Bernie Sanders puts Wall Street on notice: "On day one, I am appointing a special committee to inves
Source: Salon
...investigate the crimes on Wall Street"
Bernie Sanders has long described himself as a democratic socialist and has found himself fending off mischaracterizations of his political ideology quite often on the campaign trail, so much so that he plans to hold a major address on Thursday explicitly detailing what it means to be a democratic socialist. Ahead of Sanders big speech, Rolling Stone is out with its new cover feature on his political revolution and as an interview with the candidate while he was on the campaign trail back in May reveals, the populist seems just as committed to major reform as ever starting with Wall Street.
The Vermont senator told Rolling Stones Tim Dickinson that his first course of action upon entering the White House would be to go after the Wall Street executives responsible for the 2008 global financial collapse. Not one Wall Street executive has ever been held criminally liable for the rampant financial malfeasance that dove the world markets into a tailspin.
Sanders described to Rolling Stone exactly how such inaction came about and why he thinks President Obama blew it on holding Wall Street executives accountable:
About a half-dozen of us went to visit the president, Im guessing six months into his [first] term. And we went into the White House, and Larry Summers was there and [Tim] Geithner was there. We had all their money people, all their financial people. That was the issue.
I like the president very much, and I have supported him. Weve worked together. But these are some of the disagreements we have. The American people were crushed by the greed and illegal behavior on Wall Street, right? And the American people wanted justice.
And we said to the president I wasnt alone on this we said, Mr. President, you gotta do something. You gotta be tough on this issue. The end result was seven years have come and gone and there are still no high-ranking CEOs who are in jail. There are kids who smoke marijuana who have criminal records, but not CEOs of large corporations. No matter what kind of crimes and illegal activity, these guys [Wall Street CEOs] are too big to jail?
That is one of the reasons why people become alienated from the political process. They just dont see justice. From a public-policy point of view, in terms of holding people accountable for serious crimes, the Obama administration blew it. From a political point of view, in giving people confidence that we have a criminal-justice system that works for all, regardless of their wealth or power, it blew it.
Now what do you think a president should have done, Sanders offered, on day one, I am appointing a special committee to investigate the crimes on Wall Street.
Were gonna move this quickly, Sanders promised. And if these people are found guilty, they will be in jail. Nobody in America is above the law, Sanders declared, arguing that many Wall Street executives had committed some very serious crimes.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/bernie_sanders_puts_wall_street_on_notice_on_day_one_i_am_appointing_a_special_committee_to_investigate_the_crimes_on_wall_street/
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)geardaddy
(24,931 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)Does anyone really think the banksters will ever allow anyone to truly investigate them and what happened (and has been happening) with their multi trillion-dollar derivatives trade?
I think not.
frylock
(34,825 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)But CNBC's Kevin Krim might have an idea: http://news-beacon-ireland.info/?p=7946
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)The best gummint money can buy.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)HSBC was personal banker to the Sinaloa cartel, the guy on their board at the time now runs the FBI.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh well, let's just drop it then.
What's on the tube?
forest444
(5,902 posts)I always liked Bob Saget.
Coincidentally I knew Ben Saget, his father. He passed away a few years ago. Was a great guy.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)In all seriousness...
He did one of the most hysterical stand up routines I've ever seen. It was filthy.... and so funny!
forest444
(5,902 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 19, 2015, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)
I'll look for it on YouTube (let me know if you have the link).
trillion
(1,859 posts)in fines for multi billion dollar fraud to be let off completely with no perpetrators going to jail.
slumcamper
(1,606 posts)onecaliberal
(32,864 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)And THIS IS WHY WE MUST HAVE HIM AS PRESIDENT if our democracy is going to survive.
Hillary simply WILL NOT challenge them. She is a creature of their ilk.
mic drop (from Bernie)
PSPS
(13,603 posts)National Affairs: Wealth on Trial
(Time Magazine: Monday, June 12, 1933)
(snip)
The real showman of the Morgan investigation, however, was not a circus pressagent. nor a Senator but the kinky-haired, olive-skinned, jut-jawed lawyer from Manhattan named Ferdinand ("Pick" Pecora. Because Senator Fletcher, who at 74 looks like a wealthy Yankee visitor to his own Florida, is not another "Tom"' Walsh with the mental capacity to prosecute his own investigations, Lawyer Pecora was hired last January as the committee's counsel at $255 per month. He had spent weeks ransacking the records of the House of Morgan for material for this trial of a lifetime. In his first fortnight's performance he proved himself a worthy match for white-haired John William Davis, patrician counsel for Banker Morgan.
