RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Taibbi writes: "A great many people around the county were rightfully shocked and horrified by the recent excellent and hard-hitting PBS documentary, The Untouchables."

Matt Taibbi. (photo: Current TV)
Matt Taibbi. (photo: Current TV)



Another Wall Street Whistleblower Gets Reamed

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

06 March 13

 

great many people around the county were rightfully shocked and horrified by the recent excellent and hard-hitting PBS documentary, The Untouchables, which looked at the problem of high-ranking Wall Street crooks going unpunished in the wake of the financial crisis. The PBS piece certainly rattled some cages, particularly in Washington, in a way that few media efforts succeed in doing. (Scroll to the end of this post to watch the full documentary.)

Now, two very interesting and upsetting footnotes to that groundbreaking documentary have emerged in the last weeks.

The first involves one of the people interviewed for the story, a former high-ranking executive from Countrywide financial who turned whistleblower named Michael Winston. You can see Michael's segment of The Untouchables at around the 4:20 mark of the piece. The story Winston told during the documentary is essentially an eyewitness account of the beginning of the financial crisis.

When I spoke to him last week, Winston was still as amazed and repulsed by what he saw at Angelo Mozilo's crooked subprime mortgage company as he was when he worked there. Winston, who had worked for years at high-level positions at companies like Motorola and Lockheed before joining Countrywide in the 2000s, described a moment in his first months at the company, when he rolled into the parking lot at the company headquarters.

"There was a guy there, a well-dressed guy, standing next to a car that had a vanity plate," he said. "And the plate read, 'FUND'EM.'"

Winston, curious, asked the guy what the plate meant. The man laughed and said, "That's Angelo Mozilo's growth strategy for 2006." Here's how Winston described the rest of the story to PBS – i.e. what happened when he asked the man to elaborate:

"What if the person doesn't have a job?"
"Fund 'em," the – the guy said.
And I said, "What if he has no income?"
"Fund 'em."
"What if he has no assets?" And he said, "Fund 'em."

Later on, Winston would hear that the company's unofficial policy was that if a loan applicant could "fog a mirror," he would be given a loan.

This kind of information is absolutely crucial to understanding what caused the subprime crisis. There are people out there still willing to argue that the government somehow "forced the banks to lend" to unworthy applicants. In reality, it was unscrupulous companies like Countrywide that were cranking out loans en masse, knowing that these loans would be unloaded down the line, first to banks and then to sucker investors like pension funds and foreign trade unions, almost as soon as they were created.

Winston was a witness to all of this. Eventually, he would be asked by the firm to present false information to the Moody's ratings agency, which was about to give Countrywide a negative rating because of some trouble the company was having in working a smooth succession from one set of company leaders to another.

When Winston refused, he was essentially stripped of his normal responsibilities and had his corporate budget slashed. When Bank of America took over the company, Winston's job was terminated. He sued, and in one of the few positive outcomes for any white-collar whistleblower anywhere in the post-financial-crisis universe, won a $3.8 million wrongful termination suit against Bank of America last February.

Well, just weeks after the PBS documentary aired, the Court of Appeals in the state of California suddenly took an interest in Winston's case. Normally, a court of appeals can only overturn a jury verdict in a case like this if there is a legal error. It's not supposed to relitigate the factual evidence.

Yet this is exactly what happened: The court decided that the evidence that Winston was wrongfully terminated was insufficient, and then from there determined that the "legal error" in the original Winston suit against Bank of America and Countrywide was that the judge in the case failed to throw out the jury's verdict:

In short, having scoured the record for evidence supporting the jury's verdict on the issue of causation, we have found none. It follows that the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

"I was flabbergasted," Winston says now. "Think of all the hard work the jury did, and [the court] overturns it just like that."

While it's impossible to say just exactly what a fair financial award should be for a person who reports bad corporate activity to the public, it's certainly true that when these whistleblower suits end in failure, it has a chilling effect on other people thinking about coming forward. Not many people are willing to risk their jobs if they think it will cost them every last dime in the end. This is just one more example of how hard it is for whistleblowers to come out even, even if they win jury trials.

That decision came down on February 19th, and is the first of the two interesting post-Untouchables footnotes.

