Is Bernie going to brush up on finance law... because this is just embarrassing

[bigtree]

Josh Greenman @joshgreenman
Bernie Sanders explaining why Wall Streeters should have been prosecuted for the crash: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306?utm_content=buffer20d14&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=jgreenman+twitter …




Laura ?@princessomuch
So #Bernie faults Obama for not prosecuting Wall St executives but can't cite a single ground for prosecution?

Storify: Bernie Sanders Says He Doesn't Know How To Break Up the Banks
https://storify.com/femme_esq/bernie-sanders-says-he-doesn-t-know-how-to-break-u

[PatrickforO]

1. The thing that got me about this interview was the following lines:

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.

Bottom line, this interviewer does not understand the Fed. The Fed is OWNED by JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. It is NOT quasi governmental. That is part of the fraudulent nature of the whole financial system in this country.

Secondly, you fault Sanders for not being able to rattle off Wall Street executives by name and deed - that's why the president will have a justice department. It takes more than just one guy to identify the who, what, where, when and how of a crime, and the Wall Street lizards will pose a sophisticated defense.

And, as to Bernie saying the Obama DOJ was not 'in the tank' - that was politics. They WERE in the tank with Wall St. That's where a lot of these people came from and where they will go after they are done with government service - that is part of the corruption. So where is Eric Holder now?

"In the latest sign of the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, recently retired U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is returning home — to the corporate law firm Covington & Burling, where he worked for eight years before becoming head of the Justice Department. During his time at Covington, Holder’s clients included UBS and the fruit giant Chiquita. The law firm’s client list has included many of the big banks Holder failed to criminally prosecute as attorney general for their role in the financial crisis, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup."

So yeah, the Obama DOJ is in fact 'in the tank' for Wall Street, and just because Holder's out of there now doesn't mean it isn't the same.

I don't see how you're embarrassed for Bernie on this one. I'm much more embarrassed for the interviewer, because he was attempting a whole series of 'gotcha' type questions - the minute Bernie admits the Obama DOJ was 'in the tank' for Wall Street, or names a specific executive in connection with a specific allegation, then he's fucked. You KNOW this. So why be embarrassed? The interviewer doesn't even know the nature of the Fed. This whole interview, in fact, has 'dipshit' written all over it.

[Recursion]

3. The Fed is not owned by Chase

You can view its owners. By law.

Why haven't you?

[PatrickforO]

4. Bull.

"Fortunately, we can take a more direct approach to the question of ownership of the New York Fed and the other Federal Reserve Banks. The New York Fed reports that its eight largest member banks on June 30, 1997 were:

Chase Manhatten Bank
Citibank
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company
Fleet Bank
Bankers Trust
Bank of New York
Marine Midland Bank, and
Summit Bank

Like I said...

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty5.html
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

[Recursion]

5. The member banks are not owners

The Federal Reserve has owners. Name them, or stop pretending you care.

[revbones]

6. Sheesh, all these posts lately from you to dispute comments without providing proof.

Perhaps people would think more of your comments if they contained some facts themselves.

Things like here you basically say someone isn't telling the truth, but you provide no facts to back up your claim. I can tell you, it's not relfecting poorly on those you're comments are aimed at...

[Recursion]

8. I'm done teaching. If people can prove they care, I'm willing to talk

Until then, you guys have fun.

[whatchamacallit]

11. 'Teaching' is what you call it eh?

[revbones]

12. But apparently not done claiming others are wrong without providing proof. Nice. nt

[Recursion]

13. Basic crap like that is not my job. You guys can live your fantasy all you want. (nt)

[revbones]

15. Ah. I'm assuming since you are referring to your"job" that I can take you at your word,

and you are admitting to being a paid troll.

That would certainly explain the not wanting to provide anything to substantiate your claims and instead just write dismissive posts about the comments of others. Does it pay well?

[Recursion]

16. Sure, I'm paid to post here. Because that happens.

My God, this is hilarious.

I'm done talking with people who claim they care about "breaking up the banks", but can't name the banks already broken up under Dodd-Frank. They don't really care. You don't really care. If you cared, you would know what has happened so far.

You aren't actually interested in the policy; you just want your feelings validated. I get that.

I get it, and I'm done with it. Respond as you want; I'm done dealing with people who aren't serious about the country's problems and only want validation. Later. If you can name the banks broken up under Dodd-Frank, I'll talk.

[revbones]

17. While you say you are done, you still make derogatory posts without anything to back them up.

You make the claim that some banks are broken up by Dodd-Frank, yet can't or don't name even one.

If you actually knew, or cared as you say, you could back up your claims. Why is it that you spend so much energy in negative posts about other DU'ers here and what they post without providing anything to back up your claims?

I think when you say "You aren't actually interested in the policy; you just want your feelings validated. I get that. " as well as much else of your comment, that you are obviously projecting since you have still refused to back up anything you've said in any of those comments.

I also think it's pretty hilarious that you say there are banks broken up, but still refuse to name even one.

[CalvinballPro]

2. Gonna be a lot of heartbern as articles like these spread to the mainstream. This is "vetting."

The man behind the curtain is exposed, at long last.

[revbones]

14. Spreading talking points with misinformation from the likes of Brock are "vetting"?

Please remember that you said this if Hillary wins the nomination. I expect you'll avoid any hypocrisy and not have any posts or comments complaining about the republicans when they do this to her right?

[kennetha]

7. I've said it before and I'll say it again

Bernie is really just a cheap blowhard demagogue, a leftist version of Donald Trump.

[Jefferson23]

10. lol

[frylock]

18. Which is why nobody takes you seriously.

[kennetha]

19. Bernie is the one that nobody takes seriously

that's why almost no one who works with him, is backing him. That's why he has almost no record of accomplishment for all his years in Washington, DC

Basically, he's a legend in his own mind.

[frylock]

21. So, what your saying is that Hillary is too inept to close the deal..

on someone that nobody takes seriously? And all those amendments that were passed? Is that your evidence that nobody will work with him and that he has no record of accomplishment?

This post is for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1651657

[Jefferson23]

9. Bernie is not the one who should be embarrassed.

Now the DOJ Admits They Got it Wrong
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/09/now-the-doj-admits-they-got-it-wrong.html

[senz]

20. Breaking up conglomerates is a no-brainer. There is nothing "new" about it.

I just explained it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1651685

[Lucinda]

22. KNR