Teal

Profile

Username:
tealstar
Name:
Teal
Location:
Matlacha, FL
Birthday:
09/26
Status:
Married
Job / Career:
Publishing

Stats

Post Reads:
262,767
Posts:
1116
Photos:
8
Last Online:
2 days ago
View All »

My Friends

1 day ago
3 days ago
10 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

Teal's Modest Adventures

Politics & Legal > Sanders Facts
 

Sanders Facts

Faith Based Prosecution: Bernie Sanders Has No Idea Under Which Law(s) His Demand for Mass Prosecutions on Wall Street May be Met.

If you wanted to sum up the Sanders campaign in two words, those two words would be "Wall Street." The Sanders campaign and his supporters have consistently bemoaned that not enough bankers have been jailed. Their candidate made the same argument to the New York Daily News, saying if a firm like Goldman Sachs is willing to pay a $5 billion settlement, that settlement is proof that there must be some kind of prosecutable criminal offense which the government should be able to go after.

But then, something happened. The Daily News board asked a simple question: Under what law? And Bernie just... collapsed.

Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?

Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.

Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?

Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.

Now, I'm glad Sen. Sanders has a sixth sense and all, but here in the United States, the Constitutional guarantee of due process of the law does not allow the President or the Attorney General to prosecute people on the basis of belief. In order to drag people in front of a court and charge them with a crime, one needs two things: facts, and a law (or a set of laws) under which the given facts are evidence of criminal wrongdoing by a particular individual meeting a high legal bar.

But this is telling. Bernie Sanders has built an entire campaign operation and an entire agenda for the highest office in the land based on his disdain for the rich and his belief that banking executives should be prosecuted. Yet, in all this time - in the eight years since the financial collapse or in the one year he has been running for President - Bernie Sanders has not bothered to inform himself on just what criminal statutes a President Sanders' Attorney General could bring charges.

posted on Apr 7, 2016 9:04 AM ()

Comments:

Bernie.
comment by jondude on Apr 8, 2016 6:57 AM ()
Give it up dearie. You can't convince avid Bernie supporters who long
for a political revolution that Hilary is better. We will accept her
if we have to because the alternative is so dire but resent having the
dnc shove her down our throats. Love you anyway!!
comment by elderjane on Apr 8, 2016 6:05 AM ()
Feel the Bern, Clinton is too dishonest.
comment by jjoohhnn on Apr 7, 2016 7:07 PM ()
What is so dismaying about your comment is that you have bought into the right wing push to demonize her. Everything you have heard about her dishonesty has been orchestrated by the right or 25 years. I am appalled that no one has actually looked into the facts. Look at her record. Google it. And her vote on the Iraq was was in believing that WMDs actually existed because our duly elected President and his cabinet said so. She is guilty of believing the President. Did Sanders vote against the Iraq war because he disbelieved the President, or was he just against "all war", which is an isolationist view that isn't always the one take, such as in 1941. Please do the research. Thank you.
reply by tealstar on Apr 8, 2016 7:36 AM ()
He must have been having an off day. The very fines all the big banks have been paying are the result of criminal judgements. They are for crimes. These penalties, of course, should have been jail time instead.
comment by drmaus on Apr 7, 2016 2:05 PM ()
No, I'm wrong. These weren't actual criminal findings on record. They were "extra-judicial" settlements, a deal made with Eric Holder. When banks like HSBC and others actually admitted to money laundering, for example, there is no reason they shouldn't have been criminally prosecuted.
reply by drmaus on Apr 7, 2016 2:16 PM ()

Comment on this article   


1,116 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]