The Untouchables on Frontline

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
Sorry, gopher...........this one really is on Obama.


There are things going on that shouldn’t be going on. There are people getting away with things who shouldn’t be getting away with things. We all know that.

And then there’s this interesting question: More than four years since the financial crisis, not one senior Wall Street executive has faced criminal prosecution for fraud. Are Wall Street executives “too big to jail?”

Chew on that one for a while.

The Untouchables (on Frontline, PBS, 10 p.m.) is a transfixing, enraging examination of why a small army of greedy-guts bank executives in bespoke suits, the ones who brought down an entire economy, are moseying around, fancy-free, and not in court or in the hoosegow.

It’s fair to wonder why. And, timed as it is to air one day after Barack Obama begins his second term as President of the United States, the program is a brutal indictment of his administration.

What happened in the collapse of various banks in 2008 was mind-boggling. The U.S. economy itself came to the brink of disintegration. Look around the world at the impact and it is devastating. As we now know, a vast network of banks, all in cahoots, led Europe and the United States into recession. (A very good read on the madness in Europe is Michael Lewis’s book Boomerang: Be prepared to be stunned by it.) Around Europe, former bank execs have been prosecuted and some are doing jail time. In the United States, nothing more than finger-pointing has happened.

The Frontline program, written and produced by Martin Smith, begins with an assertion by a U.S. Justice Department official that “greed is not necessarily criminal.” It then looks at the difference between greed and criminality and finds copious evidence of criminal fraud.

At the core of the program is an examination of what was at the core of the banking practices that precipitated the crisis – the banks knowingly packaged and sold toxic mortgage loans to investors. These dubious loans should never have been given in the first place. The banks knew that and merrily stepped around financial safety standards to keep the game going.

Particular attention is paid to Countrywide Financial, which, in 2006, financed 20 per cent of all mortgages in the United States. Its business plan was simple, we are told – “a loan for every customer” was the motto. Even if the customer had no income. A former employee, who questioned the viability of some loans, was told, “If they can fog a mirror, we’ll give ’em a loan.” Total jiggery-pokery.

So mortgages, based on unverified information and inevitably headed for collapse, were sold and resold, with everybody along the banking line getting a fee, and nobody being bothered to make it stop. We hear from a “Due Diligence Underwriter,” a person tasked with assessing the loans and mortgages, who says, “It wasn’t uncommon for underwriters to laugh at the loans being given.” But his boss would dismiss the concerns and say, “The loan looks reasonable to me.” The boss’s bosses would then sell a package of dubious loans to investors with an assertion that everything was fine. At one point, Countrywide was estimated to have assets of $200-billion. When it was acquired by Bank of America in 2008, its assets were estimated at only $2.8-billion.

What emerges is a picture of dubious practices unchecked. And then what emerges is a number of politicians and officials seething with rage that fraud charges have not been brought against key players.

A lot of people are mad at the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to press charges. Former senator Ted Kaufman (a Democrat who was appointed to fill Joe Biden’s Senate seat when Biden was sworn in as Vice-President in January, 2009) was, as the program says, “determined to see bankers in handcuffs.” But try as he might, nothing happened.

Kaufman left Washington in 2010. His chief of staff, Jeff Connaughton, remains perplexed that prosecuting Wall Street was never a priority for the Obama administration: “You’re telling me that not one banker, not one executive on Wall Street, not one player in this entire financial crisis committed provable fraud?” he asks incredulously. “I mean, I just don’t believe that.”

Eventually, there is a sort-of explanation from Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney-general for the Department of Justice’s criminal division. Wringing his hands and obviously a bit nervous, he says, “I think there was a level of greed, a level of excessive risk taking in this situation that I find abominable and very upsetting. But that is not what makes a criminal case.”

And yet, as Frontline finds, there is considerable evidence of fraud. “Very upsetting” is what you’ll find this excellent exposé. Talk about getting away with it. You and I couldn’t get away with it.

The Untouchables: PBS show finds Wall Street can get away with murder - The Globe and Mail
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
Blame _____________________!!!

