Elizabeth Warren Goes After The Bankers

[Meesh]

I just came across this short video in my travels. Very impressive.

At 1:20, she asks the question we've all been wanting someone to ask FOREVER. Then a government lawyer stumbles over his words.
At 2:20, she rattles off another one. Then a government lawyer stumbles over his words.
At 2:55, she asks another lawyer the same question. Said lawyer then tries to not stumble over her words.
At 3:25, she asks the same question again. That lawyer asks for some time.
At 3:45, she gets our back and goes for the knockout punch.

http://www.upworthy.com/elizabeth-warren-asks-the-most-obvious-question-ever-and-stumps-a-bunch-of-bank?g=3

[sigma6]

I didn't see this posted...
Start spreading the newwwsss... I'm leaving this town...
I'm gonna make a start of it... New York, Neww Yorrrrkkk.

Sorry getting carried away there...
This looks to be going viral... it sums it up so beautifully...

mavB1lbtIow
Why the f*** are you f***ers NOT arresting anyone....?
(note: I may be paraphrasing this slightly...)

[The Arthen]

**** yeah.

[ghostrider]

too big for trial, yet if you or I would have lost billions we would already be in jail and certainly would not recieve a huge bonus etc ... when it comes to banks there should be no settlements , only trials and media and their greedy faces all over media ...

[Corncrake]

'Too big for trial'? - no-one should be too big for trial. I am not in the US but have followed Elizabeth Warren for years and have a lot of respect for her. It is good to see someone who sticks tenaciously to the point. If banking executives were unable to hide behind their companies' reputation and had to take individual responsibility for their actions maybe we would see a change.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Not an US citizen but, how come this appears to be the first time this question is asked formally, is she the first to think of it??

I sure hope not, well good someone finally bothered or has the courage to ask it to the apropiate persons I guess, better late then never.

[ThePythonicCow]

I just came across this short video in my travels. Very impressive.
It's impressive that Elizabeth Warren was "allowed" to get elected to Congress.

But something isn't adding up here.

A major court case against a major bank has the potential to destroy that bank. Those within the bank charged with handling such a case could easily justify to their CEO spending 100's of Billions of dollars, if that was the price required to ensure that such a case did not present an existential threat to the bank.

The entire annual budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is about 1 Billion Dollars (see here (http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2012/04/27/fact-file-annual-budget-of-the-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission/). Presumably only a portion of this budget could be allocated to any one case.

So a major bank could outspend the SEC hundreds to one. Anyone entering into a court case where they can be outspent by that much is an idiot :). Justice (as administered in US courts, at least) is not blind to such imbalances.

The major banks are above such petty laws and regulations. Deal with it. We need to consider other means.

Don't bring a butter knife to a Gatling gun (http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventions/a/Gatling_Gun.htm) fight. Wrong tool.

[Marianne]

I merged Sigma's 'Elizabeth Warren Asking The Right Question... 420,000 hits in under 24 hrs' thread, with Meesh's 'Elizabeth Warren Goes After the Bankers'. Meesh's thread was started first by a few minutes.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

I just came across this short video in my travels. Very impressive.
It's impressive that Elizabeth Warren was "allowed" to get elected to Congress.

But something isn't adding up here.

A major court case against a major bank has the potential to destroy that bank. Those within the bank charged with handling such a case could easily justify to their CEO spending 100's of Billions of dollars, if that was the price required to ensure that such a case did not present an existential threat to the bank.

The entire annual budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is about 1 Billion Dollars (see here (http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2012/04/27/fact-file-annual-budget-of-the-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission/). Presumably only a portion of this budget could be allocated to any one case.

So a major bank could outspend the SEC hundreds to one. Anyone entering into a court case where they can be outspent by that much is an idiot :). Justice (as administered in US courts, at least) is not blind to such imbalances.

The major banks are above such petty laws and regulations. Deal with it. We need to consider other means.

Don't bring a butter knife to a Gatling gun (http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventions/a/Gatling_Gun.htm) fight. Wrong tool.

Well that settles it then any question can be asked about this but getting to the good stuff will never happen, the world cant afford it, dead end road and it ends up to be an entertaining smoke screen, rats.

[ExomatrixTV]

O_riLcZicZA

~credits video: http://goo.gl/L5ict ~sub: http://youtube.com/women4truth

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) meeting with bank regulators Thursday left bankers reeling, after she questioned why regulators had not prosecuted a bank since the financial crisis.

At one point, Warren asked why the book value of big banks was lower, when most corporations trade above book value, saying there could be only two reasons for it.

"One would be because nobody believes that the banks' books are honest," she said. "Second, would be that nobody believes that the banks are really manageable. That is, if they are too complex either for their own institutions to manage them or for the regulators to manage them."

