Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

Moyers interviews Taibbi:

MATT TAIBBI: [T]he rule of law isn't really the rule of law if it doesn't apply equally to everybody. I mean, if you're going to put somebody in jail for having a joint in his pocket, you can't let higher ranking HSBC officials off for laundering $800 million for the worst drug dealers in the entire world [Sure you can!]. People who are suspected, not only of dealing drugs, but of thousands of murders. I mean, this is an incredible dichotomy. And eventually, you know, it eats away at the very fabric of society when some people go to jail and some people don't go to jail.

BILL MOYERS: But do you ever have the sense that those guys are, you know, are and their lawyers are up there laughing at all of us on their way to the bank, no pun intended? I mean, the fact of the matter is they are immune. There was a story in “The Washington Post” the other day by Howard Schneider and Danielle Douglas. With the lead, "Five years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a global push to tighten financial regulation around the world has slowed in the face of attempted recovery, which the banks helped bring on. "And a tough industry lobby effort. Big banks, insurers and other financial giants remain intact and arguably too big to fail." I mean, nothing really has changed.

MATT TAIBBI: No, no, definitely not. And in fact, if you want to look at it objectively, since 2008, you know, the companies that we're talking about have become bigger and more dangerous and more immune to prosecution than they were back then. And you might even say by a lot. I mean, you know, the first factor was that you had a series of mergers in 2008, which you know, made companies like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, you know, double in size.

Or they were much bigger than they were before. So therefore they're more dangerous. And so you have these companies, like Barclays, like Royal Bank of Scotland, like UBS, like HSBC, which are, you know, they can't be regulated. We can't get an accurate accounting of what's going on in their books. And apparently now we can't even criminally prosecute them for laundering money like HSBC does. I mean we just keep setting the bar lower and lower and lower. And it's getting scary I think.

And, oh yeah, Obama's far worse than Bush:

Even under the Bush administration, if you go back just ten years, you know, WorldCom, Enron, you know, Adelphia. We took the leading individuals of these companies and we put them on trial to make an example out of them. And this is exactly what we're not doing in this case. Those companies were systemically important then. I don't see why they can't do the same thing now.

Because they own the government now, that's why. And Obama sold it to them.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by jawbone on

through on his contractual obligations. If Big $ funded his run for the presidency, he had to give them the keys to the wheels of power and to their continued power grabs.

I'm not sure Obama is gratuitously turning over government to them; I really do think he was given a quid pro quo and had to follow through or be exposed...or something. Squashed like a bug maybe?

His role was to be the savior of Wall Street and the anti-Hillary, as they simply did not trust her to carry out programs to protect and enrich them sufficiently. Not that she was necessarily anti-Wall Street -- just not sufficiently pro-Wall Street. In a year when the Dem was going to win, given Bush's fuck ups and wars, they had to have a Dem who would do their bidding. Period.

Many of the Big Banksters seemed to think he'd done enough in one term, but Obama did manage to win a second. Romney looked like a candidate from Central Casting, but he didn't have the chops for the role.