Ferdinand Pecora was born in Nicosia, Sicily 51 years ago. His grandfather trooped with Garibaldi. His father, a cobbler, took him to the U. S. when he was 5. He attended public school, started to study for the Episcopal ministry, turned aside to the law. In 1912 he campaigned for Theodore Roosevelt. In 1916 he voted for Wilson. Two years later Tammany gave him a job as deputy assistant district attorney. Until 1930 when he retired, his brains really ran that office where he was the principal courtroom prosecutor. He put more than a hundred "bucket shops" out of business and thereby learned the shady side of the brokerage business. He sent State Superintendent of Banks Frank Warder to Sing Sing for taking bribes in the City Trust Co. scandal. He convicted Anti-Saloon Leaguer William H. Anderson of forgery. He prosecuted bail bond racketeers, crooked milk inspectors, big-time thugswith 80% convictions. He was in charge of the District Attorney's office in 1923 when Anna Marie ("Dot King" Keenan, Broadway "sweetie," was murdered. For days he withheld from the Press the name of John Kearsley Mitchell, "Dot King's" benefactor, son-in-law of Morgan Partner Edward Townsend Stotes-bury, to save Mitchells family from "needless humiliation and suffering.'"
Also:
Time to put wealth on trial again?
Congress needs to investigate the reasons behind the economic collapse -- the way Ferdinand Pecora probed the '29 market crash, and made tycoons confess their financial sins.
For policy wonks near and far, the celebrity of the hour isnt Susan Boyle, the Scottish church marm who belted out I Dreamed a Dream with the voice of an airy angel, or ex-Somali pirate hostage Richard Phillips, or Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant from California whos against gay marriage because the Bible tells her so.
No, its Ferdinand Pecora.
Who he, you may ask, and guess that maybe he once played infield for the Dodgers or sang Faust at the Metropolitan Opera. But back in the 30s, during the depths of the Great Depression, Ferdinand Pecora emerged as an unlikely hero, leading a sensational Senate investigation of what caused the 29 market crash.
Over the last few weeks, public pressure fueled by rage and pain has built for a similar probe of the causes of our current economic collapse, an inquiry that will search for real answers going beyond the hearings that have been held so far more heat and wasted fire than illumination. People want to know what really happened, and how we can keep it from happening again.
http://www.salon.com/2009/04/28/ferdinand_pecora/
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Hawaiianlight
(63 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No doubt more research is needed.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)So what possible reason could she have to be against it?
as if it's needed.
trillion
(1,859 posts)Last week she invoked 9/11 to excuse helping them out.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and does just what his "special" committee would do.
Although it's hilarious that he seems to just assume his special little committee will OBVIOUSLY find people guilty regardless of how twisted the laws have become and basically make the egregious behavior LEGAL.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Is useless. They have no teeth, having been defanged long ago.
We need to either make them do what they're supposed to be doing, or create a new regulatory body. And re-instate Glass-Steagall, as well as other changes like putting a tax on trades, especially high frequency traders. That can help fund our children's college education. Hillary won't do any of those days things, she is part of the status quo preventing change.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It appears to me he KNOWS ALL ABOUT IT.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Everyone talks about the president not able to get anything through congress, but people forget the other functions of the president. The president appoints the commissioners of the SEC (5 total, 1 each year. no more than 3 from a single party). The president also appoints who will be chairman of the SEC. So if the president wants to appoint people willing to prosecute offenses instead of just fining them he can most certainly do that.
However the president doesn't have to limit himself or herself to just the powers granted to the SEC. If laws are broken by wall street (and not just regulations) he can go after them with the justice department. That, I believe, is what Bernie is referring to.
There is a lot the president can do without having to get bills through congress.
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)Because that's where I expect him to be, not in the White House.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The senate has nothing to do with that. All they can do is confirm or block appointments of people running the departments responsible for prosecution.
If someone else wins the presidency and decides not to prosecute people on wall street then people on wall street don't get prosecuted.
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)They call witnesses and expose crimes.
In other words, exactly what he said he would set up a committee to do.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)They can expose crimes, but if the executive branch doesn't act there's nothing they can do beyond that.
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)She would be under pressure to do something about it.
If a Republican is president, nothing will be done by the DOJ, but a Senate committee investigation that exposes major corruption would still be helpful.
In either case, it would be a useful thing for Sanders to pursue in the Senate.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I'll vote for even if nobody else does.
trillion
(1,859 posts)Notice how the left and right are trying to keep the bought out candidates out of office. Notice how the right literally support the tea party candidates because they're against big gov when the tea party ARE big gov. Same thing from the Hillary supporters who think they want big business out of politics and then will vote for her.
Township75
(3,535 posts)Who the fuck is he kidding?
Can we bet on elections in Vegas? It would be great to find out from all sides who really think he or she is behind the winning candidate.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)They're usually about hubris.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)a democratic socialist is, and that he would fail their courses with the way he's explaining it....
I think I'll let BERNIE decide what Democratic Socialism will mean in this country, especially since the two professors admitted that there's no such government in the world, and never has been, as they described....