That set off angry responses to Politico's Morning Money. "While Senator Warren had every right to ask pointed questions at today's Senate Banking Committee hearing, her claim that 'nobody believes' that bank books are honest is just plain wrong," a "top executive" emailed the financial newsletter. "Perhaps someone ought to remind the Senator that the campaign is over and she should act accordingly if she wants to be taken seriously."

The anonymous emailer said Warren was being as "extreme" as fellow freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who asserted Tuesday without evidence that secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel may have received money from "extreme or radical" groups.

In another email, a GOP bank lobbyist said, "Republicans also would like to know why the Democratic donor base has avoided trial. Maybe she should subpoena the DSCC and Obama's super PAC to answer her question."

Consumer Bankers Association CEO Richard Hunt was slightly more diplomatic. "We have been through more tests and thorough exams than any college student over the past four years, including many conducted by the CFPB. The results of the Hamilton Partners Financial Index and the testimony of OCC Comptroller [Thomas] Curry were very clear: the United States banking system is safe and sound, supported by historic and permanent capital ratios. We are working every day to fulfill the financial needs of the American consumer and small business and will continue to work with any and all lawmakers who seek to assist in this extremely important process."

Bankers and other members of the finance community have opposed Warren as she rose from being a Harvard University law school professor to a Massachusetts senator. They opposed her permanent nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she created. After Senate Republicans said that they would filibuster her nomination, she ran for Senate in Massachusetts. Wall Street donated heavily to her opponent, former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), but she won the seat. Warren became a member of the Senate Banking Committee, despite further heavy opposition from banking lobbyists.

During the hearing, Warren asked why ordinary people often faced prosecution while banks do not.

"You know, I just want to note on this. There are district attorneys and U.S. attorneys who are out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds. And taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. I'm really concerned that too big to fail has become too big for trial," she said. "That just seems wrong to me."

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story referred to Consumer Bankers Association CEO Richard Hunt by the wrong title. We regret the error.

~Unslave Humanity Tactical Media: http://whynotnews.eu/?p=2078

http://women4truth.whynotnews.eu

[ThePythonicCow]

Well that settles it then any question can be asked about this but getting to the good stuff will never happen, ...
What will happen will happen some other way, or if it seems that the legal and regulatory systems are being used to resolve this, that will be part of the theater, not the essential underlying process.

[ThePythonicCow]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) meeting with bank regulators Thursday left bankers reeling, after she questioned why regulators had not prosecuted a bank since the financial crisis.
I merged this in with the existing thread discussing it.

[AutumnW]

I just came across this short video in my travels. Very impressive.
It's impressive that Elizabeth Warren was "allowed" to get elected to Congress.

But something isn't adding up here.

A major court case against a major bank has the potential to destroy that bank. Those within the bank charged with handling such a case could easily justify to their CEO spending 100's of Billions of dollars, if that was the price required to ensure that such a case did not present an existential threat to the bank.

The entire annual budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is about 1 Billion Dollars (see here (http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2012/04/27/fact-file-annual-budget-of-the-u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission/). Presumably only a portion of this budget could be allocated to any one case.

So a major bank could outspend the SEC hundreds to one. Anyone entering into a court case where they can be outspent by that much is an idiot :). Justice (as administered in US courts, at least) is not blind to such imbalances.

The major banks are above such petty laws and regulations. Deal with it. We need to consider other means.

Don't bring a butter knife to a Gatling gun (http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventions/a/Gatling_Gun.htm) fight. Wrong tool.

The govt has all the legal tools they need to fill all of those private prisons with drug money laundering, treasury looting bankers. Individual bankers could be stripped of all of their private assets too, under the 'illegal proceeds from crime' laws.

If small time drug dealers caught with wads of cash stuck under the seat cushions of their cars are subject to search and seizure laws, bankers living swank lifestyles in grotesque trophy homes should have to forfeit every thin dime they've made through criminal activity. Pursuing cases that are impossible to prosecute through the criminal courts could be pursued civilly.

The govt could continue to capitalize the banks while breaking them into smaller entities. Let the bond holders take the biggest hit while preserving depositors. As long as the govt retains the power to print fiat, the banks can be supported through a transition. Not saying I agree with the money printing, but if it's for a just cause....yeay!!

It's political will that is missing. The SEC could be overhauled and refinanced through emergency legislation or by executive decree by the president. Current upper level people within the organization could be investigated, terminated or prosecuted.

Will this happen? Not while the U.S is run by something that functions as a one party system, under a highly corrupt judiciary.

[ExomatrixTV]

XS5EjLAUMU0

[Youniverse]

It's still worth telling everybody about it so people become more aware. That alone is valuable.