Posted on 11/08/2014 6:09:57 AM PST by outinyellowdogcountry
> I have also regularly compiled research reports throughout my career, and frankly, this article is aimless - the credibility and forthrightness of the subject notwithstanding.
I’m hoping the writer’s motives were simply to inform. Its hard to find objective new itch out a hint of propaganda anymore (or maybe that’s just my rose colored glasses getting in the way)...: )
Agreed. I’ve heard Taibbi interviewed and have ready his other articles. I think he and I would disagree on many things but he does his homework and I respect that a lot.
He is certainly exposing the DOJ and Eric Holder in this article so I supposed I should be happy. It would be even longer if he tried to bring in the government owned mortgage backers too!
Righto.
Say somebody sends you to Vegas with $100k of their money. You get to keep anything you win, and don’t have to give him back any of his money you lose.
How carefully are you going to gamble?
The market works by pitting one sharp operator trying to sell a security against another with his own money at risk. The over-regulation here eliminates the second party. He has no risk, so why should he care about the basic soundness of the security?
Just realized I left out a key point. That this was incentivized by over-regulation doesn’t remove any responsibility from those who actually participated. They knew perfectly well what they were doing was both unethical and illegal.
They should be dealt with accordingly.
Where no actual laws were broken they should be barred forever, or at least for many years, from working in the financial world.
Where laws were broken they should be enforced.
Agreed
Would like to point out this is not invariably the case. People still talk remarkably freely in email, putting things in they'd never put into a formal letter. Functionally, it's the equivalent of recorded conversation.
The problem is that in conversation people often say stupid things, and what they say that isn't entirely stupid may be taken out of context or contrary to the writer's meaning and portrayed negatively in court.
I do investigations and expert witness work for attorneys, and the smarter ones have a policy of no email discussion of the case, except to set meetings, send documents, etc.
Not because they're trying to hide our team's criminality, but because they don't want preliminary discussion hauled out into court to be picked apart.
...Instead, the government decided to help Chase bury the evidence. It began when Holder's office scheduled a press conference for the morning of September 24th, 2013, to announce sweeping civil-fraud charges against the bank, all laid out in a detailed complaint drafted by the U.S. attorney's Sacramento office. But that morning the presser was suddenly canceled, and no complaint was filed. According to later news reports, Dimon had personally called Associate Attorney General Tony West, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, and asked to reopen negotiations to settle the case out of court.
It goes without saying that the ordinary citizen who is the target of a government investigation cannot simply pick up the phone, call up the prosecutor in charge of his case and have a legal proceeding canceled. But Dimon did just that. "And he didn't just call the prosecutor, he called the prosecutor's boss," Fleischmann says...
Fleischmann later realized that the government wasn't interested in having her testify against Chase in court or any other public forum. Instead, the Justice Department's political wing, led by Holder, appeared to be using her, and her evidence, as a bargaining chip to extract more hush money from Dimon. It worked. Within weeks, Dimon had upped his offer to roughly $9 billion.
There ya go.
If the government ever tries to prosecute me for anything, first thing I'll do is print them out a copy of this particular article, and give them a reading assignment...
There are still many who don't understand The Great Game...
Jamie Dimon isn't a Republican or a Democrat. He belongs to the same party as Jon Corzine & Timmy Geithner: the "I'll Just Call The Prosecutor's Boss" Party. :)
How is this article, and the same posting hours later, considered a “satire” or (for the later one) a “fake story?” To see Rolling Stone strike out at Eric Holder is something to be commended.
I don’t get the satire part either. Explanation is welcome.
And what about this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3224573/posts?page=1#1
Is the above story also satire or fake?
(Same one here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3224879/posts?page=1#1 )
Administrators, I do not understand the satire placed on the tail of my post from 11-8-14 about JP Morgan whistleblower from Rolling Stone. I was the first to post the article and now I see 2 others posted that evening when mine was posted around 8am Saturday morning. Can you tell me how that occurred?
OK I looked at each one’s timestamps.
First one was posted Fri Nov 7 1302 cst by Lorianne.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3224573/posts?page=1#1
Second one was sat Nov 8th 809 cst by you, this thread. Has “satire” in title.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3224808/posts?page=1#1
Third one was sat Nov 8th 1150 cst by bigun. Has “fake story” in title.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3224879/posts?page=1#1
I’m not an administrator.
Because there are a lot of people at FR who are supporters of what Holder is doing (or rather not doing) and are supporter of bailouts and all manner of shenanigans between the Federal government and the banksters.
I agree with you. This is a take down of Holder. Why more people are not pleased about this (especially here) is troubling.
I see. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.