Elizabeth Warren’s Banking Committee methodology — ask questions of the wrong witnesses
More headlines for Elizabeth Warren demanding that someone be prosecuted for something.
But there’s a catch.
She’s making headlines, once again, by asking questions of witnesses who cannot possibly answer them because they have no jurisdiction to implement criminal prosecutions, Warren starts taking on banks and regulators (emphasis mine):
Warren questioned senior Treasury Department officials Thursday about why there was no criminal prosecution for alleged money laundering by British bank HSBC and no effort to shut it down. HSBC agreed last December to pay a forfeiture and penalties totaling $1.9 billion to settle charges it helped Mexican drug traffickers, Iran and Libya move money around the world.
“What does it take, how many billions of dollars do you have to launder from drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution?” Warren asked at a Banking Committee hearing on money laundering.
The Treasury officials punted, saying criminal prosecutions are up to the Justice Department, not them.
Why more people have not been prosecuted for financial crimes is a legitimate question.
But Warren should be putting Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the hot seat, not financial regulators whose job it is to ensure financial stability and integrity through regulation and supervision.
That regulation only includes the other Warren demand, that a big financial institution be shut down regardless of the havoc that would create, as the most extreme and least desirable outcome:
The HSBC settlement was the largest penalty ever imposed on a bank. But the U.S. stopped short of charging executives, citing the bank’s immediate, full cooperation and the damage that an assault on the giant company might cause on economies and people, including thousands who would lose jobs if the bank collapsed.
It’s all show, and the media is falling for it hook, line and sinker.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Keep up the good work, profesor. But at this point, you might be accused of piling on….except that she’s the one providing the material. A never ending source of amusement for which I’d laugh, if she didn’t actually have some power as a Senator.
So instead of laughing, I merely cry, and hope that the citizens of Massachusetts will realize their mistake (for which I am NOT holding my breath), and elect someone who has honesty and integrity.
“It’s all show, and the media is falling for it hook, line and sinker.”
“There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.”
— P. J. O’Rourke
1. But Warren should be putting Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the hot seat, not financial regulators whose job it is to ensure financial stability and integrity through regulation and supervision.
Warren is unlikely to be elected President if the financial system is stable. She knows it and her puppeteers know it. (In the event that the GOP gets its act together, substitute cannot be elected for is unlikely to be elected.)
2. It’s all show, and the media is falling for it hook, line and sinker.
With respect, I disagree. IMO the media are willing accomplices just like they are for Obama. (Is that an Obamaesque halo taking shape in that pretentiously phony image of Warren?)
3. “The Senate has show horses and war horses,” said Nuzzo. “She’s made a very smart decision that she’s going to play the war horse.”
If by play, Nuzzo means act like or pretend to be, he is correct.
4. Warren has also been wise to shun much of the national press after her election, Nuzzo said, and instead use banking hearings to deliver her message and avoid accusations that she’s showboating.
shunnedavoided the press because she can only handle scripted situations. She knows it and her puppeteers know it.
5. IMO the show horse/war horse distinction is a dig at Rand Paul et al. Such an attack would backfire if it were made openly, so it’s insinuated subliminally.
In fact Warren likes unaccountable executive power if she’s the one to wield it, but she can’t say that of course.
“That regulation only includes the other Warren demand, that a big financial institution be shut down regardless of the havoc that would create, as the most extreme and least desirable outcome:”
And, as someone theoretically steeped in bankruptcy law and policy, she knows that…or damn well SHOULD.
The trust of bankruptcy is to provide a RATIONAL, RULES-BASED, and as harmless as possible means to deal with hard situations, not do THE MOST harm.
But Warren is a dedicated Collectivist, and I’m not at all convinced that would not suit her down to the ground.
I do believe it’s time to move both parts of Plymouth Rock.
If the media didn’t care about her fabricated pedigree, do you think they’re interested in her faux indignation? They love her because she may be the Anti-Hillary of 2016!
And yet princess sacashit couldn’t muster the outrage over the use of drones without due process.
Warpath Warren should take her meds.