Sessions Refuses To File Charges Against Corporate Criminals

[GMDino]

Quote:It's an easy bet that what the Trump administration says and what it does are almost always complete opposites. The word hypocrite comes to my mind, though it seems to miss the point. No, they are much more than that because they pretend to be so moral and just in their claims. They remind me of Tartuffe from Moliere's play of the same name, the hypocrite, the impostor with his self righteous blatherings.



One day they claim to support women's health, the next they are slashing all funding to women's clinics around the world. As they pretend to care about equal rights for all, they are quietly cutting LGBTQ rights in an attempt to make them invisible; much like the clearly offensive way the White House left out the Luxembourg Prime Minister's husband from the 1st spouses EU picture last week.

Then there was last weeks announcement by White House spokeswoman Kelly Love that, "The Trump Administration has an unwavering commitment to the civil rights of all Americans." A lovely yet ever so empty collection of words used to brace us for what would be coming in the following announcement: a complete gutting of civil rights departments across all federal government agencies. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, who audits companies with federal contracts to ensure they are not violating laws against discrimination, is soon to be but a memory. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed cutting the Environmental Justice Program that assists citizens when there are oil or chemical spills. The Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Health and Human Services will all be cutting or slashing their civil rights programs.

Credit: DonkeyHotey

So when Sessions announced he would be reversing President Obama's order that eased prosecutions for minor drug charges, and proclaimed with feigned moral conviction that it was the ethical and just action to take, I wondered just how long it would take for him to step knee deep into that giant pile of horseshit. As a reminder, this was his comment:

Quote:"Our responsibility is to fulfill our role in a way that accords with the law,
advances public safety, and promotes respect for our legal system. This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency."

For the record, it took 12 days.

On May 22nd, Citigroup agreed to pay a fine of $97.4 million for knowingly violating banking laws in regards to reporting suspicious activity of money laundering. Citigroup bought Banamex, a Mexican banking company, in 2001. From 2007 - 2012, Banamex USA intentionally hid thousands of money laundering transactions from review. According to the Boston Globe, "As part of the agreement, Banamex USA 'admitted to criminal violations by willfully failing to maintain an effective anti-money-laundering' compliance program, the Justice Department said."

Banamex USA "willfully" committed "criminal" acts. In all, there were $1.3 billion dollars in remittances that should have been flagged for review according to the law. The belief of law officials is that much of this money was from the sale of illegal narcotics.

Yet, Mr. Hard On Drug Offenders - Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has chosen to not seek the harshest charges possible in this case. In fact, he's completely dismissed all criminal charges against anyone involved. So much for a "moral and just" application of the law. Should he really want to deliver a moral and just decision, he should have fined them the full amount they laundered at the very least.

Tartuffe Sessions can mumble his sanctimonious carefully formed speeches all he wants, but he's full of it. Once again, the leaders that be have chosen to lock up those people with a few ounces of pot, but refused to hold those making billions from said drug trade to the same standard.

But what did anyone expect but pure hypocrisy from Tartuffe...I mean Jeff Sessions and this administration?

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/sessions-refuses-file-charges-against

[Benton]

...and?

Bush and Obama didn't do much to anger big banks, why would Congress facilitate Trump being any different? If Congress wanted to go after the guys who support them, they easily could. And given that a large chunk of Congress hasn't changed much in two decades, they probably aren't going to encourage going after their supporters any time soon.

[CageTheBengal]

This is a problem with politics in general imo.

[Millhouse]

(06-01-2017, 02:23 PM)Benton Wrote: ...and?

Bush and Obama didn't do much to anger big banks, why would Congress facilitate Trump being any different? If Congress wanted to go after the guys who support them, they easily could. And given that a large chunk of Congress hasn't changed much in two decades, they probably aren't going to encourage going after their supporters any time soon.

Not true at all. Look at the aftermath of the housing market crash of 2007-2008, and all those in the big 'banks' that were prosecuted and sent to jail for defrauding the american people. 

Jk. No one went to jail for that as it costed the taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars in bailouts that partially ended up as a golden parachutes for some.

[GMDino]

(06-01-2017, 02:23 PM)Benton Wrote: ...and?

Bush and Obama didn't do much to anger big banks, why would Congress facilitate Trump being any different? If Congress wanted to go after the guys who support them, they easily could. And given that a large chunk of Congress hasn't changed much in two decades, they probably aren't going to encourage going after their supporters any time soon.

(06-01-2017, 02:30 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: This is a problem with politics in general imo.

Always nice to keep it in the public eye....

[NATI BENGALS]

I was excited to see yesterday Ohios attorney general is suing 5 drug companies for the opioid problem.

I the end those costs will probably just get pushed to the poor saps who actually need pain meds.

[CageTheBengal]

(06-01-2017, 02:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Always nice to keep it in the public eye....

Agreed.

Obviously I don't trust Trump but I think Sessions is scummy it wouldn't surprise me to see him and Trump be more lenient than previous administrations.  I do think there are business men who have evil intentions and only a fool allow them to go back to business as usual after they have shown a pattern. It's all about the money for some of these people and I think for those people they have the mind-set like Trump which is basically if it's wrong make it illegal regardless of what is considered ethical in society and if they know they will get a slap on the wrist for doing something illegal they're going to do it.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-01-2017, 02:50 PM)Millhouse Wrote: ...as it costed the taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars in bailouts...

