A couple of lawyers I know have poisoned my mind about prosecutors–they say that the average prosecutor is not that intelligent, overly righteous, and is mainly looking to win some kind of public office. If you think that’s about right, you’ll like Matt Taibbi’s latest:
But the Holders of the world do not want to be creative when the targets are politically influential rich people. Instead, they use their creativity against Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, immigrant housekeepers, and guys who knock over liquor stores. They like to flex muscles against bank robbers, celebrity tax evaders (we can’t have Wesley Snipes on the loose!), truck hijackers, and drug dealers. As Gene Wilder would say, “You know – morons.”
Taibbi thinks that Lehmans and Goldmans of the world hired the John Yoos of Wall Street to come up with some flimsy legal theory to paper over their theft and fraud, and the DoJ caves when it sees those mountains of sophistry and illusion because it’s too hard and risky to take them on. One thing missing from Taibbi’s analysis: does the DoJ even have the money to do that? Maybe part of the problem is beast starvation, not lack of balls.
El Cid
This will entirely become a comments page about Taibbi and not the subject, because that’s what happens here.
Walker
My brother-in-law was the defendant in a very high profile local case. And while he was guilty, I still came out of that case with a very poor opinion of prosecutors.
different-church-lady
@El Cid: Why shouldn’t it? Tabbi’s opinion could be considered “the subject” of this post just as much as the thing he’s writing about.
rikyrah
ot: the Obama campaign offered to stop about the tax returns..
IFFF Willard releases the 2007-2012 returns.
hilarious.
simply hilarious.
It’s an absolutely reasonable offer. Willard has been running for President since 2007….how come he can’t simply release the 2007-2012 returns?
because….
HE’S ON THAT AMNESTY LIST.
That’s why the 2010 return is INCOMPLETE..
VBKim
Of all the stupid things I’ve read today, this has got to rank right up there…the part about most prosecutors, that is. My husband is a prosecutor, I know lots and lots of prosecutors. I can’t think of any that just want to move to public office out of the many that I know. Not all of them are Einsteins, but most of them are committed to their jobs and performing their duties for the right reasons, ie, public safety. Your knee jerk much?
butler
In the movie “Inside Job”, an Icelandic bank regulator describes his challenges in roughly this way (paraphrasing):
“You go into the bank and you’re met by 12 high powered defense lawyers who do nothing but find ways to defend the bank in any way possible, including burying you under a mountain of procedural paperwork. They’ll use all their powers to shoot down any line of attack you have. And if you do happen to do well anyway, they’ll offer you a job with their firm.”
I don’t think prosecutors are dumb, but the deck is definitely stacked against them and at some point its more rewarding to actually get a conviction on something instead of banging your head against the wall forever.
eric
Work backward….figure that you know you are going to have at least a six to eight week trial, so you know you are going to have a pissed off jury no matter what. You are going to ask people who cannot balance their checkbooks to keep an obscene amounts of facts straight in their heads and you will go against lawyers that are GREAT at speaking, weaving stories, and cross examining. Then, if you lose one of these monstrous trials, you are villified for wasting money or for being a bad lawyer. If ain’t simple, it ain’t easy. I get why they don’t even though I think they should.
Linda Featheringill
@rikyrah:
Oh! This is great!
The whole kerfuffle is beginning to look like schoolyard taunts. But it’s great theater.
LosGatosCA
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you and all that.
Put cops in the same category. DFH captures the same thought. Punching those who can’t punch back is always the easiest way to go. Also, too, executing the mentally incompetent, the poor, and minorities.
When it’s time for sacrifice, folks with the power know just where to get the lambs, and where not to go.
Balconesfault
Obama back in 2009 needed to realize that no matter how nice he’d play with Bush-era war criminals, or Wall Street crooks who cause the collapse, they and their surrogates were still going to fight him tooth and nail. But I do fear Obama’s blackness and “otherness” would have been used by both parties heavily had the DOJ gone hard after them. If you think we’re already in a very ugly place, it would have been far far uglier.
elmo
You probably won’t find anyone outside the walls of a penitentiary with a lower opinion of prosecutors than I have. And the higher up the chain, the worse they get. AUSAs (Assistant US Attorneys) are the worst: hungry for scalps, heedless of justice, dishonest, dishonorable, mendacious trophy-hunters.
