Elizabeth Warren Stumps all the Federal Bank Supervisors
 

Elizabeth Wareen took the Federal bank regulators to task with a simple question that none of them could answer: "Can you give me an example of an enforcement action against a major bank that went to trial?"

She then scolded them, saying that federal prosecutors and DA's file cases against ordinary Americans every day, and Too Big to Fail has become Too Big to Prosecute.

Pretty good for her first month on the job!
http://www.upworthy.com/elizabeth...ch-of-bank

A case might be made that getting the economy back on track was more important than striking fear into the hearts of bankers when the economy was on the ropes.

But years later, when all they have is what appears to be selective prosecution against S&P, they make it look like it's hands off due to political consideration$.

I am no fan of EW.

However, she is dead on in this situation. Bank officials have NEVER paid for their lies and fraud.

Agreed. But then it's one thing to point your finger and give them a good talking too....vs. actual prosecution for crimes. When there are more white collar criminals in jail, EW gets my respect. For now, she's just talking and finger waving.

In this particular context, however, what else can she or any other member of Congress do? While she is a lawyer, she's not currently a prosecutor with the power to bring such criminal charges.

She is just faaaaaaaaantastic! I hope she stays pure.

Exactly, she's pretty much powerless. Unless the president gives her power with executive order, she can bring bankers before her to testify but there are no real changes. No prosecutions. It's Lehman brothers vs. Goldman. Whose got the political favor in Washington? Right now, nobody touches the bankers and probably won't in the future. She's putting on a show that won't have any real impact in the financial sector.

Congress can enact laws that would have a serious impact but they choose to turn a blind eye

Powerless? I'd hardly describe her as powerless. Why hasn't she introduced legislation that actually creates regulations? Or maybe hold the president's feet to the fire? She's all talk and no action. When she actually tries to do something I'll be impressed. Until then, this is smoke and mirrors.

Holding hearings is a common way to build support, both public and Congressional, for action.

She can't just mandate changes by herself.

She's holding their feet to the fire, and put them and the banking industry on notice. It's likely that there will be prosecutions now.

I'm happy to see this. The question is will she cave to the leadership in her own party who tell her to stand down? If she doesn't try to bite anybody it's all just barking, which makes people feel warm and fuzzy but gets nowhere. You think she'll put old Barney up on the stand?

Great work Elizabeth. She had those Federal bank regulators squirming just like a republican worried about running against a tea party hack.

Go get em tiger.

Sure, but how can one tell the difference between posturing and building support? I believe the only way is by following up with action. In her position that action looks like sponsoring a bill or twisting Obama's arm.

Besides getting Roger Clemens to commit perjury, do congressional hearings really 'accomplish' anything? Keep in mind that I really wish they did.

Sure, but she has build support for it first.

Why do you think she won't follow through?

Because I was responding to the OP that seems ecstatic that she flayed them with words.
The majority of this type of hearing is posturing and never amounts to anything. I have no reason to think that Elizabeth Warren is any different so I'm withholding judgement until she follows it up. Until then she's just another politician.

Exactly. It's best not to get your hopes up with politicians. Look at Obama. People thought he was going to change the world (and Washington). Then he turned out to be just another politician.

Best of luck to her.

"I've been chewed out before."

-Lt. Aldo Raine

For those wondering, she is currently not a co-sponsor of Rand Paul's Audit the Fed 2013 bill [loc.gov].

While she's talked tough against big banks, when it comes to the biggest, she's remarkably timid.

Disappointing but now exactly surprising.

That's what I've been wondering. Ron and now Rand have been chasing these crooks for a while. There is a lot more to be done pertaining to these Fed governors than stumping them over the behavior of private banks. Hopefully she will continue down this rabbit hole.

If one goes, they all go. Can you imagine what just Cozine has on all of these of the farkers; Ben, Timmy, Barry, Jamie, etc?

*Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.*

What I find hilarious is that they've managed to spin the Plutocracy and fraud to "Wall Street" as though it's some stock brokers or financial firms that are to blame.

Ever heard of CDOs? They are in bed together.

No doubt. But it's not "Wall Street" that is at the epicenter of the klepotocracy, it's like 5 hours south in DC. And it's not the lack of "regulation," either. It's a fundamental break down in the Rule of Law. TBTF? No, Too Big To Save.

I don't know what this ^ means.

Regulation could have prevented naked CDS.

Maybe now, but when the economy was collapsing, that's not the time to destroy all the banks.

:lol: Elizabeth Warren...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013...magoguery/
:whistlin:
Warren busted out a great red herring talking point and her followers ate it up.
http://www.politico.com/morningmoney/

Meaning it's the morons in DC and the power structure that will not, by any means, prosecute the banks because that would show the emporor has no clothes.

You cannot be serious.

Right, because the best time to destroy all the banks is when? If you say never, then I think you're onto something because that would me one thing: the government would have to give up power. Ain't gonna happen.

You mean cause they don't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that laws were broken?

You know that is was CFTMA2000 which permitted naked CDS, right?

Otherwise they would have been regulated as the insurance that they were.

Now that the economy is not teetering on the brink.

No, the government would have to take back power from their paymasters.

Supporters of this high cheek bone woman probably feel quite silly right about now.

I couldn't agree with this more.

However, what we actually did was to tie our economy and the broader society even more closely to the banks. We doubled down on the original problem.

Y'all are insane. There were something like seven agencies overseeing the CDO writing and what did that do? Let's make sure we regulate the fraud so the fraud is good enough for the government.

No need to destroy the banks. They're perfectly capable of doing that themselves. Destroy Fascism? Sure, Obama can go back to being a corrupt, chain-smoking Chicago thug and his wife can attend funerals all day long.

Well, there is Dodd-Frank, but that was gutted by Republicans (and some NY Dems).

Really? Which ones monitored the ratings agencies that enabled the banks to sell AAA rated crap?

And none were regulating CDS cause CFTMA2000 made them off limits.

Some would say Dodd-Frank never really had any teeth to begin with. And let's keep some perspective, it was gutted by some, yes. The rest never intended for it to be enforced to begin with.

The link is busted.

Looks like they items you search for are only valid for 30 minutes as links.

If you search for "Federal Reserve Transparency Act" you should find the bill and its co-sponsors.

Thanks. Here's a Wiki link if anybody wants it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fede...arency_Act. I didn't realize it was almost 4 years old already.

Everyone else? You got evidence for that?

It gets reintroduced each year. That's probably the original, and it also looks like it's mostly the House version.

The one I had linked was for the recent 2013 version, co-sponsored by about 20 other Senators with Rand Paul as the primary. I'm not sure if there is anything similar in the House now the the good doctor is gone.

Stays pure? Uh, she's already sullied herself, you know, with the whole advocating for an insurance company to gain immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits. But, hey, she's pure as snow. :sleepy: