Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is there a level of criminality that would force Obama to prosecute Goldman Sachs execs?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 11:09 AM
Original message
Poll question: Is there a level of criminality that would force Obama to prosecute Goldman Sachs execs?
Privately betting against the advice they publicly gave their clients, double dipping in the bailout, and now helping Greece and possibly Italy run debt scams that will further break the world economy...

Didn't the Bush justice department manage to prosecute Ken Lay?

I realize Goldman Sachs is a much bigger fish, but it would be nice to see the rule of law applied to bad actors who have done a thousand times more damage than any terrorists living in caves could ever hope to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. Prosecute his boss?
Fat chamce of that ever happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. sometimes I think we need Obama to act like Michael Corleone
and take out the bosses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nyc 4 Biden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. +2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. Seems to me if it was going to happen
It would have happened already.

You can't say that the evidense isn't for a serious investgation.

I think it's reasonable that such an investigation would
show wrong doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's been well over a year, and the DOJ still hasn't filed against Peanut Corporation of America!
Despite mountains of evidence, nine people dead, thousands violently ill and countless businesses damaged at the worst possible time.

If they won't go after the guys in this two bit, bankrupt operation- what are the chances that they'd try to take on some powerful banksters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Goldman Sachs was Obama's #2 campaign donor...more $$$$ to Obama than to any other
candidate

it's the GS administration; does that provide an answer?

from opensecrets.org

Goldman Sachs $994,795 ***********
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290 ************
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 *************
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881 *****************
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. A whopping $1 million out of the $700 million that he raised
I highly doubt that the prospect of having to run with only $699 million next time is the thing deterring Obama from prosecuting Goldman Sachs.

And they gave to Obama more than any other candidate because he was the odds on favorite to win and because he could accept more due to not taking public financing for the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. the Goldman Sachs banksters on O's team:

The Bankers on Obama's Team

The latest round of Wall Street muckety-mucks now in charge of regulation.

— By Andy Kroll

NewsletterShareClose this Share Box
6 Comments | Post Comment.January/February 2010 Issue
See More Charts
GOLDMAN SACHS CEO turned Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wasn't the first, or the last, to use the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington. Here's a short list of Obama officials who got their start in the private sector—many, like Paulson, at "Government Sachs."

OFFICIAL
CURRENT ROLE IN WASHINGTON
PREVIOUS ROLE ON WALL STREET

Neal Wolin
Deputy secretary of the treasury (Tim Geithner's No. 2)
Exec at one of the largest insurance and investment firms

Mark Patterson
Treasury secretary's chief of staff
Goldman Sachs lobbyist

Gene Sperling
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made nearly $900,000 advising Goldman Sachs

Larry Summers
Obama's chief economic adviser
Made $5 million as managing director of a hedge fund

Rahm Emanuel
White House chief of staff
Made $16 million as a partner at a Chicago investment bank

Herbert Allison
Assistant secretary of the treasury (oversees TARP)
Longtime exec at Merrill Lynch; headed Fannie Mae

Kim Wallace
Assistant secretary of the treasury for legislative affairs
Managing director at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers

Karthik Ramanathan
Acting assistant treasury secretary for financial markets
Foreign exchange dealer at Goldman Sachs

Matthew Kabaker
Deputy assistant secretary of the treasury
Made $5.8 million at the Blackstone Group in 2008-2009

Lewis Alexander
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Chief economist at Citigroup; paid $2.4 million in 2008-2009

Adam Storch
Managing executive of the SEC's Division of Enforcement
VP of Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group

Lee Sachs
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made more than $3 million at a New York hedge fund

Gary Gensler
Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission
18 years at Goldman Sachs, where he made partner

Michael Froman
Deputy assistant to Obama, deputy nat'l security adviser
Managing director of a Citigroup investment arm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Yeah, sounds like the rationale some in NJ used against Corzine.
who voted against Bush's tax cuts and the bankruptcy bills. Now NJ residents have corrupt Chritie, who has already proposed taking a hatchet to social programs. One thing Corzine avoided was massive cuts to school budgets and other services. Watch corrupt Christie, in addition to raising fare and cutting service, nix the property tax rebate, the very thing people were angry at Corzine for adjusting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. well Obama is also launching a "commission" to cut benefits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. What? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-19-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Corzine actually had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate
Which is one of the reasons I was really annoyed that he chose to run for Governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. "Too big to stand trial". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Too big to fail = do anything they want scott free
Edited on Thu Feb-18-10 02:08 PM by niceypoo
Too big to fail = guaranteed bailout = casino attitude. Too big to fail = privatize the profits and socialize the risk.

Proposal for a new law: You get bailed out and your company gets broken up, no exceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. like this bankster's license plate:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. War criminals haven't been prosecuted, not likely these guys will even get...
...a slap on the wrist - maybe a job in the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
11. I love how you use "won't" to imply AG Holder has a choice in this.
First off the SEC should be the ones doing something about it. But they've not been credible since Bush and Obama has just put in place, by executive order, an independent "economic" commission of sorts to oversea the SEC and get them on the same page with people like the FED and various other organizations. Why?! Because they're a mess.

Then we have are these people really doing something against the law. You act as though they are. Our own personal moral doesn't play at all in the law of the land. Goldman Sachs remained successful because it probably knows the laws and makes successful deals. So to act as though we even have evidence that is viable to use in a court of law against the company is outrageous.


I also enjoy how so many posters here think in the black and white. One going as far as to claim Obama is subservient to these people...which is obviously not he case by the many actions Obama has taken in the past--ie off shore banking. In any case, this issue is not black and white and I'm sick in tired when people think like that, and the tone of your post in general which does the same.

All in all this is about law and really from what I can see because Goldman Sachs is successful at getting people rich and it's workers rich (by means we may deam morally corrupt) that doesn't mean they're breaking the bloody law in order to say Obama, or his admin is in some way letting people run around comitting crimes. Which is what you are saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-18-10 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. no crimes are larger than those committed by the bushies,
and Obama wants them let off scot-free.

His masters would never let him prosecute a Wall Street executive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-19-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
20. Massive crimes where committed. There is NO reason not to investigate.
"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence. To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud.


...Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending. It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files. Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes. Unfortunately, "most investors" (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.

The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives. The "AAA" rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as "risk-free." We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk. A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven . We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits. If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud.

Worse, the S&P document demonstrates that the investment and commercial banks that purchased nonprime loans, pooled them to create financial derivatives, and sold them to others engaged in the same willful blindness. They did not review samples of loan files because doing so would have exposed the toxic nature of the assets they were buying and selling. The entire business was premised on a massive lie -- that fraudulent, toxic nonprime mortgage loans were virtually risk-free. The lie was so blatant that the banks even pooled loans that were known in the trade as "liar's loans" and obtained AAA ratings despite FBI warnings that mortgage fraud was "epidemic." The supposedly most financially sophisticated entities in the world -- in the core of their expertise, evaluating credit risk -- did not undertake the most basic and essential step to evaluate the most dangerous credit risk. They did not review the loan files. In the short and intermediate-term this optimized their accounting fraud but it was also certain to destroy the corporation if it purchased or retained significant nonprime paper."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html


There are people who know how to clean this mess up, investigate it and put the criminals away. Obama has decided not to do what absolutely needs to be done to avoid this happening again. The crininals that flourished during Bush continue to flourish today. Inexcusable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC