Sanders couldn't name one CEO that he would have sent to jail after the economic collapse

[ProudToBeLiberal]

On the Bloomberg Politics show, he couldn't name one CEO that he would have sent to jail for the economic collapse. He also couldn't name any criminal illegal activity that the major banks have committed. You can watch the show here http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/

[thereismore]

1. Jesus Christ. You want a major candidate to allege that specific people

committed crimes without prior assembly of material evidence. Good one.

I suggest you vote for Sanders to get your names, otherwise there won't be a prosecution.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Hasn't Bernie already been alleging that crimes were committed? nt

[Green Forest]

4. Where did he say that? Do you have the quote?

What did he actually say?

[Cali_Democrat]

7. From his speech today:

<...>

ENDING TOO-BIG-TO-JAIL

It is no secret that millions of Americans have become disillusioned with our political process. They don’t vote. They don’t believe much of what comes out of Washington. They don’t think anyone is there representing their interests. In my view, one of the reasons for that deep disillusionment is the widespread understanding that our criminal justice system is broken and grossly unfair – and that we do not have equal justice under the law. The average American sees kids being arrested and sometimes even jailed for possessing marijuana or other minor crimes. But when it comes to Wall Street executives, some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this country, whose illegal behavior caused pain and suffering for millions – somehow nothing happens to them. No police record. No jail time. No justice.

We live in a country today that has an economy that is rigged, a campaign finance system which is corrupt and a criminal justice system which, too often, does not dispense justice.

Not one major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for causing the near collapse of our entire economy.

That will change under my administration. “Equal Justice Under Law” will not just be words engraved on the entrance of the Supreme Court. It will be the standard that applies to Wall Street and all Americans.

<...>

Yet, the total fine for this offense was less than 2% of the bank’s $12.3 billion profit for 2009 and no one went to jail. No one went to jail.

<...>

Under my administration, Wall Street CEOs will no longer receive a get-out-of jail free card. Big banks will not be too big to fail. Big bankers will not be too big to jail.

https://berniesanders.com/statement-by-senator-bernie-sanders-on-wall-street-and-the-economy/

[MeNMyVolt]

13. Yes, I would like an answer from SBS on this. n/t

[Green Forest]

21. So you expect Bernie to specify who committed what crime? Really?

What he said is good enough for now and more than what Hillary is willing to say. This is not surprising, given her top donors.

[Empowerer]

33. Why wouldn't he? Isn't one of his attributes the willingness to speak truth to power, regardless

the consequences?

[Green Forest]

40. He already has. And will continue to, unlike his critics.

That is why he is considered honest and trustworthy, unlike Hillary.

[Empowerer]

45. He's not in this case. And you defend him for not calling them out

Your prerogative, but it completely undercuts your argument about his fearlessness.

[TM99]

47. It would be idiotic and irresponsible to call out specific individuals.

Hillary told Wall Street to cut it out. Who specifically at Wall Street. Which executives did she meet with and chat with about problems that were mounting towards a financial crisis. Why hasn't she named names? Why do you allow her to not name names?

[TM99]

51. Lies, distortions and smears.

I notice that you are parroting the right wing attack ads of Sanders Nemesis in Vermont.

How liberal of you!

You are a Clinton supporter aren't you?

[enid602]

68. jane

This is a matter of record. Google it, and you'll see it was covered by wcax.com, burlingtonfreepress.com, and other outlets. Of course it can also be found on RW websites. Can you imagine what they would do if they had something like this on Hillary or Bill?

[TM99]

72. I don't take people seriously who can't spell

and who push right wing lies and distortions.

The Clintons have more financial, legal, and ethical issues than any politician since Nixon.

You really don't want to get into a pissing contest with me about their's. But hey bring it on!

[enid602]

81. hypocrisy

She committed a felony. It makes Bernie's comments abpit bank fraud seem hypocriitical.

[TM99]

82. Who committed a felon?

Jane Sanders?

Yeah, that is why she was never arrested, never went to court, got a severance pay, and doesn't have a criminal record.

Now I know you are just making shit up. Go away!

[enid602]

97. jane

As a CEO, she signed off on a balance sheet that overstated assets by $2MM. Two endowments were overstated, and a third million dollar endowment was quite questionable, as the person making the endowment is stll alive. A felony. She was never conviicted as she lawyered up.

[TM99]

98. Nope, still false.

Keep trying. If you throw enough shit at the wall, I guess some day some of it might stick.

Wouldn't count on it though.

[mythology]

124. That same logic could be applied to the bankers you laud Sanders for going after

They meet all of those same criteria.

[enid602]

92. hypocrisy

She committed a felony. It makes Bernie's comments about bank fraud seem hypocriitical.

[TM99]

94. No really she did not.

Stop spouting bullshit and lies.

[AgingAmerican]

129. Except she didn't

Desperate Hillary supporters will literally say ANYTHING to smear Sanders.

