Goldman Lawsuit: Bringing Down The "Shrewd Businessmen"? Or Helping Them Out?

[MannyGoldstein]

Here's how it will go down: Obama's SEC will overwhelmingly lose the case, and thus another similar suit will never be brought. "It's been tried", the SEC will say, "those prosecutions don't work".

Just like the prosecution of the two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers.

As always, this administration is working fiercely to protect and increase banker bonuses: thanks to more than $12 trillion in taxpayer backing of junk bank assets, bonuses for 2009 were the highest ever paid, and Obama's not one to rest on his laurels.

[NJmaverick]

1. It's a good sign when the President's critics are now forced to make up scenarios in order to attack

means they ran out of real issues

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Which Scenario is Made Up - The Overwhelming Loss of the Bear Stearns Case?

The $12+ trillion in taxpayer guarantees? The record bonuses after clustrfucking the average American?

Pray, tell.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

10. It is entertaining to watch that's for sure.

[mucifer]

3. Are you an expert in that area and a lawyer? Why are you so sure it will fail?

Norman Goldman radio commentator is a lawyer on liberal talk and he says the government has a blockbuster case against Goldman Sachs.I know he's only one person. He could be wrong. I do remember about a year ago he said the supreme court would pass the changes to campaign contribution policy and that it would be devastating. That did happen.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Based On This Administration's History

Can you name some things that Obama has done to reign in the banks? There's a weak bill in Congress (e.g., no reinstatement of Glass Steagall), and even that's still being watered down.

[jefferson_dem]

5. HaHa.

That's the biggest stretch i've read in a while.

Why do you feel so destined to be disappointed? Cheer up. It's going to be fine.

[CTLawGuy]

6. lame

NT

[mucifer]

7. Goldman Sachs Fraud Charges Could Be Just The Beginning, Say Analysts

Securities fraud charges against Goldman Sachs are just the beginning as federal regulators and investigators comb through the wreckage of a fraud-induced recession, caused by a pervasive and systemic culture of deceit at Wall Street's biggest firms, say Wall Street analysts.snip

Janet Tavakoli, a Chicago-based derivatives expert and founder of Tavakoli Structured Finance, also understood the serious consequences of the SEC action: "It's all related to activity of aiding and abetting fraudulent mortgage lending, creating phony securitizations and mis-selling them. Massive damage came from the massive risk of massively leveraging securities that could only go down in value, because they created those bad securities. It was malicious mischief."

"But the kind of damage that was done was so severe and pervasive that the entire U.S. economy was damaged, so it's extremely important that the SEC has filed a fraud suit.

"And by the way, this won't be the end of it," said Tavakoli, who blogs at the Huffington Post.

Christopher Whalen of the IRA Advisory Service said in a note to clients that "he SEC move marks an escalation in the battle to expose conflicts of interest on Wall Street. The key issue was the duty of care firms had to buyers of securities vs. trading strategy/relationship...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/goldman-sachs-fraud-charg_n_540934.html

I'm not sure why there is a line through the link

[namahage]

16. Line through your text is probably because of [s].

Bracketed s has a strikethrough effect.

[Honeycombe8]

8. Oh, pleeeeeez. Another convoluted conspiracy theory with no facts to back it up.

If one follows your logic, nothing should ever be attempted to be done about anything, because if it fails, then it will never be attempted again.

Why bother going to work? You might have car trouble and not get there, proving that it's futile to try to go to work.

Why bother taking medicine? It might not make you feel better, thereby proving that taking medicine doesn't work.

Why bother trying anyone for any crime? The govt might lose, thereby proving that trying people for crimes doesn't work.

Pleeeez. You're waaaaaaay too involved in the conspiracy thing. (And no, Elvis is not still alive.)

[andym]

9. This doesn't make sense

The Bear Stearns case is from Nov 2009. If they were less likely to prosecute after losing that case as the article claimed, why are they prosecuting NOW? They wouldn't be.

The more recent articles claim more prosecutions are likely in the near term (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/goldman-sachs-fraud-charg_n_540934.html), so your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. The more cases they pursue, the greater chance that they win one, which obviates the hypothesis that they are only prosecuting to lose.

[Teaser]

11. you are such an epic failure

.

[Zynx]

12. Does a descent into insanity feel good?

I ask because I don't know why you continue to willingly become crazier.

[mkultra]

13. ahh, the tip of the troll spear finally arrives.

up is down, bad is good, war is peace.

[vaberella]

14. Thank you Nostradamus. I predict this to be an EPIC FAIL on your part. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

15. When reality isn't working, just make something up, and whine about that. Genius.