:lol:

After I watched this last night...........mouth agape..........I could not help but think that if the Occupy movement in the States had coalesced around this one issue, they might have actually been able to get something done. Maybe.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
There were all kinds of transgressions but were they illegal transgressions? Four years after
if nothing illegal took place who do you want prosecuted and believe me if there was illegal
acts I want them punished. The problem is past practice and relaxing of regulations may
have allowed for loop holes that allowed other to get away with a lot of things. What angers
me first is, they paid out billions to assist these companies and never applied conditions that
would prevent bonuses being paid to the key people who created the mess and that is on
Obama in my opinion. To suggest however that people committed crimes and they inner
circle of government allowed them to get away with it is a stretch. Those things have to be
proven in a court of law. Therefore its the DA and others in the legal departments that have
to bring transgressions of the law. Yes the Justice Department should be involved. First
was there laws broken? Was it using loopholes that allowed for the events to happen?
Important questions. there is a difference legally in ethical behaviour and criminal behaviour.
At least from a legal standpoint. If we were to imprison business people and brokers for
ethics the jails would overflow to the point there would be no room for criminals.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
There were all kinds of transgressions but were they illegal transgressions? Four years after
if nothing illegal took place who do you want prosecuted and believe me if there was illegal
acts I want them punished. The problem is past practice and relaxing of regulations may
have allowed for loop holes that allowed other to get away with a lot of things. What angers
me first is, they paid out billions to assist these companies and never applied conditions that
would prevent bonuses being paid to the key people who created the mess and that is on
Obama in my opinion. To suggest however that people committed crimes and they inner
circle of government allowed them to get away with it is a stretch. Those things have to be
proven in a court of law. Therefore its the DA and others in the legal departments that have
to bring transgressions of the law. Yes the Justice Department should be involved. First
was there laws broken? Was it using loopholes that allowed for the events to happen?
Important questions. there is a difference legally in ethical behaviour and criminal behaviour.
At least from a legal standpoint. If we were to imprison business people and brokers for
ethics the jails would overflow to the point there would be no room for criminals.

DG, you really need to watch the program. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the bankers are guilty. That they haven't been prosecuted for their crimes is a stain on Obama's presidency.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Don't bet on the bankers being guilty of much of any consequence. When you read the fine print of the watered down laws there will be nothing worth pursuing.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Seems the show touched a nerve...........


Man Responsible for Not Bringing Criminal Charges to Wall Street Steps Down


Lanny A. Breuer is leaving the Justice Department after leading the agency’s efforts to clamp down on public corruption and financial fraud at the nation’s largest banks, according to several people familiar with the matter.


As one of the longest-serving heads of the criminal division, Breuer has had a tenure filled with controversy and high-profile prosecutions. He was admonished for his role in the agency’s botched attempt to infiltrate weapons-smuggling rings in the operation dubbed “Fast and Furious.” And he has been accused of being soft on Wall Street for failing to throw senior bank executives behind bars for their role in the financial crisis.


more

Lanny Breuer, Justice Department criminal division chief, is stepping down - The Washington Post
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
So Obama is also responsible for what happened in 2006 and in 2008?


BLAME OBAMA!!!

He appoints the Attorney General does he not. Anyone who has followed the news for that period forwards knew some funny bus was ongoing.
Unless of course they followed Alice down that hole.

With a lot of this going on. Donations to both parties. So don't cry innocence.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
There were all kinds of transgressions but were they illegal transgressions? Four years after
if nothing illegal took place who do you want prosecuted and believe me if there was illegal
acts I want them punished. The problem is past practice and relaxing of regulations may
have allowed for loop holes that allowed other to get away with a lot of things. What angers
me first is, they paid out billions to assist these companies and never applied conditions that
would prevent bonuses being paid to the key people who created the mess and that is on
Obama in my opinion. To suggest however that people committed crimes and they inner
circle of government allowed them to get away with it is a stretch.
Those things have to be
proven in a court of law. Therefore its the DA and others in the legal departments that have
to bring transgressions of the law. Yes the Justice Department should be involved. First
was there laws broken? Was it using loopholes that allowed for the events to happen?
Important questions. there is a difference legally in ethical behaviour and criminal behaviour.
At least from a legal standpoint. If we were to imprison business people and brokers for
ethics the jails would overflow to the point there would be no room for criminals.

It's not in any way a stretch as a matter of fact it is historically the most likely scenario by far. Always always always pervert from inside, eat the guts first, the skin still looks like an ethical business. The righteous mob will rip the unethical apart as fast as the criminal. I might even hobble over to the tarring myself and get a few boots in, only with the right foot mind you as the knee on the left is very stiff.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
So Obama is also responsible for what happened in 2006 and in 2008?


BLAME OBAMA!!!

No, gopher he isn't responsible for the meltdown. However, he is responsible for the weenie in the Justice Dept who loses sleep at night worrying about what will happen to the banks. Senator Kaufman when told about this was absolutley appalled and made remarks to the effect that the job of Justice is to prosecute. (Period) There are literally hundreds of civil cases being brought against the banks right now and the evidence they will put forward can and should be used to bring about criminal prosecution. This is on Obama's watch, gopher...........no two ways around it. As a taxpaying citizen who almost saw his country go under, I would think you too would love to see the money-grubbing bankers behind bars. These bastards almost brought down the economy of the entire planet fps and they did it knowingly, and will malice aforethought.

