Excerpt: "Elizabeth Warren entered the intensifying battle for the
Democratic presidential nomination, defending Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
from a new attack by the head of Goldman Sachs - a Wall Street behemoth
whose executives have delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary
Clinton, her presidential campaign and her family's foundation."
Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., defended Vermont independent Senator
Bernie Sanders from criticism by Goldman Sachs on Wednesday. Pictured:
Warren listens during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee on July 29, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (photo: Astrid
Riecken/Getty)
Elizabeth Warren Defends Bernie Sanders From Goldman Sachs Criticism
By David Sirota and Andrew Perez, International Business Times
04 February 16
Elizabeth Warren entered the intensifying battle for the Democratic
presidential nomination, defending Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from a new
attack by the head of Goldman Sachs - a Wall Street behemoth whose
executives have delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary
Clinton, her presidential campaign and her family's foundation.
In an interview with International Business Times hours before Wednesday
night's Democratic town hall in New Hampshire, the Massachusetts senator -
whose endorsement is coveted by both Democratic candidates - slammed Goldman
Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein for asserting earlier in the day that Sanders'
criticism of Wall Street had created a dangerous environment in America.
"He thinks it's fine to prosecute small business owners, it's fine to go
hard after individuals who have no real resources, but don't criticize
companies like Goldman Sachs and their very, very important CEO - that's
what he's really saying," Warren told IBT.
In January, Sanders pointed to billionaire Blankfein as a prime example of
the corporate greed he says is harming the United States. Sanders also
released a television ad in which he slammed Goldman Sachs by name, and he
has criticized Clinton, a former senator and secretary of state, for
accepting $675,000 of speaking fees and $930,000 of campaign contributions
from the firm and its executives during her career. Goldman Sachs has
donated at least $250,000 to her family's foundation - which in 2014 held a
donor meeting at the company's Manhattan headquarters.
Blankfein responded to Sanders' criticism on Wednesday in an appearance on
CNBC, saying the intensity of the criticism created an environment that "has
the potential to be a dangerous moment - not just for Wall Street, not just
for the people who are particularly targeted, but for anybody who is a
little bit out of line."
Warren, a Democrat, disputed that notion in harsh terms, telling IBT that
such statements show why American voters should focus on Wall Street's power
during the 2016 election.
"When Blankfein says that criticizing those who break the rules is dangerous
to the economy, then he's just repeating another variation of 'too big to
fail,' 'too big to jail,' 'too big even to prosecute,'" she said. "That
tells you here we are, seven years after the crisis and these guys still
don't get it. Seven years. That crisis cost an estimated $14 trillion, it
cost jobs, it cost homes, it cost retirement funds. And Lloyd Blankfein
stands up and says 'Don't even criticize me, I ran a company that was right
at the heart of some of the biggest financial frauds in history and made
money off it, but don't you dare criticize me.' That's his position? That's
why we need voters to get really engaged."
Warren this week has been touting a new report from her office identifying
20 criminal and civil lawsuits from 2015 which, she said, showed that the
Obama administration "failed to require meaningful accountability from
either large corporations or their executives involved in wrongdoing." She
told IBT that while the president had appointed strong regulators at some
agencies, his financial regulators and law enforcement officials at agencies
such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice
have fallen down on the job.
"This is about who he put in charge, who he chose to head up those
agencies," she said. "Over at the Department of Labor or the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, there have been really strong people who have
leaned forward. In enforcement, it hasn't been that way. On the enforcement
side, it's been very different."
The result, she asserted, is a two-tiered justice system.
"In a time when literally thousands of people are being locked up every year
for non-violent drug offenses or stealing a car, the CEO of a giant bank can
help engineer the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars - and he gets a
raise," she said. "The executives of another bank can help organize the
money laundering for drug cartels, and they don't even get charged with a
crime, while an addict [who] buys a few pills can land in jail for a year.
This is two criminal justice systems."
Under Barack Obama, prosecution of white collar crime has hit a two-decade
low, according to Justice Department records. In the years since the
financial crisis of 2008, some top Obama officials suggested that while Wall
Street firms may have engaged in excessive risk taking, their individual
executives' actions may not have constituted criminal activity.
Warren told IBT she was "going to blow the BS whistle" on that line of
argument.
"In the financial crisis of 2008, it was fraud right down at the heart of
that crisis, and yet not one major bank executive was even charged, much
less prosecuted and taken to trial - not one," she said. Noting that the
federal government prosecuted hundreds of Wall Street executives after the
Savings and Loan scandal a few decades ago, she said, "You're telling me
that something changed between the 1980s, when more than a thousand people
got prosecuted in the Savings and Loan crisis, but by 2008, a far bigger
financial crisis involving far bigger and bolder frauds, that no one was
legally responsible for that? That's just not possible."
Warren, a law professor by training, laid out the case for prosecuting
financial executives.
"Under the law, if a corporation violates the law, then of necessity one or
more of the employees at a corporation must also have violated the law -
that's the way the law works," she said. "It's not possible that the
corporation broke the law, but there was no individual who broke the law.
And yet look at what happened. These giant banks have signed off on huge
settlements and in some cases have admitted to wrongdoing, and yet not a
single executive is held responsible."
The Deutsche Bank settlement is one of a number of Justice Department cases
during Obama's tenure in which financial firms have admitted wrongdoing, but
their executives were not prosecuted. Regulators found 29 of the financial
institution's employees were involved in the scheme to manipulate the
so-called Libor benchmark that is used to set global interest rates,
Warren's report said, but none were prosecuted.
"Look at the whole Libor scandal. Those guys broke the law," she said.
Warren's report also highlights the Justice Department's $900 million
settlement deal with General Motors over allegations the automobile
manufacturer covered up issues with its vehicles' ignition switches, which
resulted in the deaths of 124 people. As part of the agreement, GM admitted
it had failed to disclose "a potentially lethal safety defect" - and still,
no individuals were prosecuted.
UPDATE, Feb. 3, 10:00 pm: This story originally said a Goldman Sachs
employee had given $100,000 to a super PAC supporting Clinton's 2016
campaign. While the group's filing with the Federal Election Commission
lists the donor as working at Goldman Sachs, a company spokesperson told IBT
he has left the firm.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., defended Vermont independent Senator
Bernie Sanders from criticism by Goldman Sachs on Wednesday. Pictured:
Warren listens during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee on July 29, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (photo: Astrid
Riecken/Getty)
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-elizabeth-warren-defe
nds-bernie-sanders-goldman-sachs-criticismhttp://www.ibtimes.com/political-c
apital/election-2016-elizabeth-warren-defends-bernie-sanders-goldman-sachs-c
riticism
Elizabeth Warren Defends Bernie Sanders From Goldman Sachs Criticism
By David Sirota and Andrew Perez, International Business Times
04 February 16
lizabeth Warren entered the intensifying battle for the Democratic
presidential nomination, defending Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from a new
attack by the head of Goldman Sachs - a Wall Street behemoth whose
executives have delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary
Clinton, her presidential campaign and her family's foundation.
In an interview with International Business Times hours before Wednesday
night's Democratic town hall in New Hampshire, the Massachusetts senator -
whose endorsement is coveted by both Democratic candidates - slammed Goldman
Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein for asserting earlier in the day that Sanders'
criticism of Wall Street had created a dangerous environment in America.
"He thinks it's fine to prosecute small business owners, it's fine to go
hard after individuals who have no real resources, but don't criticize
companies like Goldman Sachs and their very, very important CEO - that's
what he's really saying," Warren told IBT.
In January, Sanders pointed to billionaire Blankfein as a prime example of
the corporate greed he says is harming the United States. Sanders also
released a television ad in which he slammed Goldman Sachs by name, and he
has criticized Clinton, a former senator and secretary of state, for
accepting $675,000 of speaking fees and $930,000 of campaign contributions
from the firm and its executives during her career. Goldman Sachs has
donated at least $250,000 to her family's foundation - which in 2014 held a
donor meeting at the company's Manhattan headquarters.
Blankfein responded to Sanders' criticism on Wednesday in an appearance on
CNBC, saying the intensity of the criticism created an environment that "has
the potential to be a dangerous moment - not just for Wall Street, not just
for the people who are particularly targeted, but for anybody who is a
little bit out of line."