They want to nail hides to the wall. God help you if you’re ever involved in a grand jury investigation and want to keep your own honor intact. Because if the story you’re going to tell does not entirely and completely match the story the prosecutor wants to hear, your life is going to be ruined.
I personally know of an AUSA, (interviewing a young secretary who was also going through an ugly divorce at the time), who asked very casually whether she ever wanted to see her children again – since if she had to be held under a “material witness” warrant, her husband was certain to get the kids in the divorce. Surprise! Her story became exactly what he needed to prosecute and convict her boss.
NonyNony
@VBKim:
I don’t think that you finished reading mistermix’s comment, because if you did you would have seen this bit:
Not lack of intelligence, not lack of skill, and not just a fear of pissing off powerful people – lack of manpower and money to actually fight the lawyers that the Wall Street guys have.
Balconesfault
@Linda Featheringill: I think the point on the part of the Obama campaign is to make Romney’s evasiveness on taxes a meme that resonates with every other thing Romney is evasive about from here to November.
And you know there’s going to be a long, long list.
dmsilev
@rikyrah: I laughed and laughed when I read that story earlier this morning. The Obama campaign has just put Romney in a corner with no good way out.
Though part of me wishes they started the clock at 2004; as any Massachusetts resident will tell you, that’s when Mitt Romney really started running for President.
Todd
A long time ago, I did some big adversarial cases in a subordinate role, both civil and criminal. Years of planning, juggling mountains of documents, strategizing depositions and discovery go into those things, followed by many weeks of trial. They really impact your life – you miss out on so very many things on an everyday basis, and you wind up stressed and obsessed about what you perceive that you’ve failed to do. You curtail sleep, holidays, family events. Then when the trial comes, it gets worse – the judges, hating trials, put you on impossibly long daily schedules, and you frequently grind past even that. You forego sleep and decent meals just so you can sit and strategize or research.
These DOJ prosecutors are much happier doing lighter work with a sports celeb than to go through all that.
Balconesfault
@eric: Then, if you lose one of these monstrous trials, you are villified for wasting money or for being a bad lawyer.
Moreover, if the Holder DOJ had lost one or two high profile cases against Wall Street financiers … the story line would have been how that black guy was wrongly harassing whitie while he wouldn’t even throw some Black Panthers behind bars where they belong.
Linda Featheringill
@rikyrah: #4
The letter from OFA is printed and is great.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121148/-Obama-campaign-to-Romneyworld-If-Mitt-releases-five-full-years-of-returns-we-won-t-ask-for-more
So kind, so reasonable, so public.
Hee-hee.
rumpole
IMO:
1. The last thing that most defendants want is a speedy trial if they’re going to lose. This is true on the civil and criminal level.
2. The government has no billable hours requirement. It wins by losing slowly, and, like an aircraft carrier, is very difficult to turn around once it starts heading in a given direction. When they file a bunch of borderline-frivolous dead-loser motions, the private party has to pay to respond. DOJ does not. They can grind almost anyone down (just ask MSFT), and what they will typically do is overcharge the defendant with a list of offenses that, if proven, would result in jail time for the rest of his natural life. The incentive is to plea out.
3. DOJ line attorneys are not generally seeking public office, and neither are most AUSAs. The political staff (AG level, for example) do have such concerns.
4. It’s difficult to really explain the advantage the gov’t has over a private party. Most judges were prosecutors at one time. The gov’t is in front of them every day, and prosecuting people who are, in fact, guilty of what they were charged with. What that means is that the state has an ocean of credibility to draw on that the individual defendant generally does not. More often than not, the state will get breaks that a private party never would. The government can get almost any extension it wants, for almost as long as it wants. If it has to pay the other side’s fees for losing, so what?
