Step 1: Make looting legal.
Step 2: Loot.
Step 3: Profit.

If I were the prosecutor looking at that case, I'd pass too. If it were just a judge you had to convince of wrongdoing, that's one thing. But the prosecutor is looking at a massively complex case full of difficult to parse rules and carefully-designed loopholes. Even when you know exactly what the wrongdoing was, how are you ever going to explain it to twelve people whose main qualification is that they have nothing better to do for six weeks than sit on a jury? All the defense has to do is find one or two jurors who believe in the sanctity of profits, or who just hate the government more than banks, and they can squirrel the whole case.

Rocco: Anybody *you* think is evil?
Connor: Aye.
Rocco: Don't you think that's a little weird, a little psycho?
Connor: D'you know what I think is psycho, Roc? It's decent men with loving families. They go home every day after work and they turn on the news. You know what they see? They see rapists, and murderers and child molesters. They're all getting out of prison.
Murphy: Mafiosos. Gettin' caught with twenty kilos. Gettin' out on bail the same farkin' day.
Connor: And everywhere, everyone thinks the same thing: that someone should just go kill those motherfarkers.
Murphy: Kill 'em all. Admit it. Even you've thought about it.
Rocco: You guys should be in every major city. This is some heavy shiat. This is, like, Lone Ranger heavy, man.

Very disappointing but probably realistic. I can only imagine how long the case would go on and any conviction would be appealed for years. This is just another reason why the Wall Street guys can act with impunity. As long as they are act in concert, and not a rogue like Madoff, they can use our system of justice to their advantage.

EnviroDude: Obvious tag should have been obvious. When you pay millions to the people that would throw you in jail, you buy protection too. Who would have thunk it?

They are just exercising their freedom of $peech.

So pitchforks and torches are the solution?

Of course you can't jail 'em. Those people are like corporations

say what you will about the French, but they came up with a great idea

Well duh. When these clowns bought the government 30 or 40 years ago it came with an unlimited supply of get out of jail free cards.

Spanky_McFarksalot: [www.digischool.nl image 382x301]

say what you will about the French, but they came up with a great idea



Bane had a similar Idea. Exile or Death?

EnviroDude: Obvious tag should have been obvious. When you pay millions to the people that would throw you in jail, you buy protection too. Who would have thunk it?

What's cute is the Obama supporters actually thought he was going to bring these fat cats to justice.

i_got_no_strings: If I were the prosecutor looking at that case, I'd pass too. If it were just a judge you had to convince of wrongdoing, that's one thing. But the prosecutor is looking at a massively complex case full of difficult to parse rules and carefully-designed loopholes. Even when you know exactly what the wrongdoing was, how are you ever going to explain it to twelve people whose main qualification is that they have nothing better to do for six weeks than sit on a jury? All the defense has to do is find one or two jurors who believe in the sanctity of profits, or who just hate the government more than banks, and they can squirrel the whole case.

Hell, you even have the tard brigade on Fark who trot out some crap about "liberal war on success".

"What? No, it's a crime. These people caused the unfathomable destruction of ..." and then you realize that you might as well be teaching your cat algebra.

/and liquor sales go up

Thanks, Government.

Sick in every possible way. When I read news like this, I really hope that I am wrong and hell does exist because these people would go straight there.

Only in 0bama's America.

Holder is too busy sending guns to people who kill Americans.

diaphoresis: Subprime mortgages. When the government forces banks to give loans to people who cannot afford to pay the money back, it's a bad strategy.

/Yes, there were other factors, but seriously....
//How's that whole Frank-Dodd Bill workin' for you and your bank? New fees sitting ok with ya?

Now you know its too early for Fark to admit how it really went down, they just have to scream its all bush's fault.

Then they just blame these guys getting let go a far reaching effect of bush's cronies still in positions of power, its never the lefts fault.

Arkanaut: Step 1: Make looting legal.
Step 2: Loot.
Step 3: Profit.

You've figured out step 2!

Gergesa: So pitchforks and torches are the solution?

Nope. 50 cal sniper rifles and IED's.

nmemkha: The sun is setting on Democracy in America. Its a laughably open secret that our government no longer represents The People and is now for sale to the highest bidder. Elections are between two well groomed candidates who, while appearing to be at odds, are actually beholden to the same interests.

The only two outcomes from this point are either revolution or a be a serf in the new Corporatocracy. I highly doubt despite the tough talk that Americans have the balls to revolt.

Give us time. We're re-learning.

And this is why whenever there's a shooting spree, I have to wait to see what kind of people the victims were, because maybe they deserved it.

Tickle Mittens: And this is why whenever there's a shooting spree, I have to wait to see what kind of people the victims were, because maybe they deserved it.

Unfortunately, we all deserve it in someones eyes.

diaphoresis: Subprime mortgages. When the government forces banks to give loans to people who cannot afford to pay the money back, it's a bad strategy.

/Yes, there were other factors, but seriously....
//How's that whole Frank-Dodd Bill workin' for you and your bank? New fees sitting ok with ya?

The idea of the lenders being somehow forced to issue subprime loans is one of the finest pieces of agitprop ever.

/Most subprime loans were made by lenders who weren't regulated by by the CRA etc., anyway.
//The lenders got greedy for short-time gains, the market went irrational, and that's the natural course of events for an unregulated market.

EnviroDude: Obvious tag should have been obvious. When you pay millions to the people that would throw you in jail, you buy protection too. Who would have thunk it?

It's not really that smart of a comment, but given who it's from, low standards and all that. Only time I will probably ever agree with, and *smart* EnviroDouche.

i_got_no_strings: If I were the prosecutor looking at that case, I'd pass too. If it were just a judge you had to convince of wrongdoing, that's one thing. But the prosecutor is looking at a massively complex case full of difficult to parse rules and carefully-designed loopholes. Even when you know exactly what the wrongdoing was, how are you ever going to explain it to twelve people whose main qualification is that they have nothing better to do for six weeks than sit on a jury? All the defense has to do is find one or two jurors who believe in the sanctity of profits, or who just hate the government more than banks, and they can squirrel the whole case.

I tend to agree, except racketeering is also notoriously hard to explain to the jury and prosecutors don't tend to back off of on prosecuting that one. The reason being that federal prosecutors enjoy huge advantages in federal trials. I used to be a white-collar federal defense attorney at a major firm and it was generally understood that despite the dictates of "innocent until proven guilty," defendants are starting at a major deficit if they're brought up on federal charges. There's a reason why there's a 95% conviction rate in federal court and it's not because the AUSAs are exceptional attorneys. Jurors and judges tend to give the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt in trials due to their position, they have near-unlimited resources, and they command the investigative powers of the FBI. On top of that, they can get whatever pretrial motion they need to stifle the defendant's argument. I've even seen judges grant motions that allow the prosecutors to enter a piece of evidence but bars the defense from entering the exact same piece of evidence.

I've seen trials where the government spends millions on investigating frauds involving less than $100k. Their priorities are way out of line.

metaskie: EnviroDude: Obvious tag should have been obvious. When you pay millions to the people that would throw you in jail, you buy protection too. Who would have thunk it?

It's not really that smart of a comment, but given who it's from, low standards and all that. Only time I will probably ever agree with, and *smart* EnviroDouche.

You're all SO much better than he is!

Until people face hard jail time and massive fines for these kinds of criminal shenanigans they will continue to happen.

diaphoresis: When the government forces banks to give loans to people who cannot afford to pay the money back, it's a bad strategy.

It's a good thing that never happened, then. Otherwise we might be in trouble.

/hot cover is 35 years old

skinink: If you haven't watched it yet, you should really watch "Margin Call" which is now available on Netflix Streaming. It's a great fiction movie: "Follows the key people at an investment bank, over a 24-hour period, during the early stages of the financial crisis (in 2008)." Has a top notch acting lineup and doesn't talk above you when it shows what was happened to start that crisis.

Seconded. Happened upon it one evening and wound up watching it twice. Really well done once you stop waiting for Sylar to de-brain everyone.

What happened in 2008 wasn't a financial crisis. It was a financial crime wave.

And that crime wave is still going on.

tenpoundsofcheese: Only in 0bama's America.

Holder is too busy sending guns to people who kill Americans.

I'm sure Rmoney would be nailing their balls to the wall, right? If there's one thing that guy is passionate about, it's making sure that the wealthy elite play by the rules. He's a true advocate of the little guy.

So one side told them it was perfectly fine, hell even prefered, before and during the looting, and now afterwords (and during the new looting), the other side is saying that what they did was fine. We are so farked.

No surprises here. The rich play under a different set of rules than the rest of us.

Pincy: No surprises here. The rich play under a different set of rules than the rest of us.

But that's because they work so much harder than us!

Easy solution: Revoke charters for doing business in NY, force them to sell off all NY based assets through two stages, 1 being bankruptcy court, 2 being eminent domain if all else fails.

that is how you put a business in jail.

Dumb crooks rob or burgle. Smart crooks work in banks, insurance companies, and on Wall street.

Uncle Tractor: mart crooks work in banks, insurance companies, and on Wall street.

...or go into politics.

shut_it_down: i_got_no_strings: If I were the prosecutor looking at that case, I'd pass too. If it were just a judge you had to convince of wrongdoing, that's one thing. But the prosecutor is looking at a massively complex case full of difficult to parse rules and carefully-designed loopholes. Even when you know exactly what the wrongdoing was, how are you ever going to explain it to twelve people whose main qualification is that they have nothing better to do for six weeks than sit on a jury? All the defense has to do is find one or two jurors who believe in the sanctity of profits, or who just hate the government more than banks, and they can squirrel the whole case.

I tend to agree, except racketeering is also notoriously hard to explain to the jury and prosecutors don't tend to back off of on prosecuting that one. The reason being that federal prosecutors enjoy huge advantages in federal trials. I used to be a white-collar federal defense attorney at a major firm and it was generally understood that despite the dictates of "innocent until proven guilty," defendants are starting at a major deficit if they're brought up on federal charges. There's a reason why there's a 95% conviction rate in federal court and it's not because the AUSAs are exceptional attorneys. Jurors and judges tend to give the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt in trials due to their position, they have near-unlimited resources, and they command the investigative powers of the FBI. On top of that, they can get whatever pretrial motion they need to stifle the defendant's argument. I've even seen judges grant motions that allow the prosecutors to enter a piece of evidence but bars the defense from entering the exact same piece of evidence.

I've seen trials where the government spends millions on investigating frauds involving less than $100k. Their priorities are way out of line.

sounds like bad management to me...they should hire John Taffer. 

tenpoundsofcheese: Only in 0bama's America.

So Republicans will regulate and imprison these guys?

/lol, suuuuure they will