SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Following the failure of the U.S. Congress and President Obama to navigate away from an otherwise avoidable sequester, the FBI is up in arms over the subsequent spending cuts they say will hamper, among other things, its ability to pursue financial crimes.
However, while the FBI says the reductions in funding will stall its ability to 'aggressively' pursue the financial sector, critics have found such claims laughable considering the lackluster efforts made thus far by the agency.
In a letter to lawmakers, The Federal Bureau of Investigations complained that the sequestration "will cause current financial crimes investigations to slow as workload is spread among a reduced workforce. In some instances, such delays could affect the timely interviews of witnesses and collection of evidence."
In response to the letter, Ryan Grim notes at the Huffington Post:
More than four years after the financial crisis, not a single Wall Street executive has been jailed for playing a role in the creation of the toxic financial products that fueled the real-estate bubble, which were in some cases designed simply to fail. That track record may make it difficult for the Department of Justice to earn the sympathy of the public as it warns that spending cuts will hamper its ability to investigate Wall Street fraud.
Former Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post:
Are they worried that because of sequestration the FBI will interview critical witnesses three years after the statute of limitations has expired instead of just one year? Financial fraud investigations were already under a 'do not resuscitate' order and unresponsive to deep stimulation. It's hard for me to worry that DOJ will now be less 'aggressive.'
The letter continues:
The capacity to undertake new major investigations will be constrained. Left unchecked, fraud and malfeasance in the financial, securities, and related industries could hurt the integrity of U.S. markets. In addition, the public will perceive the FBI as less capable of aggressively and actively investigating financial fraud and public corruption, which would undercut the deterrence that comes from strong enforcement.
Read the full letter here.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for one, has gone to great lengths to exhibit that the FBI's argument is a moot point.
In a recent Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Warren grilled financial regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, over the fact that not a single Wall Street actor has been brought to trial since the beginning of the crash. The same critique would go for the FBI.
Warren stated:
If [banks] can break the law and drag in billions in profits and then turn around and settle paying out of those profits, they don't have that much incentive to follow the law [...]
I am really concerned that too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial. That just seems wrong to me.
_______________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Following the failure of the U.S. Congress and President Obama to navigate away from an otherwise avoidable sequester, the FBI is up in arms over the subsequent spending cuts they say will hamper, among other things, its ability to pursue financial crimes.
However, while the FBI says the reductions in funding will stall its ability to 'aggressively' pursue the financial sector, critics have found such claims laughable considering the lackluster efforts made thus far by the agency.
In a letter to lawmakers, The Federal Bureau of Investigations complained that the sequestration "will cause current financial crimes investigations to slow as workload is spread among a reduced workforce. In some instances, such delays could affect the timely interviews of witnesses and collection of evidence."
In response to the letter, Ryan Grim notes at the Huffington Post:
More than four years after the financial crisis, not a single Wall Street executive has been jailed for playing a role in the creation of the toxic financial products that fueled the real-estate bubble, which were in some cases designed simply to fail. That track record may make it difficult for the Department of Justice to earn the sympathy of the public as it warns that spending cuts will hamper its ability to investigate Wall Street fraud.
Former Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post:
Are they worried that because of sequestration the FBI will interview critical witnesses three years after the statute of limitations has expired instead of just one year? Financial fraud investigations were already under a 'do not resuscitate' order and unresponsive to deep stimulation. It's hard for me to worry that DOJ will now be less 'aggressive.'
The letter continues:
The capacity to undertake new major investigations will be constrained. Left unchecked, fraud and malfeasance in the financial, securities, and related industries could hurt the integrity of U.S. markets. In addition, the public will perceive the FBI as less capable of aggressively and actively investigating financial fraud and public corruption, which would undercut the deterrence that comes from strong enforcement.
Read the full letter here.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for one, has gone to great lengths to exhibit that the FBI's argument is a moot point.
In a recent Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Warren grilled financial regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, over the fact that not a single Wall Street actor has been brought to trial since the beginning of the crash. The same critique would go for the FBI.
Warren stated:
If [banks] can break the law and drag in billions in profits and then turn around and settle paying out of those profits, they don't have that much incentive to follow the law [...]
I am really concerned that too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial. That just seems wrong to me.
_______________________
Following the failure of the U.S. Congress and President Obama to navigate away from an otherwise avoidable sequester, the FBI is up in arms over the subsequent spending cuts they say will hamper, among other things, its ability to pursue financial crimes.
However, while the FBI says the reductions in funding will stall its ability to 'aggressively' pursue the financial sector, critics have found such claims laughable considering the lackluster efforts made thus far by the agency.
In a letter to lawmakers, The Federal Bureau of Investigations complained that the sequestration "will cause current financial crimes investigations to slow as workload is spread among a reduced workforce. In some instances, such delays could affect the timely interviews of witnesses and collection of evidence."
In response to the letter, Ryan Grim notes at the Huffington Post:
More than four years after the financial crisis, not a single Wall Street executive has been jailed for playing a role in the creation of the toxic financial products that fueled the real-estate bubble, which were in some cases designed simply to fail. That track record may make it difficult for the Department of Justice to earn the sympathy of the public as it warns that spending cuts will hamper its ability to investigate Wall Street fraud.
Former Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post:
Are they worried that because of sequestration the FBI will interview critical witnesses three years after the statute of limitations has expired instead of just one year? Financial fraud investigations were already under a 'do not resuscitate' order and unresponsive to deep stimulation. It's hard for me to worry that DOJ will now be less 'aggressive.'
The letter continues:
The capacity to undertake new major investigations will be constrained. Left unchecked, fraud and malfeasance in the financial, securities, and related industries could hurt the integrity of U.S. markets. In addition, the public will perceive the FBI as less capable of aggressively and actively investigating financial fraud and public corruption, which would undercut the deterrence that comes from strong enforcement.
Read the full letter here.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for one, has gone to great lengths to exhibit that the FBI's argument is a moot point.
In a recent Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Warren grilled financial regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, over the fact that not a single Wall Street actor has been brought to trial since the beginning of the crash. The same critique would go for the FBI.
Warren stated:
If [banks] can break the law and drag in billions in profits and then turn around and settle paying out of those profits, they don't have that much incentive to follow the law [...]
I am really concerned that too-big-to-fail has become too-big-for-trial. That just seems wrong to me.
_______________________