The other involves some of the comments made by the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, who said (as he has on other occasions, including after the recent non-prosecutions of HSBC and UBS for major scandals) that his Justice Department has to weigh the financial consequences of bringing prosecutions. Quoting from the PBS show, Breuer explained:

But in any given case, I think I and prosecutors around the country, being responsible, should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and as a result of bringing that case, there's some huge economic effect - if it creates a ripple effect so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with this are affected badly - it's a factor we need to know and understand.

When Breuer said that, it raised a serious red flag on the Hill. A number of people in positions of power wanted to know just what "experts" people like Breuer had consulted with before deciding not to press charges in certain cases. Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, specifically, sent Attorney General Eric Holder a letter asking a number of questions.

Among other things, the two Senators wanted to know if certain companies had been designated "Too Big to Jail." Then they had a series of very obvious and reasonable questions about those "experts":

4. Please provide the names of all outside experts consulted by the Justice Department in making prosecutorial decisions regarding financial institutions with over $1 billion in assets.
5. Please provide any compensation contracts for these individuals.
6. How did DOJ ensure that these experts provided unconflicted and unbiased advice to DOJ?

Well, at the end of last week, on February 27th, the Department of Justice sent Brown and Grassley a letter in return. The letter is, to describe it very generously, not terribly informative.

Most of the letter is just a long list of the many wondrous accomplishments the DOJ has secured under Eric Holder's watch, including felony manslaughter convictions against BP, or "fraud convictions for a board member of Goldman, Sachs," or the ongoing LIBOR investigation, or the prosecution in the Stanford Ponzi case. But the rest of the letter totally ignores the Brown/Grassley questions, particularly on the matter of which experts were and are being consulted.

On those questions, the DOJ would say only that "it is entirely appropriate for prosecutors to hear from subject matter experts at relevant regulatory authorities" and that...

When the Department consults with relevant regulatory authorities, or hears from companies who are targets of the Department's investigations and their counsel regarding potential collateral consequences of enforcement actions, neither those agencies nor the target companies receive any compensation from the Department.

That is one hell of a slippery piece of language. It's great that the Department of Justice is not paying, say, HSBC to consult with them on the question of whether or not HSBC should be prosecuted. What a relief! But that doesn't mean they're not paying someone else for that kind of advice.

The DOJ similarly blew off naming any individual experts and they refused absolutely to turn over information about any compensation they may have paid out to whomever it is who is whispering in their prosecutorial ears.

The two Senators late last week issued a blistering answer to the DOJ letter, saying, "the Justice Department's response is aggressively evasive," and that "the Department's only clear response was that it speaks to regulators and the banks themselves."

The Department of Justice is now saying that it misunderstood the two Senators, that it didn't know that they were asking for the actual names of those experts. Moreover, the Department claims it is working on answers to those queries.

In the meantime, Eric Holder is appearing before the Judiciary Committee this Wednesday, and it will be interesting to see how he handles questioning from Senator Grassley. It may get ugly before the answers actually come out, but it seems that someone is finally determined to get some real information.

 

 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+186 # Buddha 2013-03-06 13:10
Obama's (through Holder) complete unwillingness to take on the fraudsters on Wall St, other than once calling them Fat Cats, and filling his cabinet with Wall St. insiders, is all the proof necessary to show Obama is not a true Progressive. He is just one more Corporatist Centrist, willing to keep the boat unrocked and the gravy train status quo going, because after all, a heck of a lot of election year funding comes from that Wall St casino. But the election of Elizabeth Warren shows that Wall St CAN be taken on, if only there are candidates with enough backbone willing to do so and a strong enough voice to show the public the necessity of it.
 
 
+137 # iggypops 2013-03-06 14:53
i'm thinking the president just wants to stay alive. if he came in & started sending people to jail, there would have been no line of criminals to stop at & he'd eventually be hitting at the top guys . . . and risking his life in the process i believe. i also assume there were some back-channel feeds to obama that if he went after bush, cheney, rumsfeld, et al that there'd be similar consequences. call me a sensationalist . . . but that's what my gut says. just ask abe . . .
 
 
+100 # motamanx 2013-03-06 16:35
I concur with iggypops. Obama's actions haven't matched his rhetoric. Cheney should have been the first to go down. But if you have enough clout to send an entire country into an illegal, unnecessary war--just to make a buck for yourself, you have clout enough to get to anyone.
 
 
-114 # Above God 2013-03-06 16:59
Obama, please take on the top POS and be assassinated like Kennedy. Please! Please! Please Please! Please!
 
 
+41 # Gogojoe 2013-03-06 19:11
Quoting Above God:
Obama, please take on the top POS and be assassinated like Kennedy. Please! Please! Please Please! Please!



Lunatic!
 
 
+46 # fdawei 2013-03-06 20:31
Quoting Above God:
Obama, please take on the top POS and be assassinated like Kennedy. Please! Please! Please Please! Please!


This person must be investigated by the Secret Service. Irrespective of what Obama has or has not done, there is no need to call for his untimely demise.
 
 
+6 # Futilitarian 2013-03-07 09:33
Quoting fdawei:
Quoting Above God:
Obama, please take on the top POS and be assassinated like Kennedy. Please! Please! Please Please! Please!


This person must be investigated by the Secret Service. Irrespective of what Obama has or has not done, there is no need to call for his untimely demise.


It is possible that you may not have recognized or understand the sarcasm of the above referenced commentator. If indeed the commentator did NOT employ sarcasm, you should be taking exception to the fact that Kennedy was indeed assassinated and that most of the information about the assassination was classified and that much information remains classified to date. I don't believe that most Americans could handle and would deny the 'truth' about our so-called "democracy".
 
 
-1 # ghostperson 2013-03-09 14:20
Oh...I interpreted it a different way. I thought "POS" meant "pieces of shit," the plural. Since POTUS is the current way to make an acronym of U.S. president and POS means...well, you know.
 
 
-7 # colpow 2013-03-07 06:28
Uh, don't look out your window, it's the men in the black suits and sunglasses.
 
 
+7 # rockieball 2013-03-07 12:57
Uh, don't look out your window, it's the men in the black suits and sunglasses----

No it's the men in the white hoods and sheets.
 
 
+8 # rockieball 2013-03-07 12:55
I find it obscene and shameful that any person wishes that any other person needs to be assassinated. It shows right wing stupidity and ignorance and also downright hatred. It show how much people especially on the right hate anyone who does not believe live, worship or be the same race of them. It is not surprising that hate groups are always right wing. How mass killers and right wing or come from a right wing background. It is not a surprise that you use "Above God" and at the same time forget the teachings and words of that of which you worship. SHAME, SHAME SHAME ON YOU.
 
 
+23 # Scotty44 2013-03-06 17:48
If threats are being made, those threatening should be arrested. But, regardless of the threats, if Obama isn't willing to do the job, he should resign.
 
 
+7 # DPM 2013-03-06 20:37
Then...he shouldn't have run for president.
 
 
+1 # 666 2013-03-06 20:42
iggypops, that argument is a total crock! and I am so sick of hearing the obamanazis recite it. You mean our commander in chief, who willingly sends americans to die in combat in illegal wars, who willingly murders innocent people, shouldn't risk his own life to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution"? what a cowardly answer! If he won't put his life on the line to protect this country, who will?
 
 
+5 # SMoonz 2013-03-07 00:25
This is refreshing to hear. You are right. Anyone who is willing to become President understands that you have to be willing to lay your life on the line for this job. Kennedy understood this. A Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the ultimate soldier. A soldier should be willing to lay it all on the line if necessary. If a President isn't willing to do so should not even run for high office.
 
 
+5 # flippancy 2013-03-07 16:40
Well, have you forgotten who got us into those illegal wars? He got us out of Iraq and is getting us out of Afghanistan. Yhese are not jobs that can be done precipituously without serious blowback on the troops.
 
 
-6 # Walter J Smith 2013-03-07 17:44
Maybe he is writing the Obama doctrine, and we just don't want to believe that is what is really going on in Obama's puny little mind.
 
 
+9 # Kimberly999 2013-03-08 12:52
Were you complaining this loudly when Bush was doing all the same things? Is it really better when a millionaire white dude does it? He let Cheney start the Iraq War, started the War in Afghanistan, put them both on the "credit card"...what are we up to now $4 Trillion for Iraq alone? Paulsen/Bush bailed out the crooked bankers with NO rules & restrictions for the use of the public funds. Started the drone program, obliterated the 1st amendment via the "Patriot Act". He did NOT start the wars, but his wife is doing more for military families since Mamie Eisenhower. You can't destabilized a dangerous part of the world and run away. This is another case of rich white jerk-offs making a mess & expecting someone else to come clean it up.
 
 
+1 # SMoonz 2013-03-07 00:21
I don't believe that at all. Obama, as with any front runner candidate, came with the full endorsement of the Bilderberg Group. Anyone who comes in with their endorsement works for them and follows their agenda to the hilt.
 