So if a case is gray, what it comes down to is a lack of political will. If the statutory issues can be tried, I just don’t see “whocoodanode” as a viable defense for a billion dollars being routed out of a brokerage. If they want to prosecute this, they could. Talk to the people low down, charge them if they colorably broke the law, and flip them. And on up the chain.
And what will get people in trouble more often than not is lying to them–something that politicians and CEOs do routinely and think that they will never be caught. That really pisses them off. (Just ask Martha Stewart). The very existence of these prosecutions would have an enormous chilling effect on illegal activity. There’s just no political will.
dmsilev
@rikyrah: Update: TPM is reporting that, as you might have expected, the Romney campaign has turned down the offer.
So, let the speculation about Mitt Romney and his tax-avoiding Swiss bank accounts
begincontinue.Woody
Prosecutors are probably like every other group: a few greats, lots of serviceables (ymmv), some jokers.
Two issues here, first:
Take a peek at the SEC’s mandate, and then its budget. Same for the IRS. “Starve the beast” is much more about mauling enforcement of laws/regs that rich people don’t like. It’s the same for prosecutors – they have very limited resources, and spending lots of resources on cases that will take a decade (basic strategy for defendants is to delay) might not be the best use of their money and manpower. Heck, many might not still be around when the case is resolved, because:
Second: the revolving door. If prosecutors are like everyone else, they’ll see much greater salary/benefits in the private sector (and much less public criticism), and off they go. Much easier to do that with powerful firms that one hasn’t prosecuted, no?
NonyNony
@Linda Featheringill:
It’s such a polite way to say “You’re not even half the man you’re Daddy was Mitt.”
And I mean that literally:
“Your Daddy released 12 years of returns and we’re suggesting that you release less than half that. Because everyone already knows that you’re less than half the man your Daddy was.”
UncommonSense
The Great State of Louisiana charges me a fee to get my car inspected every year (and what really pisses me off is that I live in Oregon! Ba-dum-bum). Through that fee, I am helping to fund the law enforcement infrastructure that keeps me safe on the roads and keeps others safe from me if I were to let my vehicle become unsafe to drive.
The SEC should likewise charge a fee to the institutions it regulates to support the cost of said regulations. Just as the Minerals Management Service should charge BP and other oil companies a fee to finance the cost of monitoring them so we don’t have catastrophic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico because some yahoo at the corporate office thought it was too expensive to buy a piece of equipment to prevent blowouts.
If prosecutions are too risky and uncertain (and I do not grant the premise by any means), then make the firms themselves pay for stricter monitoring on the front end. Hire thousands of expert auditors and send Wall Street the bill.
Frankensteinbeck
At what point did the thirty years of deregulation that made all the bullshit that caused the meltdown legal not happen? I seem to recall thirty years of deregulation that left the banks open and clear to act like drunks in a casino. There was nothing to prosecute them for in 2009 for that mess, and there’s nothing to prosecute them for now in that mess. MAYBE they’ll get in trouble for the latest round of interest rate fixing, assuming evidence can be tracked down that makes them guilty of an actual crime in the US. It would be nice, because I’d really like these assholes to go to jail. Unfortunately, there’s a big difference between ‘immoral’, ‘unethical’, and ‘illegal’.
Hell, even the way they’ve been keeping crappy records about mortgages isn’t illegal in a way that brings up criminal charges. It just throws the ownership of the mortgages into question.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@Balconesfault:
You don’t need the ‘if.’ One of the things Taibbi neglects to mention every time he writes about this is that there were some prosecutions of exactly the things he claims were never prosecuted. They resulted in acquittals. This included a case in which the DoJ entered into evidence emails in which the defendants discussed defrauding their client. It still resulted in an acquittal.
Convicting anyone of financial crimes is extremely difficult. They’ve tried and failed. I’m not sure what else they;re supposed to do.
dmsilev
@NonyNony: The Romney response:
Shorter Romney camp: “You don’t need to see his
identificationtax returns. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Too bad they’re not actually Jedis.Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@UncommonSense:
You’ve kind of overlooked the step where Congress has to approve all of this.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@UncommonSense:
On what planet do the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats pass that bill? Is it the same planet where the FDA has more than 1 inspector per 1,000 food processing plants?
