I’m interested to know what people think is the most progressive thing this administration could do without needing the approval of Congress.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
76 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Prosecute banksters.
For what? The problem with that lies in the fact that much of what they did was legal at the time. Reckless and shitty, but legal.
Yeah, that’s simply not true:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your_mortgage_documents_are_fake/
A huge number of similar stories can be easily found.
That’s low-level stuff, none of which would touch the Masters of the Universe.
And now we’re changing the subject. The subject is not CEOs. The subject is “bankers”.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the magic of the words ‘changing the subject.’
Argue yourself into a corner? Have no rebuttal? Merely utter the magic words ‘changing the subject’ and you, yes you!, can escape even the most stubborn logical traps!
The subject is not CEOs. The subject is “bankers”.
That is just pathetic. I can’t believe anyone would write that and put their name on it. As if “they’re only going after low-level people” hasn’t been a mantra for years. As if there haven’t been hundreds of prosecutions of low-level people for mortgage and other financial frauds under this administration. As if “go after the bankers” is a recommendation satisfied by going after low-level people.
It’s amazing what people will do to avoid admitting they’re Wrong On The Internet.
God you’re obtuse. And tedious.
Oh, look, two more magic words.
For my part, I’m quite happy with my point.
Let’s try again.
There is prima facia evidence of widespread criminal behavior in the mortgage industry. I can cite the above article and many others of which I’m sure you’re aware. I await your evidence to the contrary. In the absence of such evidence, your point is worthless. Specifically what level of the banking industry this evidence implicates is irrelevant to my point. Although, I have no reason to take your word for it that all executives magically have immunity.
And your senator made this very point recently, that banks are paying billions in fines but facing no criminal liability.
I’ve made absolutely no claim about there being no evidence of widespread fraud in the financial industry. You completely made that up.
Since your entire claim here depends on putting that imaginary statement into my mouth, I guess we can safely ignore your latest effort.
I have no intention of providing evidence for something I’ve neither said nor believe.
Than Joe, what is your point?
My point is that lawbreaking by these corporations does not equal individual criminal culpability by their CEOs. Holding the corporations liable for the fraud, instead of individually prosecuting the corporate officers, is not a political choice or an abdication of duty, but an acknowledgment of the facts of the cases.
Specifically what level of the banking industry this evidence implicates is irrelevant to my point.
Then your point is worthless.
Please, enlighten me. I await your evidence that there have been hundreds of criminal prosecutions within the banking industry. I’m happy to learn.
Of course, failing to provide that evidence would be devastating for your point and your credibility.
You’ll have to forgive me if ‘topid bunny’s’ impression of my credibility is not a driving force in my thinking and argumentation.
Anyway, here you go: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011
When you look at those charts, please try to remember that numbers consisting of three digits are “hundreds,” while numbers consisting of four digits are “thousands.”
You’ll need to try again, as the data supplied covers all cases of corporate fraud. You’ll need data specific to mortgage fraud.
Ok, I see it now. See, all you had to do was be reasonable and not make it personal.
It would appear you did not read the link to this breaking story that torpid linked to.
Looks like government intervention saved the bankers hide. This is not low-level stuff.
What are you talking about? None of that goes to the issue of the personal culpability of the CEOs. Corporate liability/guilt adheres to cases in which the higher-ups aren’t personally liable (or even involved) all the time.
And you know that to be a fact because…
Fraudulent practices by the banks to the tune of trillions of dollars is not the low-level stuff you claim it to be.
I know that corporations are often convicted/found liable for actions that the CEOs aren’t involved in all the time because I have a modicum of familiarity with the American justice system.
You can’t really be asking what you seem to be asking. I must be misunderstanding you. It looks like you’re confused about whether corporate liability only adheres in cases in which there is personal liability by the CEO, but that can’t really be what you’re asking.
Can it?
You’re the one obfuscating this to be about CEOs.
And there would be something seriously wrong with a judicial system that is, as you assert, unable to find culpability for the banks’ chief executives when fraud to the tune of trillions occur. But since you have such familiarity with the system, maybe you could actually respond to the first line in my post above?
I think you two are talking past each other.
Part of the problem with prosecuting these crimes is that we had a system where it wasn’t technically illegal to:
So, the only cases where we are seeing prosecutions are where it can be conclusively demonstrated that investors were misled about the quality of the securities they were buying.
In general, the problem has been addressed by assessing corporate fines, which is much easier to do than to nail a CEO for fraud.
I think it goes beyond that, Booman. Did you read the Salon article (or at least the quote I made from it above)?
We are talking forged documents on a massive scale. Where does the buck stop?
You didn’t provide a link to the article. I suppose I could find it, but I get the point.
However, let’s look at the problem.
Over a period of time, mortgage-issuers began selling their mortgage to banks that securitized them without insisting on getting all the paper work as required by law. And then the chain of ownership was broken and banks could not even prove that they owned the mortgages.
Basically, it was total systemic failure. It was a failure of oversight, a failure of law enforcement, a failure of banks, and mortgage-issuers, and rating agencies, and Congress.
So, with something so epic in size and with responsibility so widely shared, who do you single out for prosecution?
Meanwhile, the stinking edifice has to propped up again or we all have to get in a bread line.
Sorry. torpid bunny had linked to it.
Here
So, with something so epic in size and with responsibility so widely shared, who do you single out for prosecution?
There’s a political answer to this – Get the CEOs because that would be cosmic justice and awesome politics – and a legal answer – those people who can be shown to have committed acts that violate a statute.
Eric Holder gets a lot of grief from people for basing his law-enforcement actions on the legal standard.
I dunno, Joe. I think you are too blase about the whole thing.
I mean, if we’re honest, we’re basically fining banks for committing wholesale forgery, which is a crime under a statute that can be prosecuted.
We’re doing it because the easiest way to avoid armageddon is to let them claim ownership of these mortgages even though they can’t legally prove they own them.
That’s fucked up.
I think you’re blurring together two different concepts: being blase about the problem you mention, and believing that high-level corporate officers (as opposed to the corporate entities) must be legally exposed for violating federal statutes if there was fraud committed anywhere along the line.
Corporate liability, no question. Individual liability by corporate officers requires the government to show that this person performed this act in violation of this statute. It’s not an indication that I don’t take the problem seriously to note that that generally hasn’t been shown to have happened.
It hasn’t been shown to have happened because they have to let it happen or the world collapses.
Look, if they enforced the law, then we’d have millions of homes, most of them occupied, that have no legal owners. We’d have a bunch of financial institutions and products wiped out and valueless. So, they let these banks forge documents and illegally claim ownership of homes (often in error) in return for paying a pittance of a fine, and they let the executives who implement this necessary fraud completely off the hook.
It isn’t hard to nail executives for fraud when they hire robosigners to commit one fraud after another every day for eight hours a day. But it isn’t going to happen because someone has to own these homes.
I think you two are talking past each other.
Probably.
I continually make the mistake of thinking that people who use legal terminology in their arguments are saying something about the law.
Not sure how that affects dwbh’s point. The higher ups wouldn’t be touched by any of that wrongdoing. The fact is that the legal case against the Big Wigs is pretty weak-sauce.
I think that’s a bit naive. A sufficiently-motivated prosecution could find something to charge anyone with.
How about this: ‘investigate bankers to determine if they broke any laws, with as much zeal as they investigate terrorists and child molesters?’
Not allow new defense contracts in states with voter suppression laws.
Order FDA to move marijuana from Shedule 1 to Shedule 3.
I’d go lower: schedule 4. I’d prefer it not be scheduled at all and be treated in the tax code like alcohol and tobacco, but that requires Congress.
Also the FDA doesn’t reschedule without Congressional approval. The AG is the one, and only person in the Executive, who can move it without Congress.
Also, since Congress wrote the original schedule and has added or modified the schedule since then, there may be reason on a practical level for the AG to at least coordinate it with some legislators helping to cover.
Replace Jack Lew with Paul Krugman.
Pull chained CPI budget.
Not nominate Larry Summers.
Prosecute the banks for all the crimes of the meltdown that no one prosecuted them for.
Now, what are the worst things Obama could do without needing the approval of congress? Combatting those is a likely scenario for what the rest of this admistration is going to look like.
