Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

think

(11,641 posts)
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:32 PM Dec 2016

Elizabeth Warren Asks Newly Chatty FBI Director to Explain Why DOJ Didnt Prosecute Banksters

Elizabeth Warren Asks Newly Chatty FBI Director to Explain Why DOJ Didn’t Prosecute Banksters

David Dayen
September 15 2016, 12:00 a.m.


LIKE A LOT OF other Americans, Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to know why the Department of Justice hasn’t criminally prosecuted any of the major players responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.

On Thursday, Warren released two highly provocative letters demanding some explanations. One is to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, requesting a review of how federal law enforcement managed to whiff on all 11 substantive criminal referrals submitted by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), a panel set up to examine the causes of the 2008 meltdown.

The other is to FBI Director James Comey, asking him to release all FBI investigations and deliberations related to those referrals. The FBI typically doesn’t release investigative details about cases that the DOJ chooses not to pursue, but Warren pointed out that in releasing information about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in July, Comey had pretty much shattered that precedent and set a new one.

“You explained these actions by noting your view that ‘the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest,’” Warren wrote to Comey. “If Secretary Clinton’s email server was of sufficient ‘interest’ to establish a new FBI standard of transparency, then surely the criminal prosecution of those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis should be subject to the same level of transparency.”.

~Snip~

And the FCIC named names, specifying nine top-level executives who should be investigated on criminal charges: CEO Daniel Mudd and CFO Stephen Swad of Fannie Mae; CEO Martin Sullivan and CFO Stephen Bensinger of AIG; CEO Stan O’Neal and CFO Jeffrey Edwards of Merrill Lynch; and CEO Chuck Prince, CFO Gary Crittenden, and Board Chairman Robert Rubin of Citigroup...

Read more:
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/15/elizabeth-warren-asks-newly-chatty-fbi-director-to-explain-why-doj-didnt-prosecute-banksters/
31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren Asks Newly Chatty FBI Director to Explain Why DOJ Didnt Prosecute Banksters (Original Post) think Dec 2016 OP
YES! skylucy Dec 2016 #1
Exactly my reaction, too. Go Senator Warren! More, please. JudyM Dec 2016 #4
they didn't care then, and after this election, they even care less. still_one Dec 2016 #2
At least we have someone like Warren trying to get justice. Eventually the voters think Dec 2016 #3
I agree with your point regarding Warren fighting for us, but I really have my doubts if the voters still_one Dec 2016 #5
I'm with you on this Plucketeer Dec 2016 #13
Warren would do a great service to the country in highlighting this "injustice" that many in ...... dmosh42 Dec 2016 #6
I hope she runs in 2020 and if Hillary scared the Republicans imagine what cstanleytech Dec 2016 #7
I hoped she ran in 2016... n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #9
She had already declared she wasnt and if she had suddenly changed her mind cstanleytech Dec 2016 #19
He doesn't make that decision. Eric Holder did and Holder gave testimony as to why... PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #8
Then Holder left office to go back to the same law firm he was before while they defend these banks think Dec 2016 #12
I Don't Blame Obama And Holder For Not Prosecuting Banks OldYallow Dec 2016 #30
Yes! We are at war, afterall. C Moon Dec 2016 #10
Maybe Warren should ask Eric Holder, he was the one in charge of the DOJ Lurks Often Dec 2016 #11
Someone asked Holder, his response... PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #15
IMO, maybe Senator Warren should ask that question gladium et scutum Dec 2016 #18
Yep. SomeGuyInEagan Dec 2016 #24
Our first woman President. zentrum Dec 2016 #14
Kick'em in the balls Senator Warren....Hard! Stellar Dec 2016 #16
The answer is that these banks own too many (almost all) of our politicians! Dustlawyer Dec 2016 #17
kickarooni!. . . . . . n/t annabanana Dec 2016 #20
K&R nt ProudProgressiveNow Dec 2016 #21
K & R Scurrilous Dec 2016 #22
Expect action on this Dark n Stormy Knight Dec 2016 #23
I suspect all she will hear as a way of a reply is the sound of crickets as Comey cstanleytech Dec 2016 #25
Jimmy "the Flake" Comey needs to answer. He was all too eager oasis Dec 2016 #26
God bless her! harun Dec 2016 #27
IMO, she should not have mentioned the clinton emails, it takes away from the letters power. frankieallen Dec 2016 #28
No it does not. Actually makes the point perfectly. Justice Dec 2016 #29
+1, It's to shine a big light on their hypocrisy, change the status quo. harun Dec 2016 #31

JudyM

(29,270 posts)
4. Exactly my reaction, too. Go Senator Warren! More, please.
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:57 PM
Dec 2016


And, um, where's Harry Reid been all this time?
 

think

(11,641 posts)
3. At least we have someone like Warren trying to get justice. Eventually the voters
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:51 PM
Dec 2016

will understand who is really fighting for THEM if Democrats can get their message to those voters.

The Senate Democrats plan to utilize video and social media to take their message straight to voters in 2017. This could help in an era where big news outlets do more to confuse than inform...

still_one

(92,373 posts)
5. I agree with your point regarding Warren fighting for us, but I really have my doubts if the voters
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:59 PM
Dec 2016

really will get it before it is too late

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
13. I'm with you on this
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:20 PM
Dec 2016

Hell, it's the voters that got us where we are! What sort of threshold do we have to cross before they wake up to reality???

dmosh42

(2,217 posts)
6. Warren would do a great service to the country in highlighting this "injustice" that many in ......
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:00 PM
Dec 2016

Congress avoided due to the bank lobby power.

cstanleytech

(26,319 posts)
7. I hope she runs in 2020 and if Hillary scared the Republicans imagine what
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:17 PM
Dec 2016

the idea of Warren as President would do to them?

cstanleytech

(26,319 posts)
19. She had already declared she wasnt and if she had suddenly changed her mind
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 06:01 PM
Dec 2016

they would have just accused her of being a flip flopper.
On the brightside her chances should be even better in 2020 than 2016 if Trump drops the ball like I suspect he will and if the Democrats work to tie him like an anchor around the neck of every single Republican in office that expressed even a tiny % of support for the man we all win.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
12. Then Holder left office to go back to the same law firm he was before while they defend these banks
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:15 PM
Dec 2016
Eric Holder’s Job Prospects Were Too Big to Fail

by Laurence Arnold - July 8, 2015, 10:45 AM EDT

The former attorney general is giving his critics a new round of ammunition by returning to Covington & Burling, whose corporate clientele has included Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

This is an excerpt from Bloomberg's daily Opening Line column.

The day Eric Holder became U.S. attorney general—Feb. 3, 2009—a front-page story in the New York Times declared, “Wall St., a Financial Epithet, Stirs Outrage and Punch Lines.” Bloomberg headlined a story, “FDIC Boosts Estimate for U.S. Bank Failures Costs.”

Holder had no shortage of “top priorities” during his years at the Justice Department: voting rights, cybersecurity, drug laws. But given what was going on when he took office, he was bound to be measured on how his Justice Department responded to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

He had his moments, including a string of multibillion-dollar penalties against financial institutions that culminated with a $16.7 billion settlement with Bank of America. But as Tom Schoenberg wrote last fall, Holder “spent much of his almost-six-year tenure defending the Justice Department’s record of few Wall Street prosecutions.”

Holder, who left office in April, is giving his critics a new round of ammunition by returning to Covington & Burling, the Washington-based law firm with a corporate clientele that has included Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. ..


Read more:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-08/eric-holder-s-job-prospects-were-too-big-to-fail
 

OldYallow

(90 posts)
30. I Don't Blame Obama And Holder For Not Prosecuting Banks
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:48 AM
Dec 2016

It would be Holder, Obama, Warren and Sanders ~ vs ~ The entire system. All other Republicans and Almost all other Democrats would be on the side of the banks one way or the other. It would have taken all of PBO's "political capital" to dispense "justice".

The system is rigged folks.

Prisons are for poor people, not FBI Directors, and Banksters.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
11. Maybe Warren should ask Eric Holder, he was the one in charge of the DOJ
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:53 PM
Dec 2016

Warren could also Loretta Lynch why she hasn't done more to go after the bankers while Lynch was in charge of the DOJ.

It's always been up to the AG and the prosecutors in the DOJ on when and when not to prosecute someone.

gladium et scutum

(808 posts)
18. IMO, maybe Senator Warren should ask that question
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 05:06 PM
Dec 2016

of Holder's boss. The Attorney General does not operate as an independent government entity. The DOJ's operation is the responsibility of the President of the United States. Holder reported to the President. I would expect that many conversations were held between the AG and the President on this subject. The content of these conversations may reveal the rational for not making an all out effort to criminally prosecute those individuals that may have had culpable responsibility for the financial crisis.

SomeGuyInEagan

(1,515 posts)
24. Yep.
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:18 AM
Dec 2016

The fix is in, same as it ever was.

At least they used to do it behind closed doors and pretend it is a Republic.

Dark n Stormy Knight

(9,771 posts)
23. Expect action on this
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 11:48 PM
Dec 2016

when Hell freezes over and pigs fly.
(Though some might say Trump being elected counts as a pig flying, so hey, halfway there.)

cstanleytech

(26,319 posts)
25. I suspect all she will hear as a way of a reply is the sound of crickets as Comey
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:50 AM
Dec 2016

has made it clear who he answers to and what matters and justice and the American people aren't even in his top 100.

oasis

(49,401 posts)
26. Jimmy "the Flake" Comey needs to answer. He was all too eager
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:01 AM
Dec 2016

to get in front of the cameras for the manufactured e-mail bullshit.

Justice

(7,188 posts)
29. No it does not. Actually makes the point perfectly.
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:37 AM
Dec 2016

If evidence and decision making into Clinton's emails required airing of charges/decisions, then so does evidence and decision making into financial crisis.

harun

(11,348 posts)
31. +1, It's to shine a big light on their hypocrisy, change the status quo.
Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:47 PM
Dec 2016

Status quo being it's always okay to go after BS stories and never okay to go after the real criminals on Wall St.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Elizabeth Warren Asks New...