Warren, a Democrat, disputed that notion in harsh terms, telling IBT that
such statements show why American voters should focus on Wall Street's power
during the 2016 election.
"When Blankfein says that criticizing those who break the rules is dangerous
to the economy, then he's just repeating another variation of 'too big to
fail,' 'too big to jail,' 'too big even to prosecute,'" she said. "That
tells you here we are, seven years after the crisis and these guys still
don't get it. Seven years. That crisis cost an estimated $14 trillion, it
cost jobs, it cost homes, it cost retirement funds. And Lloyd Blankfein
stands up and says 'Don't even criticize me, I ran a company that was right
at the heart of some of the biggest financial frauds in history and made
money off it, but don't you dare criticize me.' That's his position? That's
why we need voters to get really engaged."
Warren this week has been touting a new report from her office identifying
20 criminal and civil lawsuits from 2015 which, she said, showed that the
Obama administration "failed to require meaningful accountability from
either large corporations or their executives involved in wrongdoing." She
told IBT that while the president had appointed strong regulators at some
agencies, his financial regulators and law enforcement officials at agencies
such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice
have fallen down on the job.
"This is about who he put in charge, who he chose to head up those
agencies," she said. "Over at the Department of Labor or the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, there have been really strong people who have
leaned forward. In enforcement, it hasn't been that way. On the enforcement
side, it's been very different."
The result, she asserted, is a two-tiered justice system.
"In a time when literally thousands of people are being locked up every year
for non-violent drug offenses or stealing a car, the CEO of a giant bank can
help engineer the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars - and he gets a
raise," she said. "The executives of another bank can help organize the
money laundering for drug cartels, and they don't even get charged with a
crime, while an addict [who] buys a few pills can land in jail for a year.
This is two criminal justice systems."
Under Barack Obama, prosecution of white collar crime has hit a two-decade
low, according to Justice Department records. In the years since the
financial crisis of 2008, some top Obama officials suggested that while Wall
Street firms may have engaged in excessive risk taking, their individual
executives' actions may not have constituted criminal activity.
Warren told IBT she was "going to blow the BS whistle" on that line of
argument.
"In the financial crisis of 2008, it was fraud right down at the heart of
that crisis, and yet not one major bank executive was even charged, much
less prosecuted and taken to trial - not one," she said. Noting that the
federal government prosecuted hundreds of Wall Street executives after the
Savings and Loan scandal a few decades ago, she said, "You're telling me
that something changed between the 1980s, when more than a thousand people
got prosecuted in the Savings and Loan crisis, but by 2008, a far bigger
financial crisis involving far bigger and bolder frauds, that no one was
legally responsible for that? That's just not possible."
Warren, a law professor by training, laid out the case for prosecuting
financial executives.
"Under the law, if a corporation violates the law, then of necessity one or
more of the employees at a corporation must also have violated the law -
that's the way the law works," she said. "It's not possible that the
corporation broke the law, but there was no individual who broke the law.
And yet look at what happened. These giant banks have signed off on huge
settlements and in some cases have admitted to wrongdoing, and yet not a
single executive is held responsible."
The Deutsche Bank settlement is one of a number of Justice Department cases
during Obama's tenure in which financial firms have admitted wrongdoing, but
their executives were not prosecuted. Regulators found 29 of the financial
institution's employees were involved in the scheme to manipulate the
so-called Libor benchmark that is used to set global interest rates,
Warren's report said, but none were prosecuted.
"Look at the whole Libor scandal. Those guys broke the law," she said.
Warren's report also highlights the Justice Department's $900 million
settlement deal with General Motors over allegations the automobile
manufacturer covered up issues with its vehicles' ignition switches, which
resulted in the deaths of 124 people. As part of the agreement, GM admitted
it had failed to disclose "a potentially lethal safety defect" - and still,
no individuals were prosecuted.
UPDATE, Feb. 3, 10:00 pm: This story originally said a Goldman Sachs
employee had given $100,000 to a super PAC supporting Clinton's 2016
campaign. While the group's filing with the Federal Election Commission
lists the donor as working at Goldman Sachs, a company spokesperson told IBT
he has left the firm.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
