NYT: We don’t need no stinking rule of law against banksters


The New York Times shows its true loyalties by defending the Obama Administration’s refusal to criminally prosecute corrupt bankers. Thousands of banksters went to prison during the S&L crisis of the 1980’s. Hardly any have during the Obama Administration. That’s because DoJ pointblank said it wouldn’t prosecute because it might upset the banking system. God forbid wealthy financiers be held accountable for their many crimes, which include money-laundering, rigging financial markets. and ignoring inconvenient laws. A major upset is precisely what the international banking system needs.

The even worse news from Dudley and the Obama administration, which the NYT has scrupulously avoided informing its readers, is about Dudley’s admission at the Senate hearing that the Obama administration deliberately blocked the prosecution of elite bank frauds.

Fortunately, the Huffington Post made Dudley’s confession its lead.

“’We were not willing to find those firms guilty before, because we were worried that if we found them guilty, that could somehow potentially destabilize the financial system,’ Dudley said. ‘We’ve gotten past that and I think it’s really important that we got past that.’”

Even Professor Cochrane, the U. Chicago economist that detests regulation, now admits that runs cause financial crises and that runs are typically driven by fraud. “Not for nothing have most runs been sparked by an accounting scandal or fraud.” There is nothing more destabilizing to a financial system than fraud by elite bankers that is immunized by their political allies.

Our banking system is corrupt at its core. The government is a captured, complaingt entity. But you already knew that.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.