UncommonSense
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): I didn’t overlook it. I felt it was implied.
But yes, Congress would have to approve it.
UncommonSense
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
I guess we need more and better Democrats.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
Also, too, since I’m having trouble clicking through, does Taibbi even mention the time-wasting antics of Darrell Issa, or does he just assume that Holder has infinite time and resources to respond to every Congressional fishing expedition and simultaneously do full investigations of every financial firm?
BBA
@UncommonSense: The SEC does charge a fee. It’s currently a whopping $22.40 per million dollars traded.
Congress could increase the fee level from the current formula, but that might reduce the amount of financial speculation and we can’t have that happen.
RSA
Think of it this way: The Department of Justice FY 2013 Budget Request includes “$55 million increase for investigating and prosecuting financial and mortgage fraud,” an addition to their $274.3 million base. $330 million sounds like a lot, right? Goldman Sachs generated $2.5 billion in profit in 2011. That’s a 750% difference, which pays for a lot of lawyers.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@UncommonSense:
So let’s all stay home and not vote to encourage better Dems to run next time, amirite, Matt?
(ETA — hopefully it’s sufficiently clear that I don’t think this is your view.)
Linda Featheringill
@dmsilev:
True enough. Team Obama doesn’t need to see the tax returns and they really don’t want to, I think. They do want to mess with Mitt’s head. And since talking bout tax returns drives both Mr. and Mrs. Mitt nuts with anger, there will be more talk about those blasted returns.
Argive
@elmo:
I personally know several AUSA’s (including a relative) who are just as honorable and committed as you would want people with those responsibilities to be. It’s a similar situation as with the police: the bad ones cast a long shadow and give the good ones an undeserved, negative reputation.
Beast starvation is absolutely a factor. Federal prosecutors are overworked and just don’t have the resources to keep pace with Wall Street’s bottomless checkbooks.
nastybrutishntall
My best friend will be a DA come January. He reads balloon juice and TPM. He was a defense attorney, and originally a PD. He ran for DA in a highly wingnutty county in order to defacto decrim personal drug possession and offer better alternatives to addicts and stupid teenagers than jail. And he won. So, in other words, the above is not always true.
ruemara
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): Holder should have lead a charge on his magical white ponicorn, slaughtered his enemies (metaphorically) and changed hearts and minds of average Americans by his brave matyrdom when he gets put in jail or blown up in his car after failing to do anything in 4 months. His mistake is in actually following the law and having real cases.
nastybrutishntall
@eric: this.
dedc79
Among criminal lawyers that I know, the main dig against prosecutors is that they don’t require the same kind of legal skills as a defense lawyer. This is because they generally get to build their cases largely through directs instead of cross examination (which is considerably trickier).
tomvox1
OT but hilarious from today’s daily handjob of Team Romney by the NYT:
Mr. Romney’s transition team, which has quietly been ramping up since June, is an extension of his campaign and reflects many hallmarks of the Romney operation — methodical and disciplined, with acute attention to detail.
http://nyti.ms/PvTGwL
Is there anything funnier than the MSM’s political horse racy experts?
mistermix
@Everyone defending prosecutors: So apparently my mind was poisoned? perhaps
@dedc79 gets to the root of the problem – I was talking to current/former defense attorneys.
Percysowner
I was a law librarian for 40 years. The prosecutors I met were human. Most were intelligent (law school is not an easy curriculum) and most were dedicated. Now this was all on a local level, but frankly they prosecuted the guy who robbed the liquor store or the guy who beat up his girlfriend, the guy who stabbed someone in a fight, the foster parents who held their kids in cages, the lawyer who went on welfare after receiving a million dollar estate when his father died. One prosecutor tried a shop owner who killed a suspect the shop owner claimed was trying to rob him because the police determined that the shooting was totally unnecessary. She acted out the shooting going so far as to play the victim and lie on the floor in front of the jury to show how the shooting could not have been self defense. Sadly the victim was black, the shooter was white and the shooter was acquitted. The prosecutor quit her job because she felt she could no longer work in a justice system that functioned that way. In my county prosecutors (and other non-union) employees have not received a raise in four years and since we are in a recession they are looking at at least another four years before the county can afford raises. They are dealing with criminals and trying to enforce the laws. Are they all geniuses? Of course not. Are some of them corrupt? Probably, like I said they are human beings and most professions have corruption.