[Cal33]

107. Hey, get this straiaght. Naming names is something else. It's the timing. When

he is the president he will have them investigated. He will name the names when
he has the official evidence and the right to do so.

[Empowerer]

116. I see

Did he say that or are just assuming that's what he's going to do?

[Cal33]

134. It's the plain common-sense way to have things like this done. Bernie strikes me as having

a lot of common sense.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

8. From his own website

WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday agreed with Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that corporate executives should have gone to jail for the illegal behavior which caused the financial crisis in 2008.

“Everything that went wrong or was illegal was done by some individual, not by an abstract firm,” the former Fed chief told USA Today. “[T]here should have been more accountability at the individual level.”

Sanders agreed.

“It is an outrage that not one major Wall Street executive has gone to jail for causing the near collapse of the economy. The failure to prosecute the crooks on Wall Street for their illegal and reckless behavior is a clear indictment of our broken criminal justice system,” Sanders said.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/wall-street-ceos-not-too-big-to-jail/

[angrychair]

9. Grand juries allege crimes (called indictments)

Not politicians.

Is your purpose to slam Sanders or to offer vindication and support to you and your candidate's supporters on Wall st?

[treestar]

11. Then Bernie can't have it both ways

How does he know crimes were committed if he doesn't know who did? Maybe the grand juries had nothing to indict on. The economy goes up and down and sometimes people make bad choices that might affect others. A recession in itself doesn't prove any crime was committed. There has to be a specific allegation.

[Green Forest]

24. He can have it any way he wants. It is called having an opinion. I respect him for it...

... and so do a lot of voters who feel the same way.

[treestar]

140. inconsistency in opinions

is reason to question them. If he can't point to a specific crime, he logically has no ground on which to claim they happened.

[Green Forest]

146. Reread my reply. Bernie knows more than he is telling. Your opinion about illogical claims rings true regarding Hillary, though...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/05/new-video-or-not-clinton-claim-about-isis-using-tr/

[treestar]

147. If he knows of a specific instance of a specific act of crime

he can let the AG know about it.

[Green Forest]

149. President Sanders will do that after a thorough and independent investigation by his Justice Dep't.

That would never happen under Hillary.

[angrychair]

34. Crimes were committed

Fines were paid. Fines that barely amount to the concept of "the cost of doing business". Cases like these are expensive to mount, complicated to understand and the burden of proof high. Adding insult to injury is that, as a person, if I steal $1, I am a thief. If I am a corporation, especially a financial institution or investment house, I commit an 'error' or engage in risky and irresponsible behavior i.e. steal other people's money to make me rich, the corporation pays a fine, aka "the cost of doing business". Paying a nominal fine of a couple million per billion of profit, is a positive investment in their minds.
That people lost homes and businesses is not their concern. Making money is their going concern.

That is why Sanders cares and why it matters.

[-none]

87. There was a shooting in KCMO this afternoon

How does he know crimes were committed if he doesn't know who did?

Three people are in critical condition condition in a hospital. Authorities do not know who did it.
How do they know a crime was committed, it they don't know who did it?

This is the same logic as your post.

[deathrind]

106. Thank you.

What a bs question to ask him.

[treestar]

141. A shooting is a more concrete event

that happens publicly.

Even so, a crime must be identified. A specific act by a specific person, even if an unknown person. This general "Wall Street oligarchs" doesn't identify any specific act by the unknown "oligarch."

[-none]

148. I responded logically to your original question.

You said:

How does he know crimes were committed if he doesn't know who did?

Why are so many goal post on wheels around here.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. From the horse's mouth:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/wall-street-ceos-not-too-big-to-jail/

<...>

“It is an outrage that not one major Wall Street executive has gone to jail for causing the near collapse of the economy. The failure to prosecute the crooks on Wall Street for their illegal and reckless behavior is a clear indictment of our broken criminal justice system,” Sanders said.

<...>

“Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college because of the greed on Wall Street. We can no longer tolerate a criminal justice system that treats Wall Street executives as too big to jail when their actions have ruined the lives of so many Americans.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/wall-street-ceos-not-too-big-to-jail/

[reformist2]

27. I take the increased number of attacks on Bernie as a sign the Hillary camp is worried.

[winter is coming]

35. Just wail 'til tomorrow.

[INdemo]

77. Its 2008 All over again for the Hillary campaign

FEB 1,2016 check the TV listings for Hillary's Scream Speech live from Iowa

[riversedge]

70. Who are people he says committed 'illegal behavior" from his speech today??...

.... But when it comes to Wall Street executives, some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this country, whose illegal behavior caused pain and suffering for millions – somehow nothing happens to them. No police record. No jail time. No justice..........