 
+1 # Kimberly999 2013-03-08 12:54
I suppose the Bilderbergers were behind 9/11 in order to reduce our constitutional rights a begin the surveillance state?
 
 
0 # randrjwr 2013-03-07 10:54
Not to mention JFK and Bobby.
 
 
-2 # Walter J Smith 2013-03-07 17:42
It is astonishing to read such lines as these.

The President routinely deploys the drones to wiping from the face of the earth anyone he or one of his underlings fingers.

Why suppose he wouldn't turn on Wall Street if he were smart enough to suppose it would embellish and burnish his historical immortality (i. e., what the historians do or do not say/write about him, and for how long they say/write it)?

What do you think scares Rand Paul about those drones, anyway? It sure isn't the current CIA or the current Pentagon. They are all lapdogs.
 
 
+60 # D12345 2013-03-06 15:21
Absolutely right Buddha. But is a lot more than election year funding. All of these cronies in government make a ton of money whenever they are out of government. You can be sure that Obama will do the same, in the trajectory of Bill Clinton.
But guys like Jack Lew, Rahm, Peter Orzag and so many others make a killing for doing no work when they are out.
Even that is not enough of an explanation.
The ultra wealthy control the situation. People like Obama are their messengers. Elizabeth Warren has made a great start at exposing the corruption. Let's hope...!
 
 
+20 # mdhome 2013-03-07 10:11
I so do hope the absolute best for Elizabeth Warren, I wish we had about 200 more just like her.
 
 
+4 # JSRaleigh 2013-03-06 20:36
I fear Obama's legacy will be to have his term in office seen as rife with fraud to an even greater extent than was that of Ulysses S. Grant.
 
 
+9 # flippancy 2013-03-07 16:42
Quoting JSRaleigh:
I fear Obama's legacy will be to have his term in office seen as rife with fraud to an even greater extent than was that of Ulysses S. Grant.



No, Bush and Reagan have the fraud thing at record levels. As did Harding, Grant and Coolidge. Republicans are the masters of disaster. And the masters of scurrilous lying.
 
 
+1 # Kimberly999 2013-03-08 12:56
If Bush/Cheney couldn't go down for fraud, then no one can. But then, Obama's Daddy was CIA either.
 
 
-9 # dquandle 2013-03-07 00:29
Centrist my a$$. He's a fascist in "liberal" "Democrat" clothing.
 
 
+5 # Kimberly999 2013-03-08 12:57
You may want to look up the definition of Fascist. While he's not there yet, America is definitely on that track and have been since 9/11.
 
 
+1 # HowardMH 2013-03-07 10:43
If it wasn't for Elizabeth Warren who has more back bone than all of her fellow senators put together on this subject they wouldn't even be blowing smoke from DOJ thanks to Obama the Wimp and Holder the puppet of the Wimp!

Elizabeth Warren for president. Read this article if you want to see some backbone and leadership in congress.

http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/regulatory-compliance/regrets-some-senators-have-a-few/240148650?cid=nl_wallstreettech_daily&elq=d9f1193f44234c36900fb056295496d0

Until there are two hundred thousand (OK I will concede there are not that many that even understand what is going on in Washington DC, much less get pissed off about it so lets say 5 thousand) really, really pissed off people on Capital Hill (all at the same time – with base ball bats, or 2 x 2s) raising some serious hell against the Lunatics, absolutely nothing is ever, ever going to happen to these totally bought and paid for by the richest 50 people in the world that are becoming more and more powerful with each passing rigged election thanks to the stupid people.

How much success have you had with the TOTALLY NON VIOLENT protests over the last few years?

I’m no fan of Sarah’s but this comment is just so appropriate. So how is that Hopei, Changie working out for you now?
 
 
+1 # ghostperson 2013-03-09 14:21
Clone the Lovely Liz's backbone and pass it out in Congress.
 
 
+62 # BobbyLip 2013-03-06 14:47
Eric Holder, the Timothy Geithner of the legal profession.
 
 
+12 # Merschrod 2013-03-06 15:26
Give 'em lip Bobby :>)
 
 
+12 # Merschrod 2013-03-06 15:30
Thus whole corrupt mess could go on for many generations. There seems to be no way to bring the bandits down. Reminds me of the time I complained to a Judge that his court was out of order because he let friendly lawyers cut into line. The lawyers said, "son you will really not get anywhere with that attitude." I walked out and asked the State's AT for a change of venue - They gave it to me and instead of driver's licence removal I was on probation for years! Being young with a hot car is a profil-able offense at 90 miles per hour!
 