I don’t know DOJ lawyers. But I suspect like most of us, some of them work hard to do the best job they can, some put the time in and go home and some don’t do a good job at all. Sorry for the rant, but I’ve known lawyers all my life and I hate the stereotypes that get trotted out.
And speaking of sterotypes I will end with this statement about libraians
“You honor your reservations; you go to your meetings so we can clean the rooms; you’re relatively quiet; and you drink more than the American Legion.”
Anonymous hotel official, on why he liked the ALA annual conference
(Quoted by Patricia Wilson Berger in Chicago Tribune article,
29 June 1990, Tempo section, p. 1)
Lurking Canadian
@rikyrah: I have no idea what is in Romney’s tax returns that he is so desperate to hide. But I am increasingly convinced that Obama’s people know exactly what it is that he’s trying to hide.
They either know he will never, never, never release them, which frees them to make whatever accusation they like; or they know that they win if they can get him to release them, and they are just looking for the right lever.
dmbeaster
@El Cid: Whether your remark has some merit or not, it is odd to start a thread with a claim that it will be derailed by a sideshow by introducing the sideshow issue.
Culture of Truth
Taibbi has made MOAR PROSECUTIONS! his thing, but unfortunately he seems to know know very little about the law and how prosecutions work outside of a few movies and tv shows he’s seen.
Real American
It’s understandable why the DoJ would only go ahead with slam-dunk cases, for two main reasons:
1. These cases are hard to prove. Corporate crime and white collar crime are much more obscure and hard to understand than more common street crime. Trying to convict Corporation A because they structured their financial transactions this way instead of that way is much harder than, say, convicting Person A for stabbing Person B.
2. Resources. The DoJ is a taxpayer-funded government agency. They have a limited budget, which means they have only so much manpower and time they can devote to prosecuting cases like this.
However, companies like Goldman Sachs have massive profit margins–several times the DoJ’s budget. These companies can hire teams of high-powered attorneys to do nothing else but attack these cases. It’s a common strategy for defendants with deep pockets to pay lawyers to throw up as many legal roadblocks and procedural hurdles as they can, which winds up dragging cases on for years.
In the end, the DoJ has to look at these cases and weigh the likelihood of a successful prosecution against the possibility of defeat and the resources the department would expend in either scenario. It’s certainly not a great situation, but I understand why things play out the way they do.
Culture of Truth
“the average
prosecutorjournalist is not that intelligent, overly righteous, and is mainly looking to win some kind of public acclaim.”KIDDING!1!
Balconesfault
@UncommonSense: I guess we need more and better Democrats.
I keep telling people this, when they ask “why didn’t the Dems break the filibuster over this, or that, or pass this or that in the House, prior to the 2010 elections?”
The answer is that there is still debate within the Democratic Party over many issues – and not all agree completely with the progressive agenda. When a single Democratic coal state Senator or oil state Senator or Wall Street Senator or Insurance Lobby Senator could provide the 40-vote GOP filibuster with the leverage needed to stop something, we obviously need a few more Democrats so the votes of one or two on any given issue aren’t deal-breakers.
dmbeaster
Since this is about why doesn’t the DoJ spend more time on prosecuting sophisticated financial frauds, it really is about having the horsepower to do it. Probably 90% of the prosecutors out there are not up to the job. And its not because of stupidity or moral failings. It simply because these types of cases are very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and it takes people who already have a solid working knowledge of high finance to even begin to do the job. Realize that a lot of Wall Street itself has a poor understanding of the chicanery contained in the latest round of whiz-bang financial products.
Go read about some of the really sophisticated financial prosecutions of the past, such as Boesky or Milkin (Den of Thieves) is a good read), and realize the effort required to do what were easier cases.
burnspbesq
The problem is that the people devising newer and more arcane ways of separating people from their money are always one step ahead of the legislature. It’s difficult to write laws prospectively criminalizing scams that don’t yet exist.
