(Well... a bit...)
But seriously... it's not that my bud "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" is oblivious to Democrat corruption... it's just that he's still of the mindset that Wall Street is Republican while Main Street is Democrat.
He can't seem to comprehend that while they're both (Republicrats and Dempublicans) mainly scumbags, what makes the Democrats the greater danger to the middle class is that they utilize governmental power to a far greater degree than do Republicans in order to fix the game.
My answer? Remove government power... interference... wherever and whenever possible. When the regulatory state is "fixed" isn't that worse for the honest person than the risks of caveat emptor? I believe so!
Anyway... this expose of Obama's dirty dealings (with Credit Suisse and other "too big to fail" large international financial institutions) actually comes from the Left... written by David Sirota and published via "In These Times."
* * * * * *
A few months ago, in a press conference about the felony conviction of Credit Suisse, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “This case shows that no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law.”
Yet earlier this month, the Obama administration announced its proposal to waive some of the possible sanctions against Credit Suisse.
The little-noticed waiver, which was outlined in the Federal Register, comes amid criticism that the Obama administration has gone too easy on major financial institutions that break the law.
* FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DON'T BREAK THE LAW - PEOPLE WITHIN THESE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BREAK THE LAW! I WANT TO SEE THE PEOPLE PUT IN JAIL - NOT STOCKHOLDERS (AND... FOR THE LEFT... "STAKEHOLDERS") FINED FOR ACTIONS TAKEN IN THEIR NAMES BEHIND THEIR BACKS!
In its announcement outlining the waiver, the Department of Labor notes that Credit Suisse “operated an illegal cross-border banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts” and in “using sham entities” to hide money.
* IS THAT "MR." CREDIT SUISSE? "MS." CREDIT SUISSE? "MISS?" "MRS.?"
* FOLKS... IF THE LEFTIST "JOURNALISTS" BEHIND THIS PIECE WERE SERIOUS... WOULDN'T THEY BE THROWING OUT (AND ANSWERING) THESE QUESTIONS I'M BRINGING UP?
Under existing Department of Labor rules, the conviction could prevent Credit Suisse from being designated a Qualified Professional Asset Manager. That designation exempts firms from other federal laws, giving them the special status required to do business with many pension funds. The Obama administration...
* O*B*A*M*A...!!! NOT "THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION." O*B*A*M*A...!!!
...is proposing to waive those anti-criminal sanctions against Credit Suisse, thereby allowing Credit Suisse to get the QPAM designation needed to continue its pension business.
The waiver proposal follows a larger pattern.
* NO DOUBT!
In June, Bloomberg News reported that federal prosecutors have successfully pushed U.S. government agencies to allow Credit Suisse to avoid many regulatory sanctions that could have accompanied its criminal conviction.
* O*B*A*M*A...!!! (THE FEDERAL AGENCIES WORK FOR OBAMA! THEIR HEADS REPORT TO OBAMA!)
* BY THE WAY... NAMES...??? WHO ARE THESE (OBAMA APPOINTED?) "FEDERAL PROSECUTORS?"
* SERIOUSLY... HOW STUPID DOES THIS "REPORTER" AND HIS/HER "EDITOR" THINK READERS ARE...?
“The New York Fed said last month that the bank can continue handling government securities as a so-called primary dealer,” reported the news service. “The SEC let the firm continue as an investment adviser while the agency considers a permanent waiver.”
* William C. Dudley took office on January 27, 2009 as PRESIDENT of the New York Fed. Prior to joining the Bank in 2007, Mr. Dudley was a partner and managing director at Goldman, Sachs & Company.
* FOLLOW THE PEOPLE... FOLLOW THE MONEY...
* AS TO THE S.E.C.
*The SEC consists of five Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the US Senate. (STAGGERED FIVE YEAR TERMS - OBAMA HAS APPOINTED ALL OF THEM.)
Pensions and Investments magazine has reported that despite Department of Labor assurances of tough enforcement of its sanctions against convicted financial firms, the agency has “granted waivers for all 23 firms seeking individual waivers since 1997.”
* YEP. THE OLIGARCHY CORRUPTS BOTH PARTIES.
Critics say that by using such maneuvers, the Obama administration is effectively cementing a “too big to punish” doctrine.
* IT IS.
That criticism intensified in 2012 and 2013, when top Justice Department officials defended the administration's reluctance to prosecute banks by publicly declaring that the government considers the potential economic impact of such prosecutions.
Those declarations echoed an earlier memo by Attorney General Eric Holder, which stated that officials could take into account “collateral consequences” when deciding whether to prosecute major corporations.
* HOW DOES SUCH LOGIC APPLY TO THE ACTUAL PEOPLE RUNNING THE CORPORATIONS... THE ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS? WHY DO THEY GET A PASS? HOW WOULD BRINGING INDIVIDUAL CROOKS TO JUSTICE CREATE WIDESPREAD "COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES?"
Why is the Obama administration reducing sanctions on Credit Suisse?
* BECAUSE WITH THE OLIGARCHY IT'S ONE FOR ALL, ALL FOR ONE!
The administration says it is a decision based on pragmatism, not favoritism.
* THEY LIE...
What the administration did not mention, of course, is that according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, employees of Credit Suisse have given President Obama's campaigns more than $376,000. That's particularly relevant in light of an April study of SEC data from London Business School professor Maria M. Correia. That analysis showed that “politically connected firms are on average less likely to be involved in … enforcement action and face lower penalties if they are prosecuted.”
* IMAGINE THAT...
Whatever the reason for the proposed waiver, one thing is for sure: The move contradicts the claim that “no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law.” Indeed, the Obama administration’s waiver proposal suggests exactly the opposite.
* IT DOESN'T "SUGGEST." IT PROVES!
(*MUTTERING TO MYSELF*)