in the DoJ ...

Of course you did!

And I'm totally convinced that your adult beverage ingesting friend gave you that explanation ... that is pretty much exactly ass-backwards; prosecutors would have to PROVE the execs knew what was going on AND those they can prove knew of the wrong-doing are the "small fish", who are doing what worker folks do, turn profits.

But, we don't do Thomas Beckett prosecutions in the U.S.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I'm lying.

Got me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Okay. eom.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. But just so you know,

Your yammering about prosecutors having to prove a case is in no way inconsistent with what I wrote, assuming you're reading and writing in the English language, e.g., WTF are you talking about?

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Re-read what I wrote ...

You said the thing stopping the prosecution is the mentality that the execs know and the underlings are ignorant.

I said/believe they both knew/may have known; but, the only ones they can prove knew were the underlings.

So, in whatever language you choose to read or write in; yes, the two statements are inconsistent. That's wtf I am talking about.

[lonestarnot]

9. In the mean time get away from them as best you can. They're all fucking crooked!