And it is difficult to sell complex, document-intensive cases to juries. The defense has a much easier job: all it has to do is instill reasonable doubt as to one element of the offense in the mind of one juror, and the defendant goes home.
Neither of those things will ever change.
kerFuFFler
I suspect that another difficulty in prosecuting financial crimes (other than fighting a legal team with seemingly ended resources and an ability to drrrraaaaggg proceedings on forever)is finding juries who can follow the confusing evidence about a highly tricky shell game. Remember how few convictions there were after Enron? The same things that made the crimes difficult to detect serve to make the criminality of the actions fairly impenetrable.
burnspbesq
@rikyrah:
You keep saying that.
And you keep not saying what it is you think is missing.
It’s long past time for you to explain.
negative 1
I think that if there is a grain of truth to his point, it’s more that the incentives are amiss. Truly talented defense attorneys make WAY more money than anyone on the government dime. Certainly there are advantages (stability, no billable hours pay structure which is a serious PIA for anyone who hasn’t worked that way) to working as a prosecutor, but for the most part money buys talent, and defense attorneys have an advantage.
Spatula
This post confirms that there is NO shameless Obama administration failure of will and pandering that will not be vigorously defended by multiple front pagers at BJ.
Spatula
@NonyNony:
Are you proposing that the DOJ is not pursuing GS because they are poorly funded? HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Wow.
burnspbesq
@Spatula:
Fixed.
dmbeaster
Despite everything said above, it is hard to find any good reason why the billion dollar oopsy is not being prosecuted. This is a the most despicable type of fiduciary crime, and goes to the heart of the integrity of the system. Not prosecuting is akin to prosecuting no one for torture – laws not enforced simply stop being laws.
One of the key jobs of the top prosecutor is to prioritize use of limited resources, and establish policy by going after the really important issues. It is hard to see how someone can let this one pass because it is too hard, or resources or short, or whatever.
Argive
@Spatula:
Poorly funded in comparison to Wall Street? Yes.
joel hanes
I think that the Holder DoJ is probably significantly hobbled by the retained cadre of Regents grads recruited by BushCo. To the best of my knowledge, Obama/Holder have not sought to systematically purge these rightwing ideological warriors (perhaps held back by a surfeit of good-government concern about only firing for cause, or by a perception that the political cost would endanger a second Obama term).
AA+ Bonds
Do you have any evidence of this or are you running D for a banker-friendly administration
Mino
I guess William Black never convicted anybody, did he? Wonder what would happen if he were appointed AG.
NonyNony
@Spatula:
Um, yeah? Compared to Wall Street and the amount of money they can dump into lawyers, the DOJ is actually poorly funded by comparison.
Did you forget that you’re supposed to be a left-wing troll for a moment there Spats? Even the farthest left-wing folks understand that Starve the Beast has led to funding problems all over the government except for at the Pentagon, and DOJ is no exception to that.
Mino
@joel hanes: And this. The idiots.
AA+ Bonds
@joel hanes:
Ah yes I had forgotten that the Bush Administration is the one making decisions on prosecutions even though a Democrat is President and his Attorney General runs the DoJ
That damned Bush Administration! If we can just elect a Democrat to the White House in 2012 . . .
NonyNony
@Percysowner:
Speaking as someone who has attended ALA as an outsider this all sounds right.
Especially the part about drinking. I thought school teachers could put away the alcohol but damn!
joel hanes
I note, for example, that Alabama’s Alice Martin and Leura Canary are still US Attorneys.
If the shoe were on the other foot, if Martin and Canary were hyper-partisan Democrats mobbed up with their state Democratic leadership, who had conspired to jail a popular Republican governor on flimsy grounds, and if Bush/Rove were in power, they would have been handed their walking papers.