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-bernie-sanders-wall-street-and-economy-speech-2016-01-05

[Maedhros]

71. Go easy on him.

The Clinton Central Committee gave him the task of throwing whatever mud he could find onto the wall to see if any of it sticks. He's just carrying on like a good trooper.

[7wo7rees]

90. This entire thread is frightening. Lots of posts trying to

interject some small degree of sanity.

A lot of rhetoric, new/relatively new posters making not much sense at all.....

Sad

[TM99]

3. And it would have been irresponsible to do so.

Where do y'all get this stupid shit?!

[INdemo]

80. They stay up very late at night and watch Fox News

[Armstead]

5. Yeah that'd go over big

[global1]

6. There You Go Again....

If you listened to Bernie's speech on Wall St today he gave a number of examples of the fines that were imposed on these firms. He said that firms were fined more than $200 billion. No one was prosecuted - but they paid fines for doing something that was considered wrong or illegal. They got away with doing something underhanded and no one was held accountable. They paid a fine - but I'll bet you that was considered a cost of doing business and these same firms came out ahead and didn't lose any real money.

It only follows - if a firm was fined that some sort of illegal activity prompted that fine. Usually when someone does something illegal and they aren't a billionaire banker or Wall St broker - they go to jail.

The fact that Wall St and the Bankster's are in the back pocket of our politicians - they get away with these illegal activities.

The interviewers on Bloomberg were shooting 'gothcha' questions at Bernie - and if you listen to his responses - I think he held his own and didn't fall for their tactics

So you quickly move from your previous post of saying that Bernie was trying to undermine the President's gun control EO speech and you moved to this to make it look like Bernie was something less in this interview on Bloomberg.

I guess we know who you are spinning for.

[mmonk]

10. You may think fraud that collapsed the

economy is no big deal but those of us who got screwed and our children will always be against the politicians that gave it a green light until we die. Your love for the politicians that f*cked us notwithstanding, be prepared to have to deal with us until we draw our last breath. This is my life pledge to you all of you under the influence of corporate power and cults of personality.

[MeNMyVolt]

16. If it's fraud, cite the law and name the people.

He's been dancing around this for years, and being just nebulous enough to avoid a suit.

Cite the fucking law.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. What about when Holder, the fucking attorney general, said that some institutions were too important

to criminally prosecute? Does that, in your view, indicate a corrupted criminal justice system with respect to financial crimes?

edit: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/big-banks-go-wrong-but-pay-a-little-price/?_r=0

“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 we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” Mr. Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”

Mr. Holder continued, acknowledging that the size of banks “has an inhibiting influence.” He said that it affects “our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate.”

To put this in the proper perspective, Mr. Holder said, for the first time, that he has not pursued prosecutions of big banks out of fear that an indictment could jeopardize the financial system.

Of course, he later walked those comments back. One wonders why. Of course, now he has a cushy job back in NYC representing Financial organizations. One wonders indeed...

[MeNMyVolt]

20. Cite the law that was broken by a CEO of these firms.

I've been asking this for 6 years. e.g. Jamie Dimon, whom everyone on DU hates. What law did he break.

[JonLeibowitz]

22. I don't know, I'm not a criminal prosecutor. That is not where my training lies.

But when the AG of the United States says something like what I linked to, I listen.

You of course are free to ignore his remarks.

[Yallow]

31. Jamie Dimon Felonies

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/05/jpmorgans-jamie-dimon-deals-with-his-banks-felony-charge-badly/

No 1 on Google.

Not really that difficult.

[MFrohike]

130. I'll bite

Sarbanes-Oxley signing statements regarding internal controls. At a minimum, John Thain of Merrill, Dick Fuld of Bear Stearns, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman, and Vikram Pandit of Citi should be in orange jumpsuits. Two of them ran their companies into the ground because they had no clue what their trading desks were doing, particularly Merrill with the largest trading loss of all time, and the other two because they only avoided complete catastrophe by frantic government intervention. Sarbanes-Oxley requires the CEO to sign off on adequate internal controls and it's pretty damn clear the evidence that none of these jokers did the first bit of their required due diligence.

Oh, Jamie Dimon should have joined them after the London Whale. It's pretty clear he wasn't paying the least bit of attention to what they were doing.

In addition to the above, both federal and state law provide for criminal liability for fraud. I'd think that a prosecutor worth a damn shouldn't have had a ton of trouble making that kind of case. Institutional investors were targeted by the securitizers for MBS and CDO sales. Those investors are usually required to invest in AAA bonds. The securitizers leaned hard on the ratings agencies, much as the originators did with appraisers, to game the ratings and get the securities into the required range for sale. This occurred whether the underlying loan pools or tranches were remotely sound. That sounds like a classic case of fraud to me. You have the deception via ratings, the detrimental reliance via the purchase, and the injury via the defaults.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. The SEC routinely negotiates away felonies.

