January 6, 2014

U.S Federal JUDGE IS STUNNED No Financial Executives Have Been PROSECUTED

Eric Holder Big Fail Bust.



Anyone who has followed the economic breakdown since 2008 has pondered a simple question. Why haven’t any bank executives been prosecuted? U.S District Judge Jed Rakoff asks the same question in a recent piece published in the New York Review of Books. It has been five years since the beginning of the 2008 recession. The window for charging somebody is quickly closing. The statute of limitations to charge somebody is five years. It is unlikely that any banking executives will be held accountable for the economic collapse.



Exposing the Myths Used To Protect Financial Executives.

Judge Rakoff dismissed some common myths regarding the collapse. For example, the fact that pundits and financial “experts” claim no fraud was committed. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission found this not to be the case. The commission found “systemic breakdown” not only in accountability, but also ethical behavior. The FBI issued a memo about widespread mortgage fraud. Mortgage fraud was being driven by the large demand during the housing boom. Financial institutions were making billions of dollars in repackaging toxic mortgages and selling them to unsuspected buyers. There have been countless reports exposing the fact that banks knew they were selling toxic bundled securities. The Department of Justice (DOJ) repeatedly makes excuses for their inability to prosecute high level executives. Judge Rakoff debunks three of the explanations. First, it is difficult to prove any high level executives willingly knew about toxic derivatives. However, “willful blindness” or “conscious disregard” isn’t enough to withhold the prosecution of individuals. The Supreme Court believes this excuse to be bogus. The Supreme Court states in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A







Secondly, the DOJ claims that institutions who bought toxic mortgage backed securities were knowledgeable investors who knew what they were buying. Therefore, the investors who bought the securities knew what was going on. Another argument is often made. Information “Investor A” gave to “Investor B” wasn’t the information Investor B was relying on to purchase the securities. Judge Rakoff dismisses this argument by stating,







Lastly, the most common excuse for lack of prosecution is the potential harm done to the economy. The common notion that the banks are “too big to jail.” This proves there is really no equality under the law. Corporations are people too right? They should face the same possibility of prosecution. However, executives use the corporation to shield themselves from liability. Corporations are afforded the same benefits and rights as an actual person. But they are impossible to punish. Simply for fear of affecting the economy. The same economy they already destroyed.



cont'

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/05/u-s-federal-judge-stunned-financial-executives-prosecuted/

January 5, 2014

David Brooks Has So Much To Be ASHAMED Of, And DOESN'T Even Know It

David Brooks wrote a column today that was so stupid that I think it can actually be considered an own goal, where he literally—no joke—argues that because his own experiences with marijuana smoking suggested to him that it’s not the best use of your time, other people should go to jail and have their lives ruined over it.




If Brooks thinks going to jail is “subtly” encouraging his preferred behavior of smoking less weed, then he really ought to make an example out of himself and volunteer for prison time. Brooks pretends in his article, of course, that banning weed has no criminal justice aspects and acts like the only effect is to raise the price of it. But the reality is the ban destroys lives:





But Brooks doesn’t think of these people as people. Just objects to be sacrificed so young men like he says he was are slightly less likely to smoke weed. (By the way, there’s evidence that decriminalization actually reduces drug use.) But again, there’s almost no reason to argue against this piece, since it’s self-evidently completely wrong and shows how pro-criminalization forces don’t even have an argument. What I want to highlight is this paragraph, which might be the most Brooksian bit of cluelessness that David Brooks has ever written.






cont'


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/03/david-brooks-has-so-much-to-be-ashamed-of-and-doesnt-even-know-it/

January 5, 2014

All The People Who Have Ever DIED From A Marijuana Overdose

With recreational pot now for sale in Colorado and widespread confusion over a recent satirical story that jokingly claimed 37 people had already died of a marijuana overdose, we figured it might be about time to update our weed death count. So, here's a a GIF that still accurately shows all of the people who have died after overdosing on pot:






Yeah, not a single person has ever died from a weed overdose. We don't have numbers on pandas, but we're guessing it's about the same. According to one frequently cited study, a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times the amount of THC in a joint in order to be at risk of dying.


Last summer, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government wouldn't intervene as Colorado and Washington state implement plans for a system of legalized marijuana for adults. The decision opened the floodgates for other states to pursue similar legalization efforts and outraged police groups apparently not excited to see a shift away from the failed war on drugs. In a joint letter written to Holder at the time, law enforcement organizations warned that his move would lead to more crime, violence and even death.



While high driving may be a concern, Colorado, Washington and federal authorities have all taken steps to keep people off the road after using marijuana. The two states both have their own restrictions, and Holder said in his statement that the DOJ would still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent "drugged driving."


cont'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/marijuana-overdose_n_4538580.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

January 5, 2014

Republicans NERVOUS The Tea Party Will OBSTRUCT The Debt Ceiling Vote

Republican strategists are freaking out as the debt ceiling vote looms because they are afraid the the loons will destroy whatever edge they think they have going into the mid-terms.



GOP strategists are getting very worried as the debt ceiling comes up for a vote again. They know how insane the tea party caucus is within their party and understand that there's not much they can do to stop the lunatics within their midst. In 2011, Bill O'Reilly even tried to stop nuts like Michele Bachmann from trying to block the raising of the debt ceiling in the video.


When BillO sides with an Obama appointee on anything, you know it's serious.



TPM:






There's a new poll out from Pew which shows how ignorant Republicans are when it comes to the economy.






cont'



http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/republicans-nervous-tea-party-will

January 4, 2014

American Way: Democrat Mayor Bill de Blasio Is NO CLINTON KID

~snip~

After all, De Blasio is, in many ways, a Clinton kid. He worked in the Clinton administration as a top deputy to then-HUD Secretary and now New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. He was selected to manage Hillary Clinton's New York State Senate campaign in 2000. The Clintons now benefit from one of their own at the helm of America's largest city while some say association with de Blasio might help Hillary fend off a left-wing primary challenge in 2016. But if you looked past the symbolism and actually listened to the inaugural speeches, de Blasio's swearing-in ceremony was a persistent rebuke to the centrist spirit of Clintonism. And that says a lot about the growing divisions inside the Democratic Party.


Bill Clinton brought Democrats back to power after they lost three consecutive Presidential elections by more than 40 states by re‑centering the Democratic Party. As a southern governor, he was determined to distance them from the excesses of the liberal left which alienated the moderate majority of Americans. Bill Clinton offered a pragmatic third way of governing, pledging to move the country “not left or right but forward.” Bill de Blasio's political approach is dramatically different. In his inauguration speech, the first Democratic mayor in 20 years committed to implementing an explicitly ideological agenda, continuing his campaign strategy of running to the left of all other candidates in the Democratic primary.


“When I said we would take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities, I meant it,” de Blasio thundered. “We are called to put an end to economic and social inequalities” – a perhaps admirable but starkly utopian goal. He cast himself in a line of liberal leaders from the New Deal to the Great Society, “who took on the elite.” This activist impulse means seeing business as an adversary rather than an ally – “We will require big developers to build more affordable housing.” Raising taxes on the rich is an immediate policy priority to fund Pre-K, along with a nanny state ban on Central Park carriage horses.



- Make no mistake: De Blasio is a talented politician – an affable, engaging, intelligent man with a beautiful bi-racial family. He was among the first modern Democrats to seize upon the increasingly urgent issue of inequality and win executive office with it, harnessing the frustrations of the Occupy movement. But when Bill Clinton endorsed de Blasio’s agenda, he framed it in very different terms, as one of “shared opportunities, shared prosperity, shared responsibilities.” “This inequality problem bedevils the entire country,” Clinton said. “It is not just a moral outrage it is a horrible constraint on economic growth…we cannot go forward if we don’t do it together.” Clinton’s characteristic emphasis on unity and a growing economy was missing from the de Blasio articulation – and that reflects differences deeper than rhetoric.



cont'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/10550816/American-Way-Democrat-mayor-Bill-de-Blasio-is-no-Clinton-kid.html

January 2, 2014

NYT Editorial Board Calls For CLEMENCY For Snowden

The New York Times called on President Barack Obama to offer former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden some sort of plea or clemency deal allowing him to return to the United States in an editorial published Wednesday. Since June, documents leaked by Snowden to journalists have disclosed a flood of information about the NSA's surveillance programs and revealed the extent of the agency's intelligence-gathering activities both at home and abroad. The disclosures have prompted debate about the legality of the programs, and last month one federal judge ruled that the NSA's phone records collection program was likely unconstitutional.


From the editorial:





Obama has repeatedly said that Snowden should return home to face charges of espionage and theft of government property, as well as suggested there were avenues available for the fugitive contractor to express his concerns about the extent of NSA surveillance other than leaking information to the press.


But the newspaper's editorial board argued that Snowden "was clearly justified in believing that the only way to blow the whistle on this kind of intelligence-gathering was to expose it to the public and let the resulting furor do the work his superiors would not."




cont'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nyt_editorial_snowden_clemency