Any day now!!
could the executive branch do anything about big oil subsidies?
I’d say conduct drone strikes to remove the leadership of a certain apartheid regime, but …
So, white progressives think progressivism is all about prosecuting bankers rather than about stopping the birth-to-jail system for blacks?
This explains a lot about why Obama is criticized so much.
For me, the CFPB, , the CREDIT Card Act, the elimination of the crack/powder disparity, the relaxation of sentencing guidelines, and the massive extension of Medicaid are the signature progressive accomplishments of this presidency. But these things all help the black progressive base more than the white one.
Apparently, the most progressive things in American politics don’t involve changing any policies.
Who knew?
It’s not clear who/what you are addressing.
He’s basically accusing some people of being racist.
That’s stupid.
I am not accusing white progressives of being racist. I am accusing them of having a particular view of progressivism that isn’t shared by most people of color.
So you’re claiming that white progressives and black progressives tend to have different priorities? That’s shocking. Next you’ll say that male progressives and female progressives, and Jewish progressives and Muslim progressives, and Navajo progressives and Korean progressives, also tend to have different priorities.
Anyway, I was gonna say that Obama should start pardoning people wholesale, as a matter of fact. By the tens of thousand. De facto decriminalize pot. Hell, de facto decriminalize property crimes against the superrich. Well, that’s my unicorn fantasy, anyway.
Then let me clear that up for you:
Re: Serious Question (4.00 / 6)
Prosecute banksters.
by lacerda on Mon Aug 12th, 2013 at 01:39:28 AM EST
Re: Serious Question (none / 0)
And now we’re changing the subject. The subject is not CEOs. The subject is “bankers”.
by torpid bunny on Mon Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:03:11 AM EST
Re: Serious Question (4.00 / 2)
So, white progressives think progressivism is all about prosecuting bankers rather than about stopping the birth-to-jail system for blacks?
And now, the punch line:
Re: Serious Question (none / 0)
It’s not clear who/what you are addressing.
by torpid bunny on Mon Aug 12th, 2013 at 11:05:11 AM EST
Gee, BooMan, I don’t understand what you could possibly be talking about!
So, white progressives think progressivism is all about prosecuting bankers rather than about stopping the birth-to-jail system for blacks?
Nice job of trolling your own site, Boo. You really think only whites have had their houses stolen by the bankters? That only whites have been scammed by the banksters? I guess brown people in other parts of the world don’t matter either, considering the words of some white O-bots. Do those in favor of the drone war realize that we are likely being played by different tribes/factions/groups in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere?
The question is of priorities. Do black progressives want to jail bankers more than they want to reform the criminal justice system and do something about the drug war?
Of course, we could always let black people speak for themselves.
You do realize it’s all part of reforming justice in this country. Where the rich and connected walk free while the unwashed masses take it up the rear. The whole justice system in this country is rotten to the core. Ask Boo about Vince Fumo and Corey Kemp.
Also dark people have been blamed for the whole mortgage crisis, wickedly tricking innocent banksters into selling them unaffordable mortages. Aided and abetted by Fannie and Freddie. I’d rather see serious attempts to undo the damage (late as it is) and maybe detaching from congressional plans to destroy F&F than just prosecutions per se, though. Current DOJ trends to prosecute recent financial crime and lay off black teenagers represent great progress. Also Tarheel’s list below.
Kill the Keystone Pipeline.
Drone kill Samuel Alito? I don’t know if that’s progressive, but apparently it wouldn’t take Congressional approval.
I take it that you are being facetious. You don’t really want the POTUS to start assassinating Federal judges do you?
Look, all I’m saying is that there are some really nice package tours for judges who want to vacation in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
I can’t condone it, but you really brought a smile to my face.
What is the most progressive thing that this administration could do without needing the approval of Congress?
That’s easy.
Prosecute every surviving high-ranking American war criminal from the Vietnam War era on down through to the present, starting with Henry Kissinger.
This would be a sure sign to the rest of the world that we are no longer going to be in the militarily-enforced economic imperialism business. Very soon the after that the fundamentalist fools who are now quite successfully wreaking havoc on the entire structure of American society would find a new “Great Satan” to fight. Say…Russia, the grandest kleptocracy ever to exist on the face of this good green earth…and peace would once again descend upon the American people.
Oh.
What’s that you say?
Oh.
Wait a minute.
You’re right!!!
I guess that would have to include President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Oh.
Sigh…
Nevermind.
Yore freind…
Emily Litella
Could they change the Schedule of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act without Congress?
Depends. Do we want to pretend that the AG is independent of the administration? If so, then no they cannot. But if we observe in reality where the executive has a lot of influence on what DoJ does, then yes they can. Eric Holder can, that is. He could also remove it completely, but that would effectively leave everything to the states, as sentencing guidelines also take their cues from said CSA. And alot of states don’t have their own laws and basically say “See Controlled Substances Act”.
Yes. The FDA just has to rule that way. It has nothing to do with the DOJ.
That’s not true. There are several avenues to take. One is through a petition to the DEA, which then involves HHS. It won’t happen, and the most recent petition was denied. This process also takes forever.
But in any case, removal or rescheduling is directed by Eric Holder.
And if rescheduling happened, then the DEA would need I issue licenses to select growers in the states that have legalized it. Otherwise it would violate FDA policy.
It’s not directed by the AG. He has to follow the scientific consensus, which is determined by the Secretary of HHS, which is determined by the people at FDA. DEA has nothing to do with it. The DOJ has nothing to do with it.
Where are your links? Because every drug reform website I know about disagrees with you.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811
“(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he–
(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) ofsection 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.
Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5. Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General
(1) on his own motion,
(2) at the request of the Secretary, or
(3) on the petition of any interested party.”
you are missing the point.
The AG is supposed to make a ruling based on the findings of the Secretary.
But, of course, the Secretary is a political appointee and is not supposed to make rulings (a la Plan B) on their own. They are supposed to rely on the FDA scientists.
I think you’re missing seabe’s point.
Holder could just lie. If he really wanted to do this, he could blow off any contradictory reports for HHS and just be totally radical, man.
In fairness, I don’t think seabe was trying to make that argument. I think he just didn’t understand the statutory language.
Uh no. Booman is being obtuse for no reason by saying DEA and DOJ aren’t involved at all, or have no say. The AG can start the process on his own, or in response to The Secretary, OR from petition parties (as stated earlier, the DEA stonewalls all petitions from citizens to change this policy). Quite clearly he is involved, as is the DEA depending on the avenue that is taken from a pure administration stance. Of course there would need to be some stupid face saving measure of a “study” before any of this happened, but the AG is who changes the policy.
Study is in quotes not for faked or politcally doctored to achieve the end result, but because we already have evidence and studies. It would be like DoD’s DADT survey thing.
I think you misunderstood BooMan pretty significantly.
I don’t understand what you are talking about.
We’re talking about how drugs are scheduled.
The statutory language is clear that the Health Department is in charge of that and that their scientific findings are binding on the AG and the DEA.
Why are we still debating this?
The AG could ask for a finding, but he has to accept the results of that finding.
Relevant parts:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811
That’s an impressive policy change for DOJ.
Change DOJ LEAP and DHS funding programs to stop supporting militarization of police forces and return to effective community policing strategies.
Have the Department of Labor aggressively enforce off-clock working of workers (wage theft), phony classification of exempt workers for overtime, and the overcharging of management fees on 401(k) plans.
Have DOI declare a moratorium on mining concessions and mineral leases on Indian land.
Have GSA purchase only hybrid or electric vehicles for replacement of government fleet.
Place PV generation on every suitable roof on federally-owned buildings and require solar roofs on federally leased buildings.
Bust Joe Arpaio’s racket.
Pardon Leonard Peltier
You know, BooMan, you did ask “most progressive thing,” not “most meaningful progressive thing,” or “thing that would do the most to promote progressive values.”
Freeing Leonard Peltier would be pretty freaking progressive, you gotta admit.
Replace the head of the DNC with Howard Dean and give them their independence.
Boo,
When you ask people about their dreams you can’t bring harsh reality back into it – let folk dream, each will have their own. No if only Obama could mandate 4 paid weeks vacation for everyone then I would call that progress…