 
+23 # Christopher Warren 2013-03-06 15:04
President Status Quobama picked another Rubin STOOGE this last week to help Eric protect his future billable hours with his past and future clients.

THE FIX IS IN!
 
 
+34 # barkingcarpet 2013-03-06 15:14
Of the crooks, for the crooks and by the crooks.
What a corrupt system and set up, having no morals, ethics, or decency.
I hope they all rot in hell, and that the real power, WE, the people, no longer take any crap from the corrupt corportocracy, which WILL destry anything worthwhile in the world, for $ profits.
 
 
+7 # DPM 2013-03-06 20:41
The Bolsheviks we the reaction to a corrupt government and elitist, princely wealthy "upper crust". Is that what has to happen here?
 
 
+15 # Wally2007 2013-03-06 15:17
Would love to eyeball the video, unable to do so, copyright issues. I'll find elsewhere. Great Work Matt, I'll be following daily.
 
 
+9 # tbcrawford 2013-03-06 17:03
It's on line. ...Google The Untouchables/Fr ontline...or just go to the Frontline sites...Everyth ing there and fascinating!!!!
 
 
+11 # Wally2007 2013-03-06 19:14
Thanks! I just finished with the flick. Bruer appears to me as some kind of "Puppet
Escape Artist. Something absolutely has to come about with further investigations. I only wish Elliot Spitzer could be part of such. I just may hear something on Current TV about it.
 
 
+20 # barkingcarpet 2013-03-06 15:34
the link for the movie above is not functioning. Here is another which does. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
 
 
+20 # tbcrawford 2013-03-06 15:58
WGBH copyright as excuse to deny disclosure. Tragic but suppose someone threatened to cut their funding! Thanks Matt as always for superb reporting!
 
 
+12 # charsjcca 2013-03-06 16:01
we need someone to blow the whistle on the black budget, NOW!
 
 
+10 # MizKatz 2013-03-06 16:01
This link works as well -- full program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
 
 
+10 # tbcrawford 2013-03-06 16:01
You can still see The Untouchables on the Frontline website!
 
 
+1 # ghostperson 2013-03-09 14:21
Thank you for this information.
 
 
+25 # MidwestTom 2013-03-06 16:15
Good reporting Matt. I will vote for any c candidate willing to tax Wall Street, and breakup the Too Big ti Fails.
 
 
+13 # dick 2013-03-06 16:31
Holder should be censured by Congress, including a demand that he resign. The implications for Obama would obvious. If Obama-Holderism continues, Obama should be impeached for obstruction of justice.
 
 
-2 # Scotty44 2013-03-06 17:51
Obama should already be impeached for the many offenses he has committed.
 
 
+6 # Selwick 2013-03-06 16:55
United States of Bananas!
 
 
+2 # Smiley 2013-03-06 17:07
I guess PBS is no longer "public" if it's not available to the public due to "copyright" considerations.
 
 
+7 # wleming 2013-03-06 17:18
eric holder so aptly named
he keeps to himself what might
change the game
he knows which side of the toast
hes holding
and he knows that so long as he holds up
he rolling
 
 
+11 # Kathymoi 2013-03-06 17:34
I hope the senators survive and thrive, and are able to get straight answers.
 
 
+10 # fredboy 2013-03-06 17:43
Obama appointed wimps at Justice.

They are scared to death of the Wall Street honchos.

History will show them and his administration as both hesitant and frightened. What a legacy.
 
 
-12 # in deo veritas 2013-03-06 18:34
A system as corrupt as this will not survive as sure as there is a God in heaven and those who support it will not either. Those who have betrayed the oath they took when taking office are no better than traitors to the Constitution and the American people it was intended to protect.Their day will come sooner than they think once the people awaken in their righteous indignation. Viva the NRA!
 
 
+3 # oprichniki 2013-03-06 19:00
The emperor has no clothes. Look at the ChiCom espionage case at the NASA Ames Research Center, again suppressed by DOJ. And, of today they can hit you with a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone in your own backyard
 
 
+7 # tedp 2013-03-06 19:19
Morning newspaper says the Afghan government is prosecuting a couple of high level bank defrauders.
Is this irony or more proof of our total corruption?
 