If the taxpayer got all its money back, plus interest.....then how much did it actually "cost" the taxpayer?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2017, 12:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://crooksandliars.com/2017/05/sessions-refuses-file-charges-against

I don't mean this as a criticism of you Dino because we all do it, but could we try to find stories from as unbiased a source as possible.  I mean I read the first half and I automatically think there's probably more to the story than is being presented.  There may not be, but it's hard to believe someone this biased is giving you everything.

[Millhouse]

(06-01-2017, 03:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If the taxpayer got all its money back, plus interest.....then how much did it actually "cost" the taxpayer?

At the time around 460 billion was given to banks. And yes I know it was paid back by 2012sh or so. 

But in the meantime, that was a big chunk of change while the country was rebounding after the economic collapse caused by those banks that costed millions of people their jobs, retirements, homes, etc. 

[JustWinBaby]

(06-01-2017, 04:19 PM)Millhouse Wrote: But in the meantime, that was a big chunk of change ....

It didn't cost the taxpayer a dime.  Our taxes were not increased to fund it.  Other spending was not cut to provide for it.

The incentive problem aside, it was always going to be a good and profitable deal for the taxpayer.  The only people who got hosed in that whole deal were bondholders in GM and Chrysler.

And blaming the banks for the financial crises is like blaming your dealer for your drug habit. Not to mention, the housing crises does not, cannot, happen without the Fed and Fannie/Freddie. The banks certainly played a role, but they didn't do it alone.

[GMDino]

(06-01-2017, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't mean this as a criticism of you Dino because we all do it, but could we try to find stories from as unbiased a source as possible.  I mean I read the first half and I automatically think there's probably more to the story than is being presented.  There may not be, but it's hard to believe someone this biased is giving you everything.

Usually their stories provide links to the original story.  Just realized this one didn't.  When I get a chance tonight I'll get that.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-01-2017, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Usually their stories provide links to the original story.  Just realized this one didn't.  When I get a chance tonight I'll get that.

No it's cool, it was just an observation, and I just happened to put it here.  You   almost get a reverse bias. Like even when I read a story written like this from the right, I think no way is this guy telling me everything.

  I would have never seen the link to the original because I would just read your copy so that part would be on me.

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2017, 04:28 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And blaming the banks for the financial crises is like blaming your dealer for your drug habit. Not to mention, the housing crises does not, cannot, happen without the Fed and Fannie/Freddie. The banks certainly played a role, but they didn't do it alone.

The commission on the recession put less blame on this, but I firmly believe this to be one of the biggest issues with Fannie and Freddie: they have an unfair advantage in the marketplace and it causes a lapse in accountability for them and causes private institutions to make riskier investments to compete. The nature of their structure, being GSEs, creates a whole mess of issues with how they exist in the market and it needs to be reevaluated.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-01-2017, 04:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The commission on the recession put less blame on this, but I firmly believe this to be one of the biggest issues with Fannie and Freddie: they have an unfair advantage in the marketplace and it causes a lapse in accountability for them and causes private institutions to make riskier investments to compete. The nature of their structure, being GSEs, creates a whole mess of issues with how they exist in the market and it needs to be reevaluated.

I think the opposite, actually, in that they interfere in an efficiently functioning free market - a huge buyer functioning very much as a govt mandate and much, much less as an investor.  That's disruptive and prevents proper pricing of risk (currently they have over $5T of a $14T mortgage market!!!)

Granted, pretty much everyone benefits from lower rates, unless I suppose you own your home free and clear.  Historically profitable, so why would that be a bad deal for the taxpayer?

I think the riskier investments you're talking about with private institutions is mainly a function of low rates and flat yield curve Remember, Fannie/Freddie don't originate loans but are a buyer of the issues, so they're not unfair competition causing riskier loans. They bought plenty of garbage and needed a bailout, too, so it's not like the banks couldn't unload most anything they wanted. Mainly banks held the riskiest stuff by choice because they were chasing yield, like most investors. I don't know and haven't researched it, but my intuition is there was no crowding out effect here - Fannie/Freddie didn't artificially force investors further up the risk curve.

[Millhouse]

(06-01-2017, 04:28 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It didn't cost the taxpayer a dime.  Our taxes were not increased to fund it.  Other spending was not cut to provide for it.

The incentive problem aside, it was always going to be a good and profitable deal for the taxpayer.  The only people who got hosed in that whole deal were bondholders in GM and Chrysler.

And blaming the banks for the financial crises is like blaming your dealer for your drug habit.  Not to mention, the housing crises does not, cannot,  happen without the Fed and Fannie/Freddie.  The banks certainly played a role, but they didn't do it alone.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the role the banks played in having a fraudulent system in place that ultimately would collapse on itself effecting trillions of dollars of loss in the country, and no one from them was held accountable for it. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-01-2017, 02:23 PM)Benton Wrote: ...and?

Bush and Obama didn't do much to anger big banks, why would Congress facilitate Trump being any different? If Congress wanted to go after the guys who support them, they easily could. And given that a large chunk of Congress hasn't changed much in two decades, they probably aren't going to encourage going after their supporters any time soon.

(06-01-2017, 02:30 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: This is a problem with politics in general imo.

These x1000.

It's never going to happen, but money needs to get out of politics. Of course the people who could make money get out of politics are the people who are GETTING money. So that's never ever going to happen, sadly.