Only on wall street can one commit federal felonies, get caught, and have the feds offer to forget the charges.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. There isa a huige difference between criminal prosecution of a corporation and the criminal ...

prosecution of a CEO.

[JonLeibowitz]

43. Ah, I am mistaken. Thanks.

You are correct; I have seen no evidence of a CEO having knowledge of the financial crimes (of course, that may be by design).

Sanders went a little too far with some of his proposals today, in my view. And I say that as a vigorous supporter.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. It is by design ...

that is why corporations are set up the way they are ... to insulate the top from the (possible) criminal activity that drives profits.

[Armstead]

143. Which is a systemic problem that Sanders is trying to address

If the game is rigged so that lower level people are legally vulnerable, while those who set the direction and policies through "nudge, nudge, wink wink" are insulated from responsibility, it needs to be changed so that there is accountability throughout.

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. No he's not ...

Sanders is talking about a lot of systemic things; but, corporate structure is not one of them.

[Armstead]

156. If there is more accouontability....

It is more likely that the corporate leaders will behave better, and make their corporations behave better. That's kind of the point.

There is also the larger question of values, morals and ethics, and a sense of social responsibility. That has to do with the morality we condone and practice as a society and as individuals. One of the shitty aspects of modern life is that too many people have jettisoned such things.

That's not something a president can instill or force into individuals and institutions. But in that sense, at least Bernie's campaign represents an effort to encourage us to think more about doing the right things.

[treestar]

142. all that proves is that it is not black and white

the decision to prosecute a crime is not either/or black and white decision making.

[TM99]

23. Jesus it is hard to take y'all seriously.

Have you been living under a rock?

Sanders is not the only person discussing this. In fact, many have since the fucking 2008 crisis.

You do realize that Hillary Clinton would not have needed to propose her recent plan if there were no crimes committed and stricter regulations needed? Why would she have told them in 2007 to 'cut it out' if there was nothing to cut it out about!

Let's give you some links to educate yourself so that your ignorance is dispelled.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/wall-street-crimes/

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/mar2009/ca20090319_591214.htm

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/10/prosecuting-executives-not-companies-for-wall-street-crime

SAC Capital Advisors’ guilty plea to insider trading is the latest example of financial fraud in which no major executive has been charged with a crime.

On Thursday, the chief of the New York Fed spoke of a “lack of respect for law” and “deep-seated cultural and ethical failures” on Wall Street.

Since the economic implosion, billions in fines have been assessed, banks have admitted illegality, but no top official has been indicted.

Why can’t prosecutors win criminal convictions and prison time for Wall Street wrongdoers?

Read that one again very carefully. Billions in fines. Banks admitted ILLEGALITIES. But no executives indicted.

The DOJ and other Fed agencies could have prosecuted.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2012/07/12/statute-limitations-approaches-wall-street-crimes-2008-go-unpunished

They made a choice not to do so.

But this link is especially for you. This one lists every major crime and the settlement fines imposed. It also discuss bi-partisan legislation going back to 2013 to keep "too big to jail or fail" banks and executives from repeating what occurred in and during the run up to the 2008 crisis.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wall_Street_crimes

Sanders presented responsibly a tough plan to re-regulate Wall Street and to make sure that these CRIMES do not occur again.

[MeNMyVolt]

28. Impressive post, and I appreciate all the work that went into it.

The question is simple. Name a CEO and the law that was broken. That's the question, and the basis of SBS's rhetoric. Just give me one name of what's considered " a major Wall Street executive", and what law that executive broke that has not been prosecuted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. To be honest, there IS one CEO that could have been prosecuted ...

but, not for fraud or any of the other things the internet would have the CEOs prosecuted on. Jamie Dimon admitted that he violated Sarbanes-Oxley by knowingly signing inaccurate financials.

Other than that ... there was nothing.

[MeNMyVolt]

53. Now, that is interesting. I missed that for some reason, even though..

... my previous working life was immersed in SOx. I'll go Google the story.

Thanks 1SBM.

[TM99]

41. You have been presented with what laws were broken.

The CEO's at the time that these laws were broken were not prosecuted instead the banks themselves as an entity were. Settlements in the form of fines was all that could be levied in that circumstance. You can't put a bank in jail.

Look up the executives of every bank on that list at the time. Those are the men and women that should have been but were not prosecuted.

Post #31 from Yallow shows one example. JP Morgan committed crimes. Jamie Dimon as CEO and other top executives of JP Morgan should have been prosecuted for allowing those criminal acts to occur just as Enron executives were prosecuted for criminal acts that occurred at their business under their direction.

[MeNMyVolt]

55. Sorry, that's not the way corporate law works in this country.

[TM99]

59. Bullshit.

Explain to me the differences between Enron and JP Morgan. Why did both companies who have both committed and admitted to illegalities get prosecuted in different ways? Why were executives at one company brought up on criminal charges and at the other company they were not?

