Failure of the DOJ
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:53 amPolitical Crossfire Forums
Political forum discussions also covering current events, constitutional rights, and more!
https://politicalcrossfire.net/
Failure of the DOJ
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:53 amRe: Failure of the DOJ
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:57 amI think this is already a thread in Front Page News..
Re: Failure of the DOJ
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:07 pmSon of a bitch. You're right.
Locked pls?
Locked pls?
Re: Failure of the DOJ
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:10 pmEDIT: I don't know if you need to delete it as the other thread has spiraled off into a discussion about various concepts unrelated to the Frontline.
The most jaw-dropping headline from this episode is having the head of the DOJ admitting he's leaving these companies alone because of the potential consquences for their businesses?!?!? Martin couldn't believe it.
a) It's not his JOB to worry about the non-legal consequences of bringing indictments
b) Since when do you ever consider that sort of thing when prosecuting crime?
That would be like me shooting somebody to death and the prosecutor declined to act because he was worried about how my employer would view it.
That is quite simply an absolute dereliction of duty and as has been pointed out, if he's a prosecutor prosecuting only non-Wall St. crimes then once again we have clear evidence we have a two-tiered justice system. Or one for citizens, and a non-existent one.
Remember also the HSBC criminality? Laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists. That, too, was the reason that they were allowed to "settle"--oh, what would happen to the banking industry if HSBC went under. It's hostage taking: we're too big to prosecute--for if you do, we'll take the whole system down with us. So we'll settle for some piddly amount and... go back to what we're doing.
Not sure to even start with how to confront this but probably with firing this guy?
The most jaw-dropping headline from this episode is having the head of the DOJ admitting he's leaving these companies alone because of the potential consquences for their businesses?!?!? Martin couldn't believe it.
a) It's not his JOB to worry about the non-legal consequences of bringing indictments
b) Since when do you ever consider that sort of thing when prosecuting crime?
That would be like me shooting somebody to death and the prosecutor declined to act because he was worried about how my employer would view it.
That is quite simply an absolute dereliction of duty and as has been pointed out, if he's a prosecutor prosecuting only non-Wall St. crimes then once again we have clear evidence we have a two-tiered justice system. Or one for citizens, and a non-existent one.
Remember also the HSBC criminality? Laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists. That, too, was the reason that they were allowed to "settle"--oh, what would happen to the banking industry if HSBC went under. It's hostage taking: we're too big to prosecute--for if you do, we'll take the whole system down with us. So we'll settle for some piddly amount and... go back to what we're doing.
Not sure to even start with how to confront this but probably with firing this guy?
Re: Failure of the DOJ
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:19 pmRe: Failure of the DOJ
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:21 pm