If anyone thought that Lanny Breuer's resignation would bring about a sea change in attitudes about the ability to bring the Banks and their execs to account for the actions, let Eric Holder tell us why we are so wrong.
It was almost a pleasant feeling back in January that within days of PBS Front line's devastating report,the Untouchables, a leak appeared and was confirmed by the justice department days later that Lanny Breuer would resign from the Justice Department. Even though I felt that this was no more than windows dressing , there was still a small ray of hope that maybe his replacement would advise the US Attorneys office in Manhattan , sometimes known as "the Office" , that it was "weapons free" to investigate and prosecute the banks and at the very least the executives .
As the New York Times threw Breuer a Bouquet last Friday March 1st, 2013, a Front line Producer added a chilling comment at the story:
I was the producer and correspondent for the FRONTLINE documentary, “The Untouchables,” that you and Breuer speak of in this interview. One point I should raise is that we tried several times to speak to the US attorney in New York and the US Attorney in Los Angeles. But in both instances we were immediately called by main justice in DC and told that we would only be speaking to Mr. Breuer… that US attorneys would not speak to us that all press would go through him. So, though Breuer says the US Attorneys do not report to him, the DoJ did block our attempts to include others. Yes, US attorneys operate with some autonomy, but to say that they don’t ever report to Breuer is not fully accurate.
That ray of hopefulness was snuffed like an annoying fly today by the Attorney General himself. All one has to do is read what the Hill reported on today's Senate Hearing:
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder told lawmakers that he is concerned that some institutions have become so massive and influential that bringing criminal charges against them could imperil the financial system and the broader economy. His remarks come as a growing number of lawmakers have suggested that big banks are, effectively, "too big to jail."
"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," he said. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."
He suggested that prior attempts to bring enforcement against banks may have been stifled by their outsize influence, saying it has an "inhibiting influence ... on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate."
The Justice Department is required to consider the economic impact of its actions, but Holder's comments should bolster an increasingly vocal group of lawmakers that argue the nation's biggest banks have gotten too large and need to be curbed.
I have no idea why they can't go after individual execs in these banks. They certainly have the tools to do it. Nothing has more deterrence value than to see a top CEO led from his office in Handcuffs, prosecuted and sent to jail for the next 20 years of his life like Jeff Skilling of Enron fame .
Maybe I do have an idea after all. Doesn't it all come down to public corruption? It seems to be pervasive throughout the entire federal workforce that deals directly or indirectly with oversight and regulation of these houses of Crime. It's glossed over with phrases like Regulatory Capture", "Revolving Doors" etc. Lets not forget the deterrent on whistleblowing caused by the DOJ's office as they have shown they will mercilessly and relentlessly crush whistleblowers.
It should give us one connecting dot as to why no Government Employees have come forward and told us the real reasons why the "Greatest Nation on earth" has a whimpering Dept of Justice when it comes to just thinking of prosecuting crime against financial institutions.
One thing we do know for certain: AG Holder has no "concerns" here because the decision was made early on that it was hands off the banks and hands on anyone within who tried to expose the people in Govt that aided and abetted these crimes. There is simply no other explanation. Now it comes down to how high all of this goes and who is ultimately responsible for the Hands-off decision that led to the Banks getting larger and larger and pay out more in bonuses in the last four years than the entire TARP program .
Even today, the Fed is not thinking of the economy as it buys 85 billion a month in Agency mortgage backed securities. Nope, the bail-out continues. Yet, despite the huge lift it's given to the stock market , only one Banks stock is selling for slightly more than book value . Citibank's stock is still down a stunning 91% from it's high in 2007.
If investors know the banks balance sheets are a joke, why doesn't the DOJ?
(Note: I won't be commenting much , if at all. I thought I lost the anger level at this situation by not posting here for awhile, but after I read Bailout by sigtarp Neil Barofsky, it all came back and has been for awhile which has caused me to inadvertently break some of my own teeth by making harsh comments at the wrong people. To those who shouldn't have been on the receiving end I do apologize again.
I'll try to control my poor impulse control and be polite if I have to comment at all)