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
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumElizabeth Warren Highlights Key Weakness in Clinton's Wall Street Donation Defense
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liam-miller/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_b_9346302.htmlWarren doesn't put it in such harsh terms, but this is a scathing indictment of the Obama administration. If there were any question about why Obama has not been a Progressive, it is answered here.
Hillary Clinton has been fielding questions for months about her Wall Street speaking fees and campaign contributions, in every interview, town hall, and debate. And rightly so; we all know how the banks' fraudulent behavior tanked the economy, and everyone - Left, Right, and Center - is disgusted with what Citizens United has done to campaign finance. Clinton's defense has become streamlined and simple: sure, she took money from banks, but so did Obama - and he still passed very strict regulation on the banks. It seems effective; but there's a huge problem with this argument - so huge, in fact, that it transforms it from a defense into a powerful critique. To understand why, we turn to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass).
Warren recently published a report, titled Rigged Justice: 2016; How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders Off Easy. She published an editorial at the same time, in which she outlines and interprets her findings. She starts off by referring to candidates "feverishly pitching their legislative agendas." As she shows, however, laws don't mean anything if they aren't enforced -- and it turns out, in far too many cases, they effectively haven't been. Here's Warren:
In a single year, in case after case, across many sectors of the economy, federal agencies caught big companies breaking the law -- defrauding taxpayers, covering up deadly safety problems, even precipitating the financial collapse in 2008 -- and let them off the hook with barely a slap on the wrist. Often, companies paid meager fines, which some will try to write off as a tax deduction.
In fact, under Obama not a single Wall Street CEO has been prosecuted for fraud. She goes on:
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
12 replies, 1341 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (26)
ReplyReply to this post
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren Highlights Key Weakness in Clinton's Wall Street Donation Defense (Original Post)
Ferd Berfel
Feb 2016
OP
Hillary did say that he was the candidate that took more Wall St money than anyone else
revbones
Feb 2016
#2
Yes well, he had a collapsing economy to save, I don't blame him. But now that we are "a OK"
thereismore
Feb 2016
#4
This: Rigged Justice: 2016; How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders Off Easy
peacebird
Feb 2016
#3
thereismore
(13,326 posts)1. Not one CEO prosecuted under Obama. nt
revbones
(3,660 posts)2. Hillary did say that he was the candidate that took more Wall St money than anyone else
thereismore
(13,326 posts)4. Yes well, he had a collapsing economy to save, I don't blame him. But now that we are "a OK"
economically, we have to break them up. It's not safe and they will do it again.
revbones
(3,660 posts)10. Well unless Bernie gets in that definitely ain't happening
thereismore
(13,326 posts)12. Exactly. nt
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)6. Hillary said that?
Pot meet kettle.
revbones
(3,660 posts)11. She's said it many times
But it was really just to hide behind him. Basically Obama did it, so it's ok.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)3. This: Rigged Justice: 2016; How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders Off Easy
And those fat speaking fees Hillary picked up will ensure status quo
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)5. They could empty the jails of all the pot smokers
and make some room.
jillan
(39,451 posts)7. Somebody get ME a waaaaambulance.
I was really hoping she would campaign for Bernie. Even if she didn't endorse him.
She's not going to be happy with President Goldman Sachs at the helm.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)8. I don't understand it
jillan
(39,451 posts)9. I do - the Clintons can be very vindictive people. So as a leading Senator, it's probably best for
her that she didn't burn any bridges.