Executives get held criminally and civilly responsible in courts of law daily for the illegal actions of the business they run.

[MeNMyVolt]

63. Show me the evidence, or at least a reason for criminal...

... prosecution against a CEO/CFO that should have been undertaken. There was plenty in Enron.

All you or SBS needs to do is back up the rhetoric. I completely understand the anger. I lost a shitload too.

[TM99]

66. So you do not read any of the links presented to you?

Sourcewatch?

The article from Yallow in post #31?

[7wo7rees]

79. Jamie Dimon. RICO maybe, definitely fraud to investors,

multiple SEC regulations.....

There, happy??

Read Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone.

Find enlightenment.

[think]

30. Thank you for some sanity in this thread. /nt

[mmonk]

54. Rating junk AAA (the highest investment grade)

for one. AAA is supposed to represent safety. They sunk the world economy with it. You can defend it all along with the Third Way and their partners in corruption, the Republicans all you want. Like I said, we're political enemies for life now.

[MeNMyVolt]

57. I completely agree, the ratings angencies were probably most responsible for what happened.

Still, no law was broken in regards to their actions.

I'm not "defending" anyone. And I couldn't give less of a fuck on what you think of me.

[redstateblues]

126. Lotta big talk.

Why is he afraid to name names?

[FloridaBlues]

14. Thanks for linking this analysis.

It doesn't seem anyone in the financial world was impressed by his proposal.
"Knee jerk" reaction and unrealistic in getting any of it passed they stated.
I was surprised to read he couldn't name one ceo or criminal activity....hum.
The point in one statement "if "he could break up big banks that void would be filled up by another country probably China.
Wow that would be disaster for the USA.

Maybe Bernie needs to go back to the drawing board or change his reteric!

[R B Garr]

15. Whoa! Exposed! So gimmicky.

He's just all applause lines.

[ucrdem]

17. Exactamundo.

[stonecutter357]

18. K&R!

[senz]

26. That would be a very foolish thing to do. Glad he didn't do it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. I haven't watched the video; but ...

Not naming a CEO or the specific unlawful conduct was, actually, a smart play ... because despite all the internet talk, there really is nothing to prosecute the CEO for. In order to prosecute, one must be able to prove that the CEO did, or knew of, the unlawful conduct. That is a tough thing to prove because CEOs, typically, do not commit the unlawful conduct directly, and the corporate structure places too many lower level people in the decision making chain to pin the decision on the CEO.

[litlbilly]

42. He actually did name Jamie Dimon, but didnt specifically say he should be in jail, even tho we all

know he should be

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. But, as with most white collar crime ...

the maximum sentences are rarely imposed. If prosecuted and convicted, he would likely plead out to less than 2 years and a fine ... and the internet would howl.

[litlbilly]

60. the fact is, they never even get prosecuted at all, so they completely get away with it. Unless,

they steal from rich people like Bernie Madoff did.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. That's not a true statement. eom.

[MeNMyVolt]

86. Hello. Enron?

[Yallow]

36. Presidential Material People Do Not Name Names - Period

When they are convicted, then they name names.

Good job once again Bernie.

We all know they are criminals, as you do. Singling out one or two in a cesspool of greed accomplishes nothing.

Good on you Bernie!

[HERVEPA]

38. That's "wouldn't" not "couldn't". and if you're liberal, I'm Santa Claus.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

48. I supported Howard Dean in 2004. You can check out my post history from 2003 on DU. Nt

[HERVEPA]

83. Sorry, with all the crap posts against Bernie, don't buy it.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

101. Boom, here's proof

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=854996&mesg_id=854996

[HERVEPA]

108. Sorry. Doesn't prove you are liberal. You can be for Hillary without constantly tearing down Bernie

[ProudToBeLiberal]

109. You asked for my proof of being a Howard Dean supporter.

I gave it to you. Please give me some props for my google searching skills.

[HERVEPA]

111. I asked for proof you were liberal. Never asked for Howard Dean proof. You misinterpreted my comment

Didn't doubt you on the Dean support.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

112. Who did you support in the 2003/04 primary? nt

[HERVEPA]

115. Kerry. And this is irrelevant to my statement about whether you are liberal.

Thanks for the conversation, but I'm done with it.

[litlbilly]

39. OMG, cant believe you went there. You might want to rethink your handle.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

50. I'm tired of people running away from the label "liberal."

People are so scared to call themselves a liberal. We need to take it back and own it. The Republicans have muddied it, but we should be proud to call ourselves liberals.

[bahrbearian]

67. I'm tired of third way er's Co-Opting the word Liberal

Stick with "Centerist" , as in ProudtobeCenterist

[ProudToBeLiberal]

78. My positions are liberal.

I support woman's right to choose, gay marriage, gun control, legalizing marijuana, stem cell research, obamacare, ACLU, equal pay for women, unions, right to organize, criminal justice reform, higher taxes on the wealthy, buffet rule, no prayers in public school, affirmative action, take God out of the pledge of allieance, separation of church and state, etc and etc. So, don't say I am not a liberal.