Seems the show touched a nerve...........


Man Responsible for Not Bringing Criminal Charges to Wall Street Steps Down


Lanny A. Breuer is leaving the Justice Department after leading the agency’s efforts to clamp down on public corruption and financial fraud at the nation’s largest banks, according to several people familiar with the matter.


As one of the longest-serving heads of the criminal division, Breuer has had a tenure filled with controversy and high-profile prosecutions. He was admonished for his role in the agency’s botched attempt to infiltrate weapons-smuggling rings in the operation dubbed “Fast and Furious.” And he has been accused of being soft on Wall Street for failing to throw senior bank executives behind bars for their role in the financial crisis.


more

Lanny Breuer, Justice Department criminal division chief, is stepping down - The Washington Post

Now that is a step in the right direction. One can only hope that his replacement won't lose sleep over the poor old bankers.


And so? Another softy will come in and not do anything.

Geez, Eagle ...........give us some hope. Those greedy so and sos didn't just hurt your economy. They deserve, at the very least to bring strung up by their nether parts............failing that multi-year jail terms will do.

The righteous mob will rip the unethical apart as fast as the criminal. I might even hobble over to the tarring myself and get a few boots in, only with the right foot mind you as the knee on the left is very stiff.

Well........okay....personally though, I like the stringing them up by their man-parts one heck of a lot better. ;-)
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia



Well........okay....personally though, I like the stringing them up by their man-parts one heck of a lot better. ;-)


Let's not have any of that old fashioned sexist stuff this is the twenty-first century and there is no lack of ruthless female bankers.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Mowich,


BLAME OBAMA!!!No, gopher he isn't responsible for the meltdown. However, he is responsible for the weenie in the Justice Dept who loses sleep at night worrying about what will happen to the banks.



Yeah but some of what was listed above occurred in the Bush years. Therefore, why isn't he blamed for not prosecuting the crimes that occurred then? How is Obama responsible for that??
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Yeah but some of what was listed above occurred in the Bush years. Therefore, why isn't he blamed for not prosecuting the crimes that occurred then? How is Obama responsible for that??

Obama knows what you do so he's ignoring charges against Bush, so he's guilty of shielding a suspect in a great big crime. He's guilty and you voted for the the the bad guy.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
Yeah but some of what was listed above occurred in the Bush years. Therefore, why isn't he blamed for not prosecuting the crimes that occurred then? How is Obama responsible for that??

The crimes were happening under Bush, gopher. The meltdown and ensuing financial crisis happened just after Obama took office. Did Bush know what was going on? Probably. Did he completely understand the consequences of what was going on - I never gave him much credit for brains, so maybe not. Could he have stepped in and done something - sure but these guys are his buddies, his campaign backers - not gonna happen. Therefore though he may be culpable for not doing something to regulate the banks, he was out of office when the poop hit the fan and thus not so as far as any prosecution.


The person responsible for pursuing these perps was Lanny Breuer who just lost his job - seems that someone in the White House watches PBS - was a complete and total weenie. Watching him being interviewed made me uncomfortable. He squirmed around so much in his chair I was beginning to think he had piles. He actually stated during one interview for the doc, that he did indeed worry about the future of the banks - from which came the saying 'Too Big, To Jail'. This from the guy who is supposed to be going out there and finding every bit of relevant evidence in order to pursue a prosecution - and there is plenty of evidence to be found. Plenty. There are reams and reams of documents - statements from the people who were charged with doing due diligence on mortgages. The reason they do this is to make sure that the person applying for the mortgage has the wherewithal to afford it. As is well documented, these folks were told by their supervisors who got the word from the banks, to approve loans that went against the bank's own regulations. Got that. They just said, forget it give 'em the loan. This is why it was that someone delivering pizza for a living ended up in a mansion. One enterprising fellow, just an ordinary citizen took his video camera and interviewed scores of Bear Sterns traders who pull no punches in telling him exactly what they were doing.

The evidence is there..........now does Obama have the will? Or are the bankers really 2 Big 2 Jail, if that is so it will be a sorry day for justice.


Obama knows what you do so he's ignoring charges against Bush, so he's guilty of shielding a suspect in a great big crime. He's guilty and you voted for the the the bad guy.

You raise an interesting question, DB. Is it possible for Obama to bring Bush to account for anything? Does he have that power as Pres?