 
+12 # spercepolnes 2013-03-06 19:34
America - regarded now by the rest of the world as just another tinpot,corrupt, power crazed bullying blight on anyone's hopes for a decent society.....
 
 
+16 # Above God 2013-03-06 19:41
There is no justice in the Justice Department for the every day citizen. Justice exists to imprison the poorest, blackest and mentally deprived of American citizens. Justice now defends the rich and powerful with no conscience. Money is the only deciding factor over who is prostituted and who is prosecuted.
 
 
+11 # nsmorris 2013-03-06 20:10
You are fortunate to have a forum like this to express your opinions, knowledge, ignorance and even tantrums. But when you cross the line like #Above God and call for assassinations and "taking out" those you disagree with you are just defining yourself as a vitriolic mental case whose comments are as hollow as an empty shell.
 
 
0 # stanhode 2013-03-07 17:37
Get over it. He's calling for courage, ala John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

Ralph Nader called Obama's 2008 campaign cowardly. Obama remains true to the label.
 
 
+12 # tabonsell 2013-03-06 20:19
I can semi-understand the reluctance of the administration to take on Wall Street with criminal actions.

In light of the Citizens United SCOTUS mandate, the Streeters would flood the elections with enough money we would have Karl Rove's dream of a Permanent Republican Majority as far as one can imagine. Thing things would really hit the fan.

We first must reform elections to keep billions of Wall Street money out of politics, then we can go after the 'tards without hesitation.
 
 
+3 # Walter J Smith 2013-03-06 21:48
It is truly amazing just how much sleaze Obama and his henchmen, like Eric Holder, can throw out and we just keep on taking it.

What a crap fest the US Government has reduced itself to. I guess that's what happens since the American Eagle grew both wings on the right side.
 
 
+6 # barbaratodish 2013-03-07 08:45
For whistleblowers, it seems like it's the old "you point a finger, and there are three fingers pointing back at you"! When I complained about corruption in the public schools ( I was an elementary school teacher in NJ,) I used the CEPA (Conscientious Employee Protection Act) and I was (wrongly) accused of doing what I witnessed others doing. How do you stand apart from corruption when just about everyone is part of the problem, because it seems like it is (almost?( impossible to be part of the solution? I was fired, essentially, FOR whistleblowing!
 
 
+3 # Kimberly999 2013-03-08 13:02
Our country has a horrible record when it comes to protecting whistle blowers. In a real Democracy, Bradley Manning might have had a real trial.
 
 
+3 # ldf 2013-03-07 10:57
Holder and Breuer have basically spit in the faces of the American people. They have publicly stated their policy is to not prosecute individuals who are too rich or too powerful. This is too much. These buffoons have to go. We neeed to start a movement to have them removed, if not prosecuted for aiding and abetting criminal behavior. What is the best way to proceed?
 
 
+2 # stanhode 2013-03-07 17:45
Prosecute Holder and Breuer for aiding and abetting criminal behavior. That is a damn good idea. You might have answered your own question. It would not be effective to let their crimes go unpunished.
 
 
+1 # ldf 2013-03-07 11:22
I would like to point out that as nauseating as Holder is, many of us are guilty of the same behavior. We know Obama is ostructing justice on behalf of his benefactors, the banksters. But we would not want him impeached because we think the effect would be too terrible (the alternatives are worse).
 
 
+3 # ghostperson 2013-03-08 15:40
Few know that the conservative court stacking witnessed in the federal court system under Republican administrations , 2/3 of which are participants in Koch-funded alleged professinal seminars also has a parallel movement in state courts.

Given the get out of jail free cards given to our heinous white collar financial crooks and the failure of courts to actually decide cases on merit (E.g.'s Bush v. Gore, Citizens United), one day it will come as no surprise that a hard reality will hit: "Violence is the reaction of long-oppressed people when other means fail."
 
 
+1 # tomo 2013-03-09 21:37
Putting heated rhetoric to one side, what should be crystal clear to anyone who accepts, as I do, Tiabbi's statement of facts is the fact Holder is a terrible Attorney General and the fact Obama is quite comfortable with him.
 
 
+1 # AMLLLLL 2013-03-11 11:23
Once again Taibbi hits it out of the park. We need more tenacious journalists just like him!
 
 
0 # giraffee2012 2013-04-27 17:37
Hillary will not do much better.
..but Elizabeth would start the Fall of the Holy American Bansters
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN