Hmm which position would Disney wannabe Louise Linton Mnuchin make the most people angry? And which position gives her the best photo ops to show she’s living large?
1 Like
Republican Senators and Congressmen always believe ‘accountability’ means doing the will of the corporations that gave you your bribe.
not accountability to the citizens of the country they are supposed to be working for
It’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not the CPA.
Those people broke no laws. so they could not be jailed—which a president cannot do in any case.
That takes a trial and a conviction.
Oh please, don’t you feel embarrassed writing that? There was fraud coming out of their eyeballs. Obama should have used his bully pulpit in he same way trump does.
The sad truth is that the Democratic Party is in bed with Wall Street, too scared of derailing the donation and speaking circuit gravy train.
Where you’re right is that a conviction requires a trial. And obama’s Justice department had zero desire to bring anyone to trial for the same reasons set out above.
Bullshit.
Your description fits the GOP—not the Dems.
There was no illegal action that was prosecutable.
Don’t be any stupider than you can help.
Hmmm. Except Hillary earned tens of millions from giving a few speeches to Wall Street. Obama’s already earned millions. God knows how much Bill has earned.
Fascinating how sure you are that no illegal behaviour took place. I’m sure you’re just ignorant rather than deliberately lying to everyone here. Why do you think so many banks agreed to pay sweetheart deal fines to Obama’s justice department, if they didn’t do anything illegal? Obama deliberately took a strategy that would prevent a need to hold big money to personal account. Not a single bank. Disgraceful.
I’m sure you’re describing yourself, Ukkie.
You have ZERO credibility here.
How much Hillary or Obama earned amking speeches has nothing to do with the issue, as you know.
But you are infamous for making this kind of specious argument—because you have nothing valid to offer, and you never will.
Actually it is precisely the issue. If someone’s deposited millions in your bank for doing pretty much nothing, and there’s the legitimate expectation of millions more in the future, you’re hardly going to come down on them like a tonne of bricks, eh?
This is precisely the connection Dems have been trying and failing (thus far) to make as regards Trump and Russia. The difference is we know full well how Wall Street has lined the personal coffers of the Clintons, Obamas and no doubt many more to the combined tune of many tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s an inconvenient truth.
As usual, you resort to ad hominem because your partisan position doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
Exactly what you did, Snookums.
And you still have no valid argument.
Tens of millions from “a few speeches?” Really? And you wrote that and you still think we should take you seriously?
Fascinating how sure you are that no illegal behaviour took place.
Fascinating how sure you are that illegal behavior took place, even though you have no specialized knowledge or information.
I’m sure you’re just ignorant rather than deliberately lying to everyone here.
LOL… Oh, the irony…
Why do you think so many banks agreed to pay sweetheart deal fines to Obama’s justice department, if they didn’t do anything illegal?
Thereby putting the lie to your claim about the Democratic Party and Obama, since a $7.2 billion settlement, in the article you linked to, is not exactly a “sweetheart deal.”
Not a single bank. Disgraceful.
Dear heart, had you bothered to actually do any research on this, you would have found any number of articles that point out just how bloody difficult it is to demonstrate actual fraud in cases like this.
Good thing that doesn’t apply here, isn’t it?
This is precisely the connection Dems have been trying and failing (thus far) to make as regards Trump and Russia.
No, dear, it’s not, but it’s not at all surprising that you’re lying about both the “connection” and the “failing.” Your determined and willful ignorance on these issues has reached legendary proportions at this point.
As usual, you resort to ad hominem because your partisan position doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
ROFL… And, again, the irony…
And, of course, there’s the teensy little problem that all of your posts are, as usual, off-topic and intended to derail the conversation. Funny how that works…
The erstwhile leaders of the Dems for the last few decades - the Clintons and the Obamas - have been personally pocketing tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street. Luckily for Wall Street, they were in power when the fraudulent mortgage backed security Ponzi scheme came crashing down around them, and Obama let them off with a finger wag. Not saying the repubs are any better of course, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking the Dems are there to hold Wall st to account.
Yes it was. I’m sure at least some people on this site know enough to know that. To quote the FT:
“There was widespread relief at how Deutsche came out relatively lightly from the process.”
I’m sure US taxpayers were indeed thrilled with Obama letting them off lightly.
For a second I’ll pretend you’re not a troll: the point of bringing banks - and individuals - to trial isn’t just to win, it’s to act as a massive deterrent to future fraud. The fact that fraud trials are difficult is irrelevant in the bigger picture. The only lesson the bank employees have learnt is that they can act with impunity and pocket their massive pay checks, all without fear of losing their liberty or reputation no matter how fraudulent their behaviour. That, more than anything, is Obama’s legacy.
Dear heart, no prosecutor brings a case to trial that they do not believe that they can win. And a case that gets thrown out doesn’t do a damn thing “to act as a massive deterrent to future fraud,” which is why you don’t support this bit of drivel any more than you do the rest of the drivel you choose to spew here.
And it’s funny how you don’t note that the Obama Justice Department was seeking double that amount against Deutsche Bank while it was the Trump Justice Department that signed off on the final amount. Funny how these teensy little omissions just completely escape you. Why someone might even think that you have an agenda!
As for “Obama’s legacy,” given your continued willful ignorance on this, we’ll give your opinion every bit the respect that it deserves and that you’ve earned.
LOL… So now it’s “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Funny how those numbers just keep creeping up every time you post. You do know that we know you’re lying, right? And that these posts continue to be off-topic? Just keep digging; you’ll get that next timeout any day now.
Not saying the repubs are any better of course
Apparently, you are, since you said it was “lucky” that Obama was in charge.
but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking the Dems are there to hold Wall st to account.
CFPB. Next bit of nonsense?
I dont find selling your democracy out to the highest bidder to be funny at all.
It’s not “a few hundred million” nor was it “a few speeches” it was over 16 years time and both of them earned it .
It seems you have a problem with people making money.
No, I have a problem with rich people bribing serving politicians.
And those figures don’t even include the PACs etc.
Move the goalpost much?
I’d ask for evidence but I know you have none.
The evidence, if you go back to my first few posts on this thread, is the fact that over 8 years obama (together with clinton for the first 4 years) bailed out and never pursued any charges against the people who committed the biggest financial fraud in history. The very same people who had given them - and would continue to give them - millions upon millions of dollars. Money can’t buy you love, but it can sure as heck buy you a Dem.