HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren Highligh...

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:32 PM

Elizabeth Warren Highlights Key Weakness in Clinton's Wall Street Donation Defense

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liam-miller/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_b_9346302.html

Warren doesn't put it in such harsh terms, but this is a scathing indictment of the Obama administration. If there were any question about why Obama has not been a Progressive, it is answered here.


Hillary Clinton has been fielding questions for months about her Wall Street speaking fees and campaign contributions, in every interview, town hall, and debate. And rightly so; we all know how the banks' fraudulent behavior tanked the economy, and everyone - Left, Right, and Center - is disgusted with what Citizens United has done to campaign finance. Clinton's defense has become streamlined and simple: sure, she took money from banks, but so did Obama - and he still passed very strict regulation on the banks. It seems effective; but there's a huge problem with this argument - so huge, in fact, that it transforms it from a defense into a powerful critique. To understand why, we turn to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass).

Warren recently published a report, titled Rigged Justice: 2016; How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders Off Easy. She published an editorial at the same time, in which she outlines and interprets her findings. She starts off by referring to candidates "feverishly pitching their legislative agendas." As she shows, however, laws don't mean anything if they aren't enforced -- and it turns out, in far too many cases, they effectively haven't been. Here's Warren:

In a single year, in case after case, across many sectors of the economy, federal agencies caught big companies breaking the law -- defrauding taxpayers, covering up deadly safety problems, even precipitating the financial collapse in 2008 -- and let them off the hook with barely a slap on the wrist. Often, companies paid meager fines, which some will try to write off as a tax deduction.

In fact, under Obama not a single Wall Street CEO has been prosecuted for fraud. She goes on:

12 replies, 1021 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Elizabeth Warren Highlights Key Weakness in Clinton's Wall Street Donation Defense (Original post)
Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 OP
thereismore Feb 2016 #1
revbones Feb 2016 #2
thereismore Feb 2016 #4
revbones Feb 2016 #10
thereismore Feb 2016 #12
dreamnightwind Feb 2016 #6
revbones Feb 2016 #11
peacebird Feb 2016 #3
felix_numinous Feb 2016 #5
jillan Feb 2016 #7
Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2016 #8
jillan Feb 2016 #9

Response to Ferd Berfel (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:34 PM

1. Not one CEO prosecuted under Obama. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:36 PM

2. Hillary did say that he was the candidate that took more Wall St money than anyone else

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:37 PM

4. Yes well, he had a collapsing economy to save, I don't blame him. But now that we are "a OK"

economically, we have to break them up. It's not safe and they will do it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 08:30 PM

10. Well unless Bernie gets in that definitely ain't happening

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 08:54 PM

12. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:41 PM

6. Hillary said that?

Pot meet kettle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 08:42 PM

11. She's said it many times

 

But it was really just to hide behind him. Basically Obama did it, so it's ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferd Berfel (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:36 PM

3. This: Rigged Justice: 2016; How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders Off Easy

And those fat speaking fees Hillary picked up will ensure status quo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferd Berfel (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:41 PM

5. They could empty the jails of all the pot smokers

and make some room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferd Berfel (Original post)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:48 PM

7. Somebody get ME a waaaaambulance.

I was really hoping she would campaign for Bernie. Even if she didn't endorse him.


She's not going to be happy with President Goldman Sachs at the helm.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:50 PM

8. I don't understand it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 29, 2016, 07:52 PM

9. I do - the Clintons can be very vindictive people. So as a leading Senator, it's probably best for

her that she didn't burn any bridges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread