Eliza Warren: Obama Admin Shockingly Weak on Corporate Crime (and the SEC)

[amborin]

Warren: Obama administration 'shockingly weak' on corporate crime

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) opened up a new broadside against the Obama administration Friday, accusing his Justice Department of going easy on corporate America....Warren argues that powerful corporate executives have effectively received a free pass from the federal government, despite massive settlements where their companies often admit to criminal wrongdoing.

The Obama Administration has made repeated promises to strengthen enforcement and hold corporate criminals accountable,” Warren’s report stated. “Nonetheless, …accountability for corporate crimes is shockingly weak.”

snip

The cases include settlements struck with big banks, for-profit education companies, General Motors, and mining companies. While they span a range of industries, Warren argues that the common theme is that the government is far too quick to accept a company settlement — sometimes without even requiring an admittance of guilt — instead of taking those companies, and their executives, to court.

“The examples raise the disturbing possibility that some giant corporations — and their executives — have decided that following the law is merely optional,” the report states.

snip

In June, Warren sent a letter singling out the Securities and Exchange Commission for particular scorn, calling the agency’s work under Chair Mary Jo White “extremely disappointing.”

Warren singled out the Wall Street regulator again in Friday’s report. While she said some agencies struggle to enforce laws due to lax funding or missing legal tools, the SEC is “particularly feeble” and doesn’t use all the tools available to it.

This is what Hillary praises and aligns with.

More here:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/267469-warren-obama-administration-shockingly-weak-on-corporate-crime


(not sure if this belongs here or in GD)

[jkbRN]

1. Really?!

I see it as a total a
slap in the face to Clinton

[MineralMan]

2. Does Elizabeth Warren go by "Eliza?"

I hadn't heard that. Personally, I like to call her "Beth." Sometimes, I call her "Betty," "Liz" or "Lizzie," though. I've never thought of her as an "Eliza." I wonder what nickname she really prefers.

[restorefreedom]

3. the subject line has a character limit. maybe it was cut off?

although all the nicknames are nice. i have only heard elizabeth in reference to her. don't know what she prefers

[MineralMan]

5. Subject lines are cut off at the end, not the beginning.

Typing "Elizabeth" wouldn't have made the subject too long, though. I just think that assigning nicknames is a funny thing to do. I was making a joke.

The article in the OP got it right, though. "Senator Elizabeth Warren." That shows due respect, I think, for her.

[restorefreedom]

8. i think all the names are fine.

i do have to do some creative trumcating at times. we probably all have

[Stellar]

15. If you google 'Senator Warren', her page pops up. Plus, I prefer just calling her Senator Warren...

LOL! Works for me, I love that woman.

[amborin]

7. this; needed to fit the SEC, which goes largely unchanged from before the crash

[restorefreedom]

9. thx..very important article. nt

[CharlotteVale]

4. For some reason it doesn't shock me.

[Autumn]

6. Since it describes what you think Hillary praises and aligns with it may fit here.

It all depends on the host. Here's a rec.

[amborin]

10. thanks! And, yes, posted it here b/c HC recently said she would continue Obama's policies; nt

[Autumn]

12. You may want to edit and add that to your OP.

[Stellar]

11. She should run for POTUS and clear it all up.

eta: She's stronger than any candidate running today.

[snot]

13. YES!!!

[treestar]

14. Where's the proof?

Who is guilty of what?

All administrations have difficulty enforcing the laws. Look at the number of undocumented immigrants.

[think]

18. How about facts showing criminal prosecution down significantly during Obama'a tenure?

Criminal Prosecutions for Financial
Institution Fraud Continue to Fall

Federal prosecutions for financial institution fraud have continued their downward slide despite the financial troubles reported in this sector. The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during the first eleven months of FY 2011 the government reported 1,251 new prosecutions were filed. If this activity continues at the same pace, the annual total of prosecutions will be 1,365 for this fiscal year, down 28.6 percent from their numbers of just five years ago and less than half the level prevalent a decade ago. See Table 1.

The comparisons of the number of defendants charged with financial institution fraud offenses are based on case-by-case information obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

The long term trend in these prosecutions over the last two decades is shown more clearly in Figure 1. The vertical bars in Figure 1 represent the number of financial institution fraud prosecutions recorded each fiscal year. Projected figures for the current fiscal year are shown. Each presidential administration is distinguished by the color of the bars. To view trends month-by-month rather than year-by-year, see TRAC's monthly report series for the latest data...

Source:
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/267/

Thanks Manny :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383745#post54

[treestar]

19. Changes in the laws over those years occurred

and Bush did tax cuts and many factors. Maybe even fewer violators of the law - though it is likely you can hardly imagine that to be the case and are sure every single company is violating the law somehow.

[think]

20. "Eric Holder Admits Some Banks Are Just Too Big To Prosecute"

Eric Holder Admits Some Banks Are Just Too Big To Prosecute

By Mark Gongloff - 03/06/2013 03:29 pm ET | Updated Mar 06, 2013


~Snip~
When the Attorney General of the United States admits some banks are simply too big to prosecute, it might be time to admit we have a problem -- and that goes for both the financial and justice systems.

Eric Holder made this rather startling confession in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, The Hill reports. It could be a key moment in the debate over whether to do something about the size and complexity of our biggest banks, which have only gotten bigger and more systemically important since the financial crisis.

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to The Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

~Snip~

That doesn't mean you should hold your breath for anything to be done about it right away, or ever. It is far easier to talk about breaking up the big banks than to do it, particularly given that they will lobby hard against it every step of the way. But the tide of public opinion is turning against them a little more every day...

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html

Holder chose not to prosecute because of his fears that it might hurt the economy if these bankers were prosecuted for their crimes. That was HIS choice not to prosecute.

And how can we forget that these were his former and future clients that his current & former company of employment lobbies for:

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

These are the cold hard facts of the matter. Eric Holder chose not to prosecute the clients of his company that lobbies congress on their behalf. Holder made his choice and that choice was not to follow through with the prosecution of crimes perpetrated by these bankers.

It's pretty clear if you read Holder's own admission and then acknowledge who he worked for before and after he made that choice not to prosecute. These banks are now actually BIGGER and more profitable due in part by Holder's decision not to prosecute their criminal behavior.

[JudyM]

16. I hope Rachel bring up this issue in the upcoming debate.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. and Hillary would be even worse.

How can any progressive even consider supporting her?

[Oilwellian]

21. Perhaps Bernie will discuss Senator Warren's "missive" with the masses...

in the next few weeks.

[TIME TO PANIC]

22. K & R !

[FlatBaroque]

23. k

[Duppers]

24. K & R

[amborin]

25. nothing will change under Hillary. She even personally profits from some of these