[Waiting for Someone]

85. Liberal is now coopted by the right.

We call ourselves progressives now.

[redstateblues]

128. I'm tired of Socialists

Co opting the word Democrat

[PowerToThePeople]

52. And earlier in the day

A major Hillary supporter on DU openly claimed that the USA was too far left economically.



Post #1, that I can no longer see being logged in.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027501277

[notadmblnd]

56. He named a lot of criminal activity

Here are just a few examples of when major banks were caught doing illegal activity.

In August 2014, Bank of America settled a case with the Department of Justice for more than $16 billion on charges that the bank misled investors about the riskiness of mortgage-backed securities it sold in the run-up to the crisis.

In November of 2013, JP Morgan settled a case for $13 billion with the Department of Justice and the Federal Housing Finance Agency over charges the bank knowingly sold securities made up of low-quality mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In June of 2014, BNP Paribas was sentenced to five years’ probation and was ordered to pay $8.9 billion in penalties by a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan after this bank pled guilty to charges of violating sanctions by conducting business in Sudan, Iran and Cuba.

Let me read you a few headlines and you tell me how it makes sense that not one executive was prosecuted for fraud.

CNN Headline, May 20, 2015: “5 big banks pay $5.4 billion for rigging currencies.” Those banks include JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.

Headline from the International Business Times (February 24, 2015): “Big Banks Under Investigation For Allegedly Fixing Precious Metals Prices.” The Banks under investigation included Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

Headline from The Real News Network (November 26, 2013): “Documents in JPMorgan settlement reveal how every large bank in the U.S. has committed mortgage fraud.”

Headline from The Washington Post (March
14, 2014): “In lawsuit, FDIC accuses 16 big banks of fraud, conspiracy,” which included Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.

Headline from the Guardian (April 2, 2011): “How a big U.S. bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangs.” This article talks about how Wachovia (which was acquired by Wells Fargo) aided Mexican drug cartels in transferring billions of dollars in illegal drug money. Here is what the federal prosecutor (Jeffrey Sloman) said about this: “Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations.”

Yet, the total fine for this offense was less than 2% of the bank’s $12.3 billion profit for 2009 and no one went to jail. No one went to jail.

And, if that’s not bad enough, here’s another one.

Headline: The Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011: “J.P. Morgan Apologizes for Military Foreclosures.” Here is a case where JP Morgan Chase, the largest bank in America, wrecked the finances of 4,000 military families in violation of the Civil Service Members Relief Act, yet no one went to jail.

Taken directly from his speech.

[DJ13]

118. Great points

I notice no one responded, which seems typical when Clinton supporters get challenged.

[notadmblnd]

132. Yeah, they seem to drop off the face of the earth when shown the truth.

If only.....

[earthside]

58. Hillarians are just being obtuse.

And they aren't very clever, either.
Even a politician like Sanders or Clinton can be sued for slander ... the main important point of what Sen. Sanders said and has been saying stands stronger than ever.

On the other hand ... I just saw a clip of Chris Matthews' interview of Mrs. Clinton and it looked like they used a high gauziness filter on the camera.

It helped her a little, but not too much.

[NCTraveler]

61. You just found out how clean he is.

Other than the nice teller down the block, he doesn't know any bankers.

Or something like that.

[ucrdem]

62. He's had eight years to move on this. He hasn't.

But there's one born every minute it seems.

[TM99]

69. Not paying attention again are we?

Let's see, Sanders pushed legislation in 2010 to audit the Fed.

He also pushed for breaking up the banks in 2010.

http://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-standard-serious-bank-reform/

Here is his op-ed from 2010 --

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-op-ed-real-wall-street-reform

He has worked yearly to get such legislation passed.

And in May of 2015, he went even further.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/06/bernie-sanders-takes-wall-street-bill-break-big-banks.html

Yes, he hasn't done a damned thing in the 8 years since! Why are so many lies present as truth here when it is so easy to discover that they are indeed lies?

[ucrdem]

89. Yes I read his "too big to fail" bill.

You can too, in 15 seconds or less:

A BILL To address the concept of Too Big To Fail with respect to certain financial entities.

1. Short title: This Act may be cited as the Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act .

2. Report to Congress on institutions that are too big to fail - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list of all commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are too big to fail, which shall include, but is not limited to, any United States bank holding companies that have been identified as systemically important banks by the Financial Stability Board (in this Act referred to as the Too Big to Fail List).

3. Breaking-up too big to fail institutions - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.

4. Definition - For purposes of this Act, the term Too Big to Fail means any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

That's it.

