Remember the bank loan modification nightmare that cost millions their homes? BOMBSHELL:

[Divernan]

146. Amazing that you presume to grant civil liberties to corporations/banks!

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:17 AM - Edit history (1)

You just love the Citizens United decision, right? Because you conflate prosecuting Big Banking with giving only lip service to civil liberties. Some might find your position amazing - but then they are not familiar with your long-standing, knee-jerk defense of any scintilla of criticism of Obama or his administration. Here's the deal and it's a very big deal, so try to keep up:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND LAWS GRANT CIVIL LIBERTIES TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT CORPORATIONS.

Liberties of the United States are certain inalienable rights retained by (as opposed to privileges granted to) citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted and clarified by the Supreme Court of the United States and lower federal courts.

Civil liberties are simply defined as individual legal and constitutional protections from entities more powerful than an individual, for example, parts of the government, other individuals, or corporations. The liberties explicitly defined, make up the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy. There are also many liberties of people not defined in the Constitution, as stated in the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States

And give an example where prosecution by the "U.S. government", i.e, Obama's Justice Department has or has not been a "slam dunk". I can think of problems the Justice Dept. has had with prosecuting medical marijuana growers, distributors and purchasers. Those pesky juries, state legislators and judges just won't get with Holder/Obama's program, will they? But let's talk about "too big to fail" interests - ya know - the ones with the lobbyists regularly bribing politicians with the big fat campaign contributions. What Holder was really thinking when he said "too big to fail" was "too big a contributor to the guy who appointed me to be prosecuted".

Of course, neither Holder nor Obama nor you can quote any section of any state or federal l law which excludes perpetrators on the grounds that they are "too big to fail" or recognizes a defense of "too big to fail".

Given the evidence detailed in the OP, and speaking as a retired government attorney and law professor, I say yes, prosecuting the Bank of America is a slam dunk.