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)PODCAST AT LINK AND MORE: http://www.marketplace.org/2015/11/18/elections/explaining-democratic-socialism
If you ask 10 different people what they think democratic socialism is, chances are youll get 10 different answers.
We reached out to the Sanders campaign, but didnt hear back.
So, I asked two political science professors to define democratic socialism.
Samuel Goldman, an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, told me it was, achieving collective control of the economy.
And Andrei Markovits, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, said democratic socialism is an attempt to create, a propertyfree, socialist society.
So everything is communally owned.
Senator Sanders has touched on democratic socialism in stump speeches, like this one in Iowa last month:
When you call your fire department or the police department, what do you think youre calling?" Sanders asked the crowd. "These are socialist institutions.
That Sanders attempt to use fire and police departments to define democratic socialism does not sit well with Professor Markovits.
If he were to write this on an exam for me? Thats an F, Markovits said.
Sanders has also cited Denmark as a place where democratic socialism has worked.
That gets a rise out of Professor Goldman. With apologies to Shakespeare, he said theres something rotten in Sanders assertions about the state of Denmark.
I would not call that socialism, he said.
Or even democratic socialism. Professor Markovits agrees. Ultimately, Markovits said, theres no private property at all under democratic socialism. He said it doesnt exist in Denmark or anywhere else, and is an unattainable goal.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)How does it not?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)As it is you are white and will get a fairer share than I, until racism is eradicated. Why should I join a fight that will improve your lives much more than mine? I join no fights on the side of folks who do not place equality over economics. Helping you more than me will just widen the racial economic gap.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)I don't see it as a black and white issue so much as a rich and poor issue. I'm on the poor side of the ledger, and I feel that social justice is tied to economic justice.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Does it say that I am in my profile? I've been on this site since 2004 so I don't remember what my profile says.
Hey, I get what you're saying though. Even poor white people have better opportunities than poor people of color, not just A.A. in this racist fucked up country of ours. Hell, poor white people face less scrutiny than well to do African Americans. But just because I want economic equality in this country doesn't mean I don't want racial equality. I still feel like the two go hand in hand, or at least they can.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If I was in your room we'd be playing video games. And me smoking a doobie.
I know what you are because I am an infp. I slip into your skin when I read your words and can figure it out like that. Either W or mixed with white with white being the dominant.
I just want you guys to know why the message falls flat, so that the next time you guys find that far left candidate who you love, you'll know how to frame the message to win black voters and the primary. Too late this time unless there is a miracle. It is not pandering. It could have been done easily.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)On Thu Nov 19, 2015, 03:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Social justice brings equality.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1264507
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"You are white and get a fairer share..."
If anyone dared to say "you are black so (insert problem you think is the fault of black people)..." It would be hidden immediately! And rightly so. It's offensive and over the top. Just like like gem from bravenak. Any attempt to use race as a weapon has no place on DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 19, 2015, 03:29 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bravenaks statement is fair in the context of the discussion. Itâs not a racist statement.
Racism should be a major issue in this election, unfortunately, itâs not.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is not a violation of DU rules. Voting to leave. Alerter should take it up with the poster.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: painting w/a pretty broad brush
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: racist
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Your one note schtick ain't sticking. Time to look at the world without your hatred of Bernie tainting your view.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You only care about one thing.
But I'd never be to clueless and rude as to think it was snooze-worthy.
Jesus!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He is snooze worthy except the yelling. Clueless, and rude? Ditto.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Lordy... that old tired worn out meme. It's so last month!
Must be out of touch up there.
And we all know the only thing you care about.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You do not know me at all.
The meme is true. Red. Yelling. No real plans that have any chance of passing. Rude fans. Supporters harassing black folks, journalists, women who like hillary, Trying to school John Lewis on civil rights that HE ACTUALLY FOUGHT FOR HIS ENTIRE LIFE, unlike their candidate who has been far away from the black community since before I was born. Fans who single out black people as the one group who needs to educate themselves on politics, even though white people vote republican, showing their racial bias in the fact that they constantly question the intelligence of each and every black democrat who does not love their guy, and questions his ability. They consider us stupid, uninformed, idiots that owe them obeisance.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You already said that.
So your internet presence and all your web sites and the many many posts here are all just...jokes?... misinformation?
Alrighty then!
Noted.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)People see the system as being heavily rigged. They want across the board reforms. We need to build trust and the surest, and quickest, way of doing that is by showing people the money. Take on the fat cats and people will give you the bit of trust that's needed to take on the issues that require a heavy investment of time, and patience.
Promising pie in the sky while letting the self proclaimed Masters of the Universe to continue to run amok will result in peoples trust in the new administration to quickly fizzle out. More same old, same old, from our moribund one party system, and the denizens in Washington keep up the tired bickering that generates money, and lobbying jobs.
trillion
(1,859 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)in chains.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)miyazaki
(2,244 posts)Not gonna happen. But good luck to you old man.