Not with a Bang but a Whimper: DOJ Says it Cannot Prosecute "Rocket Science" Frauds

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Not-with-a-Bang-but-a-Whim-by-William-K-Black--Bankers_Bankers_Banking_Banksters-141019-699.html



Not with a Bang but a Whimper: DOJ Says it Cannot Prosecute "Rocket Science" Frauds
By William K. Black, J.D., Ph.D.
OpEdNews Op Eds 10/19/2014 at 01:36:08
Reprinted from neweconomicperspectives.org

This is the way the Department of Justice's (DOJ) greatest strategic prosecutorial failure ends, not with a bang but a whimper that it is too hard to prosecute "rocket science" frauds. The context is the ritual Bloomberg exit interview with the senior DOJ official going off to make his new fortune. The lucky fellow this week is Deputy Attorney General James Cole. This genre of interview is designed to allow the man in the revolving door to announce his great accomplishments as a prosecutor, or in this case, non-prosecutor. Cole gamely claims that zero prosecutions constitutes a brilliant success because DOJ's civil cases "have resulted in banks paying huge fines and altering their behavior."

~snip~

Holder is correct, DOJ produced "historic results" under the Holder/Breuer/Case team's leadership. Never in modern history has DOJ suffered such an abject defeat. They didn't simply fail to prosecute the elite bankers -- they never even indicted them and rarely investigated them.

The exit interview ground rules call for softball questions only, but Cole does get asked why zero prosecutions represents a "historic" triumph. His answer, is the final whimper.

"Proving individual bankers broke the law was extremely difficult because it was hard to show criminal intent and because they may not have violated laws in effect at the time. 'We are dealing with financial rocket science,' he said."

There are two essential responses to Cole's whimper. Both responses are so important that I have to divide my comments into two columns. In this column I assume solely for purposes of analysis that Cole is correct that DOJ could not "show criminal intent" because "we are dealing with financial rocket science." (My second column will eviscerate that claim and any claim that there were not laws "in effect at the time.&quot

[Scuba]

1. One word: Complicit.

[SamKnause]

2. DOJ=aiding, abetting, and enabling

Wall Street to 'legally' steal the wealth of U.S. citizens.

[pscot]

3. Special rules for the Nomenklatura

[Doctor_J]

4. Disaster

Hard to choose between Holder and Duncan for Obama's worst pick for the cabinet. One an utter failure and the other a sabateur and operative for the 1%.