[ucrdem]

102. Yes, proof that Sanders' sound and fury signifies nothing. You're welcome. nt

[Fast Walker 52]

64. please watch his speech today

[riversedge]

74. He saiut??d there was 'Illegal behavior" and no one went to jail. Who is he talking abo

Transcript:
.....
.... But when it comes to Wall Street executives, some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in this country, whose illegal behavior caused pain and suffering for millions – somehow nothing happens to them. No police record. No jail time. No justice..........



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-bernie-sanders-wall-street-and-economy-speech-2016-01-05

[Walk away]

65. Of course not! He has spent his entire career...

calling people crooks but can't name one who actually is. Who else does that remind you of?

[Yallow]

91. Franklin D. Roosevelt....

Theodore Roosevelt.....

Just wait.

That's who he reminds me of.

[INdemo]

73. Why do you think Sanders should give CEO names? For what reson?

Do you think Hillary would give the names of the CEO's she talked to when she went to Wall St and told them to "Cut It Out"

[TM99]

75. I asked that.

They won't answer it.

It would expose their lies, smears, and hypocrisy if they did.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

84. Link to wear you ask? Nt

[Vattel]

88. Thanks for your efforts on this thread. You have effectively

dismantled another stupid attempt to attack Bernie's credibility. I started a post earlier, but decided to watch an episode of Master of None on Netflix instead. Not a bad comedy.

[TM99]

96. It is an uphill battle against the lies,

smears, bullshit, memes, and talking points.

I will have to check that out. I hadn't heard of it yet. My SO and I are currently watching Jekyll & Hyde on ITV. Quite fun.

Well, I have done enough in this thread. Time to go play some Dying Light before dinner. Fighting Clintonites...fighting zombies...much the same thing these days!

[INdemo]

93. The writer of this article is a right wing nut You should have just gone to Faux News and

Posted their commentary about Bernie's Speech and there would have been little difference.

[MerryBlooms]

99. Jury results:

On Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The writer of this article is a right wing nut You should have just gone to Faux News and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=977107

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. Calls OP "right wing nut"

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:47 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm reading it the same way as the alerter. There is no other writer.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: the poster didn't call the OP a right wing nut. They were referring to the author of the article.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think OP was referring to Bloomberg, owned by someone who is too big to fail in his own right.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ridiculous alert.
I hope our admins are keeping track.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[INdemo]

117. Just to set the record straight

The author of the article in the link provided (Michael J.Moore) is a right wingnut.
Should have read the post.

[INdemo]

119. You know as Hillary supporters what you should have done and kept everything at a civil level

was to challenge us Bernie Sanders supporters and give us your reasons why you would have thought Sanders was wrong but you didn't do that. You could have also explained to us where Hillary stands on Wall St. reform and what she would do about the Big Banks that are too big to fail. If I remember right this is way things were done back in the good ol' days on DU but not now.
You Hillary supporters start attacking and attacking and keep your hand on the "Alert" button with a hair trigger because you cant talk about the issues. Apparently you Hillary fans are beginning to have doubts about her winning the first two primary States and you have good reason to feel a little nervous.

[grasswire]

103. STUPID OP. Naming names would prejudice any future indictment.

Really stupid OP. Don't you remember how critics jumped on Obama for that?

Rule of Law. Due Process. Rules of Evidence.

All important, still.

[MuseRider]

104. Couldn't or wouldn't?

It would not be a good thing for him to do that now would it?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

105. Good. He's not on a first name basis with any of them!

and probably hasn't wined and dine with them. Double good.

[AzDar]

110. I know, right? He also doesn't take their dirty fucking MONEY... unlike Hillary.

Desperate BULLSHIT.

[MeNMyVolt]

113. So, you're accusing HRC of a crime. Spell it out.

[Art_from_Ark]

120. And what crime would that be?

[artislife]

114. Hillary can't name one CEO she would even investigate...nt

[AgingAmerican]

121. Flame bait OP

[cherokeeprogressive]

122. Ask him to commit SLANDER. Fucking brilliant, even from a Hillary supporter.

[INdemo]

123. I think this should be included here to remind us all where Hillary stands

with regard to the Banks that are "two big to fail"

I rest my case.

She said in the clip that "if banks are too big to fail they may have to be broken up"

She didn't name any CEO here in reference to the too big to fail banks.

Note where Hillary says she will impose a "risk fee" on big banks
Dont know but I heard a Senators speech today and he was criticized pretty heavily when he talked about the too big to fail banks.

[Motown_Johnny]

125. There were no investigations. Naming names could be considered defamation .

Lets elect him President, have investigations and then he can name names.

[redstateblues]

127. Bernie big talk

[Babel_17]

131. The President isn't supposed to influence the DOJ by naming people he wants in jail

It would be like announcing "The IRS should make a living hell for ...".

Nor should the President say who should be treated with kid gloves, or who are off limits. Setting priorities for the DOJ* is a different matter, and doesn't target individuals.

