Statute of Limitations. They can wreck the world economy and billions of lives, and there’s a “Statute of Limitations” for it.
Get caught driving drunk and you’re a felon for life whether you clean up or not. Not that I think driving drunk is a GOOD thing to do, mind you, but the glaring inconsistency of what passes for “justice” in this country boggles the mind

Did he make this appointment before or after he cancelled: the XL pipeline, drone attacks on “suspected” terrorists, cutting SS and Medicare, making the Post Office go bankrupt, or the revolving door from Government regulator to lobbyist. Everything seems the same as pre inauguration and any appointments that get approved will be “bipartisan”. Nothing O does by appointments will change the trajectory of the austerity plan of the Governing class. Statute of limitations will absolutely run out on Mozillo and the other Banksters that stole our money.

You have a date with Miniluv, dear.

I heard on NPR today that some consumer groups have their doubts about Mary Jo White because she has never taken a public position on bank regulations in general, much less investment bank regulations. The latter is pretty much Wall Street.

But Obama, a proven corporatist who has done absolutely nothing substantial to punish Wall Street greed and fraud, did appoint her. I can’t and won’t believe he appointed someone opposed to their interests until that same someone proves me wrong by at least a preponderance of the evidence of what she actually DOES and does NOT DO, not what she says.

And we don’t even know what she says about it yet. Time will tell.

1. Statue of Limitations – that clock has run. 2. Budgets for both departments will get slashed. 3. Any requests for material info will get slow-walked/obstructed. 4. Kabuki.

yup, i’m a recovering cynic firmly off the wagon.

A quick look at the wikipedia page of D&P’s clients tells you all you need to know.

Obama Administration might finally be getting tough with Wall Street

Thanks for the great belly laugh.

Mary Jo White, I’m curious about. Yves Smith, who I think is great, wrote a supportive column on White (with qualifications) and says Neil Barofsky is for White too:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/mirabile-dictu-obama-likely-to-nominate-mary-jo-white-to-head-sec.html

Mary Jo White is an esteemed former prosecutor known for her independence and toughness. Colleagues who know the New York bar describe her as “universally respected”. Via e-mail, Neil Barofsky was enthusiastic about the idea that she’d be nominated.

Then, taking heat, she said more in a comment:

Yves Smith says:
January 21, 2013 at 6:19 am

You do not know that and Mary Jo White is universally respected in the New York bar. I know prosecutors (several, nothing to do with Barofsky) who have complete confidence in her ability to aggressively defend the position of whatever side she is asked to take on. I am and remain skeptical of Elizabeth Warren. I know tons of lawyers in NYC, many of whom have had dealings with White. The odds of her being effective are vastly higher than with Warren.

I think the 11th dimensional chess issue is much simpler: Obama will put her up before June and she will be filibustered. Then he has a clear path to get a toady in.

Also from that comment thread was a link to youtube (Milbank Tweed Forum: Crooks on the Loose? Did Felons Get a Free Pass in the Financial Crisis?) with Eliot Spitzer, Mary Jo White and Lanny Breuer on a NY Law panel moderated by Neil Barofsky from February 2012. I haven’t watched it yet (an hour and 18 minutes) but with that roster on that subject, I want to.

Yves Smith seems to be engaging in hand waving. She’s unconvincingly conflating efficacy and advocacy for justice. I have no doubt that White is effective, but like her work at P&D, she is going to be taking her marching orders from a corporatist administration; it’s going to take a hell of a lot of advocacy, gumption, and fire to stand up to Obama, much less deliver some heads on platters. That may not be entirely White’s fault, but without that profile, color me unimpressed with this pick.

Don’t really follow the strange red herring Yves throws in there about Warren. I have no opinion about Warren, really, but in a real sense, Warren has much greater latitude in defying Obama/Wall Street. I’m sure she won’t buck them, but she’s much more likely to, IMO.

You humans. Always expecting something good to come from something so corrupt and venal. Its a wonder how you ever crawled out of the caves.

The back hand on Warren misses the point. Warren isn’t lawyering her case in the Senate. She can hire staff to do that. What Warren has over all this is the politics. She can politic Obama and her colleagues to death about questionable stuff. In politics, as opposed to the law, you don’t need beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence. You need to address “very suspicious “, interesting and strange coincidence, etc and the will of the people to hammer the powers that be over what appears to be corrupt, on its’ face. Warren has just as much, if not more, grass root support as Obama and will be in office 2 yrs. longer, to boot. The hell with arguing either side with vigor. Argue the moral side with vigor and the people will follow.

Nice, succint, wrap up.

We’re done here.

*applause*

I think Jon Walker covered this recently, in depth.

This is not proggy sent to investigate, this is all about delay and cover up till it goes away.