AA+ Bonds
@NonyNony:
Even the dumbest right-wing Democrats understand that the idea that the DoJ has somehow been too starved to prosecute bankers is a load of complete bullshit with no evidence behind it
They just feel they need to shovel that sort of bullshit out of desperate Stockholm syndrome
AA+ Bonds
@joel hanes:
Yes and I bet they leverage their vast power over the Attorney General of the United States to make sure banks don’t get prosecuted
SMH
AA+ Bonds
I have to hand it to people here for inventing not one but two evidence-free “theories” to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by “their” party’s pro-banker policies
1) the DoJ is really poor (too poor to prosecute people!)
2) the DoJ is secretly run by the Bush Administration (because U.S. attorneys tell the Attorney General what to do!)
At this rate y’all will beat out the Creationists by September in sheer number of “theories”
AA+ Bonds
I like this game, mistermix. Let me have a go: the Obama Administration can’t shut down Guantanamo because the moon men have secretly threatened us with cold fusion torpedoes
joel hanes
@AA+ Bonds:
[ snark ]
I bow to your obviously superior experience in persuading a large entrenched bureaucracy to pursue goals opposed by much of the middle management.
I do have a question, though: why do you suppose that BushCo was so determined to appoint strong ideologues to so many positions in so many agencies, choosing them over better-qualified candidates ? (Regents is many things, but a leading law school it ain’t.)
AA+ Bonds
Assuming that any of you do want to see a Democratic Party that takes a harder line on banks, you gotta realize: Matt Taibbi is your friend
And you work against his efforts when you follow up a quote from that piece with the bizarre theory that the Department of Justice is too poor to prosecute bankers
Nellcote
The DoJ has had to completely rebuild the civil rights division as well as tracking a dramatic increase of domestic terrorism. It’s not like Wall St. is all they have on their plate.
That said, here’s a lot of fraud cases they’ve won
Gus diZerega
The twerp that is our AG has plenty of money to go after medical marijuana dispensaries across the nation even when a state’s citizens have legalized them at the state level, and this miserable excuse for a human being has even imaginatively expanded use of the law enabling him to beat up on the powerless to threaten landlords of such dispensaries.
He is disgusting and there is no defense for him that I think a reasonable person can offer.
joel hanes
@AA+ Bonds:
“their” party’s pro-banker policies
On this, at least, we agree. The Obama administration has chosen to preserve the bankers at the cost of most of the rest of us, and it appears to be a policy set at the top.
joel hanes
@Gus diZerega:
go after medical marijuana dispensaries
I’ve always interpreted this as a politically-motivated decision. I guess that Obama, the first black President, felt that he must be careful not to go too far on culture-war issues, lest the squishy middle feel even more besieged and turn further Right.
Obama was squishy on LBGT issues until it turned out to be politically advantageous to have some courage. In short, I believe the Administration’s calculation is that most people who favor decriminalization of pot are going to vote for Obama anyway.
I can offer no parallel excuse for this Administration’s ruthless pursuit of leakers and whistle-blowers, which I find deplorable.
Gwangung
@Spatula:
Now that is a really STUPID comment.
\
rikyrah
@burnspbesq:
it’s NOT a complete tax return.
it’s a partial tax return.
this isn’t up for debate.
either he gave the COMPLETE tax return for 2010 or he didn’t.
and, he didn’t.
Robert Sneddon
@eric: Six to eight weeks? Hah.
The longest ever trial in the UK was a financial fraud prosecution over bribes paid for a big construction contract. The case was brought and a 12-person jury of their peers, i.e. ordinary Joe Soaps chosen from the electoral register, were empanelled. Two years later the number of survivors fell below ten when a juror went on strike and the case could not be continued. The accused walked after the Crown Prosecution service had spent tens of millions of pounds advancing the case.
I can’t see how a really complicated financial malfeasance case that isn’t open-and-shut theft or fraud like the Bernie Madoff prosecution has a hope in hell coming to a conclusion in less than six months, even in the super-slick American legal system as seen on Law and Order and other documentary TV shows.
Gwangung
If you’re on the same side as Timmy boy, you MAY want to rethink your position.
Suffern ACE
@joel hanes: Really. I’ve always interpreted that as that the Administration isn’t really all that into legalization and definitely doesn’t like the idea of the locals deciding drug enforcement.
burnspbesq
@rikyrah:
That’s a non-answer.