E.G. "I want the major polluters to understand we aren't going to be looking the other way".

[R B Garr]

135. Wow, watched a repeat. This is devastating to

Bernie's credibility. He puts himself out as a subject matter expert, but he couldn't even name names. How is he going to round people up and haul them off to jail if he doesn't even know their names.

Anything short of that only confirms that he is all talk just to rile people up with some tidbits of phony sensationalism.

This is the kind of interview that will be thrown back in his face with a vengeance. How can your sole platform be Wall Street fraudsters but you can't name names or cite actual crimes. Smh.

[Amimnoch]

138. but.. butt.. butttt.. he's going to do that in his first year...

or some such thing.. first year he names names, then he uses magic powers and non-existent laws to jail em!!!

[R B Garr]

151. Lol, exactly. That's about how much thought he's

put into it too!

[BooScout]

136. Verrrrry interesting!

Thanks for this!

[Amimnoch]

137. of course not.

He'd then be in a corner to cite his legal justification. (hint: he'd have none).

He'd be in a corner to cite how he would be able to go about getting the legal justification passed in the 115th congress. (hint: he wouldn't be able to).

Smoke, mirrors, and empty promises that prey on the emotions rather than actual, reality based policy. Welcome to the Sanders campaign.

[Lans]

139. I wasn't aware that he is a Prosecutor or Judge

It's not his job to say which CEO is liable for felony charges and how many people within these huge corporations are involved in toppling the economy and ruining a lot of people's savings.

[R B Garr]

150. Wall Street/corps is all he talks about. He attacks

constantly, but he can't distill it down to anything actionable. That means he is just spouting applause lines to rile up his base.

He can't go around yelling that Wall Street's.business model is fraud but then not identify who is committing the fraud and what they should be charged with.

This is a huge hit on his credibility and another clue he was never really serious about any of what says.

[Lans]

152. Nope

What he is calling out is the entire judicial system that's more focused on jailed people for petty crimes and expanding the prision population while jailing predominately minorities instead of going after people who have ruined millions of lives with their reckless behavior.

But it's nice to see you wanting to defend CORPORATIONS and the system that enables them to destroy the middle class, it appears all the Republican rhetoric has turned democrats into turncoats who are willing to sale out the values they should be protecting and shielding those at most risk.

[R B Garr]

154. Noticing that a candidate can't name names or

identify actionable crimes that is the very platform for his candidacy is not me defending corporations. Sounds like HE is defending them if you take your own criteria seriously.

So why is Bernie now protecting corporations and CEOs by refusing to identify them and put them in jail?

[Lans]

155. Like I said

He is a candidate for President not a prosecutor, a judge, a jury or an executioner.

You seem to be obtusely arguing for something the judicial system has failed to identify while the majority of American people have been robbed and mocked with not a single action taken against those responsible. This type of systematic risk is deeply ingrained in the current oligarchical system and naming individuals will not change that. Hence having an actual reform plan for the system and concentrating a lot more resources into white collar crimes and putting those responsible for reprehensible corporate behavior into jails and prosecuting corporations who've hurt lives at home and abroad.

[R B Garr]

157. I'm just observing what Bernie says. Don't put

it on me that I am "arguing" for anything, except for REALITY. LOL, how dishonest and phony to put it on me.

Bernie has put himself out there as a subject matter expert, but he is either unwilling or unable to take it to the next necessary step, which is identifying people and crimes and prosecuting them.

Maybe you see by answering your own questions about why Bernie is protecting corporations and CEOs what the rest of us have been saying about REALITY. Sounds good, but REALITY is something else. That's what makes his platform phony.

[Lans]

158. nope

You are being purposefully obtuse by wanting a presidential candidate to do the job of the judicial branch of government.
I wouldn't say you are even arguing you are just distorting issues as usual, instead of tackling the actual root cause of problems and how we go from a system that actively awards reckless behavior to one that carries a penalty for the overreach of corporations and wall street have exerted over the world.

[R B Garr]

159. Nope, you are protecting Bernie who is protecting

corporations and CEOS and Wall Street by not naming names and crimes. You are just desperate to make it about me, which is the usual M.O.

AND, LOL, it's up to Bernie to tackle the root cause of the problem. I'm not running for President. He is. But he is either unwilling or unable to do so beyond his applause lines for his base, so...Red Flags!

As for your blame game, you have answered your own musings about REALITY, so quit spamming me with accusations when it's already been spelled out right in front of you. Accept REALITY about Bernie's phony platform. He could have put his money where his mouth is and named names and crimes, but he didn't.

[KingCharlemagne]

144. Bybyour hit-and-run smear job, you demonstrate that you have NOTHING

of value to say.

Welcome to Ignore.

[Hiraeth]

153. I can't decide whether to rec or trash this thread. There is some good info in here to rec but,

the OP is trash.