This is not fucking rocket science.
Just tell us what’s missing.
If you can.
joel hanes
@Suffern ACE:
I’ve come slowly to the conclusion that Obama is a consummate politician, that all decisions are politically informed if not politically motivated, and that he spends no political capital unless there’s a political payback. Hence all the laments, including mine, decrying his lack of political “courage” on various pet issues where standing on principle would entail a political cost.
As for the banksters: I think Obama is constrained by their very real power to smash, and by the heft of their campaign contributions. When opposing dragons, it’s best to make sure you can win before calling them out.
Bob
Exactly. Some pathetic dude steals $500 from a bank and within minutes the place is crawling with police and FBI. Some hedge fund steals a billion dollars….oh well.
Spatula
@Gus diZerega:
You are correct, sir!
Someguy
@ruemara:
Bingo. There’s around 10,000 attorneys at DOJ. They prosecute (civilly and criminally) thousands upon thousands of cases each year. Most of the criminal cases don’t make headlines (including the big ones); most of the civil cases end in a settlement that favors the government or a civil rights victim or environmental interests, etc. Commenters here are condemning Holder and Congressional Democrats based on a tiny sampling of headline cases involving a pet peeve of BJ’ers. It’s missing the forest for the twigs.
Gillette
“One thing missing from Taibbi’s analysis: does the DoJ even have the money to do that? Maybe part of the problem is beast starvation, not lack of balls.”
If someone is truly committed to a cause, they would at minimum attempt to fight for it with whatever (meager or otherwise) resources they have at their disposal?
If not, well then it’s all too much hassle, ain’t it?
Now, didn’t we elect Obama to do just this? Fight for causes, even if they’re losing ones?
That’s how things change…that’s how problems are corrected, in the long run.
I don’t recall anyone from Holder’s office saying anything about lacking resources, btw.
pseudonymous in nc
There’s an ongoing discussion in the UK about whether it’s possible to get convictions in jury trials for esoteric bank/finance-biz fraud, given the amount of time, evidence and lawyerage involved, as well as underlying concepts that often require maths PhDs to understand.
Anonymous At Work
Not so much beast starvation or monetary problems as the sheer amount of energy needed. Goldman Sachs, et alia, have made financial crimes, especially ones involving senior “strategic” leadership positions, incredible difficult to prove because you have to prove actual knowledge that the person knew crimes were being committed, at the time they were being committed. And, as tobacco companies have shown, any such proof is usually attorney-client privileged, if it exists. 5 years of trial prep, 6 months of trial with arcane language, thrown to a jury culled of anyone with intelligence, grudges or common sense? No thanks, say prosecutors.
Now, better idea would be to have staff attorneys at CFPB for prosecuting financial crimes. That was Spitzer’s triumph as NY Attorney General: specialized bureau of investigator/attorneys to keep finance companies on notice.
kay
I don’t know anything about federal prosecutors, but it’s overgeneralizing nonsense as far as county prosecutors. Some are smart, some are not, some are political and some of them aren’t.
What they ALL have that their critics don’t, though, is trial experience. They’re in court, every day, trial after trial after trial. There’s no replacement for that. You’ve either got it or you don’t.
They plead out a lot, but they still do more trial work than anyone.
That’s why they make great defense lawyers when they switch sides, which is not at all uncommon here, and goes against the idea they’re in it for the big bucks.
Mino
John Corzine, anyone?
Ms. D. Ranged in AZ (formerly IrishGrrrl)
I think you’re right, it’s beast starvation. Most citizens won’t sue those companies because they know that they would be literally buried in paper from discovery and overwhelmed with the number of motions they’d have to respond to. Prosecutors go after low hanging fruit and Goldman Sachs are nowhere near the bottom of the tree.
Argive
@kay:
The exact same thing is true of federal prosecutors. Depends on the district, I think.
CaliCat
Matt Taibbi accusing someone of being overly righteous? Ahahahaha! OMG, I’m having a laugh-o-gasm right now.
xian
@burnspbesq: isn’t it missing the FBAR?