From your link.

Federal prosecutions for financial institution fraud have continued their downward slide despite the financial troubles reported in this sector. The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during the first eleven months of FY 2011 the government reported 1,251 new prosecutions were filed. If this activity continues at the same pace, the annual total of prosecutions will be 1,365 for this fiscal year, down 28.6 percent from their numbers of just five years ago and less than half the level prevalent a decade ago. See Table 1.

Welcome to DU!

Obama can't be blamed for the decline in financial institution fraud prosecutions because Clinton legalized it.

If anything Obama should be applauded for getting Dodd-Frank passed even though it doesn't go far enough.

Why they are being deliberately obtuse is a mystery.

I suppose worship of Taibbi, because he's "radical" and "gonzo" and "speaks a non-fact-checked 'truth' to power" is more important than accuracy in reporting...?

I really don't understand why they refuse to take your point.

It will be unfortunate if he moves to GG's style of reporting controversial but easily debunked crap. It only serves the interests of the right.

It also stands to reason that the prosecuting courts are nominated by the previous administration, so the people who went down under Bush were directly because Clinton nominated the right judges. Also, those were long standing investigations some of which began under Clinton.

I swear when Holder said that no one had to deal with the same shit, it's just damn true. I don't always agree with Holder's actions (his excuse not to prosecute the big CEOs is silly) but it's true that these guys have had to deal with complete bullshit.

I am so stealing that!

Had to re-read my subthread since this is, yet again, Bush getting credit for something he didn't do, and Obama not getting credit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023719464#post14

To be honest, fuck credit, I don't care one way or another. My mom loves getting credit for stuff though (things she does and whatnot) and I started to learn that, you know, it's just a sign of respect. So she buys something for someone or gifts them something, she just wants someone to say "hey, thanks, that was nice of you." Once I realized this I started giving her credit for the things she does even if I personally don't want or need credit for similar stuff. I buy a pizza for everyone, no one goes "hey Josh, thanks for the pizza." But if my mom does, I thank her, because I want to show her respect.

To not do so is a sign of disrespect. And that's the kind of shit Obama has had to deal with for years. It sickens me.

(And yeah, to clarify about searching for that post, I sort of have 'themes' in my head and this one really picked up, it's the same general 'theme.' Fuck Obama, he is worse than any other President, etc. I didn't intend to connect it to ODS though obviously there's a clear overlap.)

the racist rw denying racism. You know it's there no matter how much they deny it.

I like giving credit and appreciation.. it's no small feat what the President has accomplished in the face of extreme unheard of opposition who were determined from day one to make Obama a one term President and when that didn't work out as they had planned.. they're making damn sure his last term is as miserable as they can make it happen. Only problem for them is the President keeps on forging ahead in spite of them doing everything in their power that money can buy to stop him.

I tried reading that link.. the guy who said .. "bush got us out of Iraq" .. like President Obama had nothing to do with.. classic ODS. Who got us into Iraq in the First Damn Place? Blaming that on Obama, too?

Then Senator Obama gave a prescient compelling speech on Oct 2, 2002 on exactly why the hell we should not start a War on Iraq.. and if he'd been listened(fat chance) to.. none of that shit would have happened.

Thanks Josh

I personally still don't like getting credit, because I don't do things to be thanked or anything, I do them because I love to do it or I want to help someone out. Hell, I gave a guy my change the other day, he asked for a dollar but I only had 92 cents on me (had just spent all the cash I had, but got back that change). Hand it over, say, "oh no problem." He goes "thanks!" I can't respond, it's just, I dunno, a gesture. I finally say which to me was an eternity (literally only a half second, though), "good luck!" (He came off as really needing change... I just wanted to wish him luck in getting change or more change or purchasing whatever he needed a buck for.)

The AUMF idiots who say Bush signed it and Obama didn't want to follow it are assholes. Obama, at the end of the AUMF agreement, offered to leave troops behind for training. To me this was a responsible action, because he promised he'd leave Iraq "responsibly." He didn't force it, he didn't offer aid for it, he simply offered. Literally, that's all he did. "Hey, we are offering training troops." Then that fucking POS war criminal Bush gets credit for signing AUMF and "getting us out of Iraq." It physically upsets me thinking about this crap.

And I'm not saying Obama made a huge commitment there, he was the nominee and therefore had access to intelligence data (all top level nominees get informed about US security intelligence, so a likely winner will go into office informed of the goings' on, it's a little known detail about US Presidential elections). Obama knew when the withdrawal date was so for him, it wasn't hard to say he'd leave Iraq. This was before the AUMF was signed. But the fact remains, he didn't force the issue, he didn't use the diplomatic channels he had at his disposal to make the troops stay, he merely made an offer. And because, as the responsible President he is, he made that offer, he loses all credit for getting us out of Iraq, to some of the more odious, cruel, hateful people out there.

It's disgusting. It makes me physically ill.

was fucking bush and his lies that got over 4, 000 soldiers killed and how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

Just so they can have something to rag on about the President. Not a good day for them when they don't have some scabby little whine to pick at.

So glad we have President Obama working for us on the front lines.. between us and kochdom.

Random Acts of Kindness

also don't like the narrow language. Why only fraud prosecutions? What about all bank-related crimes? Why only address one financial crime?
Let's also look at all the factors in play. For example, has the consolidation of smaller, regional banks into larger multi-national corporate structures with all their oversight, layers of management, and computer generated loan approvals and processing systems cut down on fraud? What were the levels of fraud for small and regional banks vs. national banks? (Hint, most of the fraud took place at the smaller institutions).
With the automation of much of the underwriting and loan approval process, has the reduction in fraud cases followed the earlier trend of reduced fraud? You see, before the banking crisis came along, fraud was already being reduced so is this an extension of that trend?
What about the number of investigations? Is that consistent? Was the number of attorneys and bank examiners on par with previous years? Are the number of investigations/prosecutions per attorney or per bank examiner in line with the past or have they dropped significantly. If the Bush area did anything it was to cut government workers who oversaw business, the environment and labor protection. Add any of his cuts to the sequester and I imagine they don't have the investigators they've had in the past. Or, that their investigators have been busy with other aspects of the financial crisis.

Nor does Matt T. go into the mechanics and sideways associations that can be used to justify any position. He simply looking at the raw numbers because the raw numbers don't lie and frankly these raw numbers reinforce his point.

You simply have not established that at all since the graph goes back over a decade but the "cite" you use goes back 5 years.

And Glass-Steagall was my hypothesis, if you can think of another reason, then feel free to suggest it, but the decline in prosecutions started under Bush and it has been rapidly declining since.

Comparing Bush's record of prosecuting financial impropriety against Obama's. He wasn't comparing it against other administrations. Hence Matt's original position is correct. Actually looking through the entire record Matt's position is still correct when compared to any other administration.

Welcome to DU!

Also, it doesn't say who was prosecuted for mortgage fraud, which seems to be the reason that was posted. For all we know it's homeowners not lenders.

Why homeowners would be prosecuted is asinine.

Nostalgic for the days of Bush's Justice Department led by John Ashcroft

Cute.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think Bush has any fans on DU (other than perhaps some trolls). Certainly, you seem unable to produce an example of any pro-Bush posts.

The ODS is strong in that contingent.

Sid

Matt Tabbi says Obama is not as tough as Bush, but it went down under both Bush and Obama, in large part due to Clinton making financial institution fraud legal.

I said so at the bottom of my post.

If you're going to accuse Obama of not being as tough as Bush you must look at total fraud prosecutions not just a subset as Matt Tabbi is arguing (I don't think he actually has the data because if he did he never would've said that nonsense).

I don't see how that poster has proven anything. But I don't think I can blame Bush entirely for it because Clinton is the one who allowed it to happen.

"I don't see how that poster has proven anything. But I don't think I can blame Bush entirely for it because Clinton is the one who allowed it to happen."

...stand in the way of prosecutions, he did everything to facilitate the abuses (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024832745), gutting regulations (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024828575) and opposing efforts by Congress to address the issues (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024828575#post4)

The first chart shows that Bush didn't prosecute as much across the board, but financial institution fraud prosecutions have gone down through two different administrations and this was almost certainly precipitated by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I am not giving Bush a pass, I merely provided all of the prosecution data (which btw, a poster decides proves the opposite of my argument) to show that Bush was no where near as good as Obama at prosecuting people.

"The first chart shows that Bush didn't prosecute as much across the board, but financial institution fraud prosecutions have gone down through two different administrations and this was almost certainly precipitated by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. "

Still, he had an opportunity to stem the mortgage crisis triggered by his actions, and he stood in the way. He could have addressed this 2004 when the problem was evident.

They succeeded greatly.

And in part because Democrats wanted to get more lower middle class in homes because of the economic benefit that would've had (spending money to own vs rent has very long term economic benefits).

The Republicans played the Democrats hard in that vein. When the obvious bubble was happening something should've been done (2006 elections?) but it was too late.

That is, the last three years in the chart are no where near as big of a drop as any two years in Bush's tenure.

You still haven't debunked anything.

Taibbi did.

"You still haven't debunked anything."

I'll put you down as being impressed by Bush, who was responsible for the worst financial crisis in more than 70 years.

Again, not only did Bush, stand in the way of prosecutions, but he also did everything to facilitate the abuses (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024832745), gutting regulations (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024828575) and opposing efforts by Congress to address the issues (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024828575#post4)

Bush had an opportunity to stem the mortgage crisis triggered by his actions, and he stood in the way. He could have addressed this in 2004 when the problem was evident.

Any equating Obama to Bush or hyping Bush over Obama on this issue or the economy is idiotic. There is no friggin comparison.

First post!!!

That phrase shows that the information coming after it is a projection.

So it may or may not become true.

It shows Obama as just being in the middle of a downward trend, with the implication that whoever gets elected in 2016 will fare even worse. That is, unless we can mobilize some effective grassroots activism against the useless financial parasites.

But I don't think it means Bush is better than Obama at prosecuting criminals.

Does the graph represent major prosecutions of high ranking bank officials, or simply any and all prosecutions for anything all the way down to overcharging clients for postage? I have a hard time believing it's the former given the complete lack of any coverage of such prosecutions and the fact that there are, to date, no major convictions whatsoever. Claiming hundreds of prosecutions with no significant convictions certainly paints a vivid picture of an eviscerated regulatory and legal system that is close to collapsing under the weight of an increasingly corrupt government.

Is that top graph even accurate? Wasn't the DOJ called out for inflating stats on its efforts to prosecute mortgage fraud?

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/13/business/la-fi-mo-justice-departments-morgage-fraud-report-20140313

Taibbi was, I believe, referring to corporate prosecutions overall, not simply mortgage fraud. Technically, Bush's administration may have been harder on corporate crime, at least initially, than Obama's. Of course, that only holds true during the first few "transition" years from Clinton. After that, all the data shows a full speed race to the bottom. Taibbi certainly isn't helping by continuing to harp on Obama and Holder's shortcomings with regards to Wall Street. We get it, D.C. is nearly 100% bought and paid for and the system is so compromised that even if you wanted to do the right thing, the system will fight you every step of the way. Anyone not hip to that fact is so ideologically blind to reality that they are not worth pursuing. Still, simply pointing out that Obama's record on Wall Street ain't great is not a de facto endorsement of the Bush years, and accusing someone of being a Bush lover for criticizing the current administration isn't helping, either.

Personally, I'd like to see more articles pushing for massive political action to get corporate money out of politics than anything else. Until politics stops being a get rich quick scheme for the well connected, deep, meaningful reform is going to be virtually impossible. Of course, getting the very people who are looking to milk the system to kill the cow is going to be no easy feat.

The banks were made to pay enormous fines and no top executive remains from the crisis, they moved on to their own private equity firms or whatever. Remember, there was a controversy about their severance packages and how they became multi-millionaires because they were forced to resign. Congress should've passed a law stopping them from being able to get those severance packages, but it didn't happen. I remember being on DU and calling for that, but it just didn't happen. Obama should've called for it but he didn't. Junior Senator, not really equipped to handle this sort of thing, no respect within the Congress, etc.

The graphs are not from the DOJ they're from TRAC, which is an independent agency. The graphs are accurate.

It really depends on how you measure "corporate prosecutions," as Taibbi mentioned, but I posted all federal level fraud prosecutions. All. Not some, all. So, if you want to exclude some of those prosecutions because they are not "corporate enough" I think I'd need your definition of that. I think "fraud" is a good enough definition. Bush, then, did not prosecute as many faudsters as Obama. Whether you want to say that they're corporate, I don't know. I think it is laughable to think that Bush has more scrutiny against corporations than Obama.

What I think Matt did was equate Wall Street (financial sector) to "corporate fraud" but even the graphs I show prove that in Bush's tenure fraud prosecutions dropped by 50% while under Obama it was closer to 5%. So even if you reduce it to the financial sector, Bush is still objectively worse than Obama. But, therein lies the rub, I blame Clinton for legalizing fraud for that, not Bush or even Obama. But if we wanted to blame either Bush or Obama then Bush still has far fewer prosecutions over his time in office. Far fewer. To say Bush is tougher on corporate fraud is just stupid, it goes against reality.

Basically I think Matt has a non-nuanced view of reality and just credits Bush for the few cases that happened under him thanks to Clinton's judicial nominees and investigations that took place before he even got into office. Obama gets the short end of the stick because he wasn't preceded by a Democratic President and therefore can't benefit from investigations before he took office (which Bush never did; why didn't Bush institute a mortgage fraud unit?).

"banks were made to pay enormous fines"

The fines might be enormous to you and me, but to the current cartel running the show, they are just the cost of doing business, and even there we are getting screwed as a number of those fines are being passed on to consumers and tax payers. The main problem I have is the continued lack of prosecution and jail time for any major Wall Street figures. If the only downside to committing billions of dollars of financial fraud is a change in your LinkedIn status, then the 2008 crash is not a bug, it's a feature. As for the graphs, I wasn't asking if they were accurate, I was asking what, exactly they represent. I could prosecute a hundred cases of petty fraud amounting to a few million, or I could prosecute a single case worth a few billion. On a graph that only counts the most basic data, it is far too easy to assume quantity equals quality. It's high time the debate over which President is cooler stops and the search for genuine solutions begins. To that end, public financing of elections needs to become a thing, though changing a system predicated on legalized bribery may prove a tad tricky.

As for Bush, well, I still have a hard time digesting the fact that he was President.

Twice.

The economy began noticeably imploding during the last months of Bush's term. That Obama's administration has managed to prosecute more bankers should be a given. The numbers shouldn't even be close. It should not just be 'more', it should be a hundred times more. It's not, and that's the point. At best one can cherry pick subcategories of prosecutions and find a few in which perhaps more people were prosecuted.

In any case, this is all as silly as angrily arguing over whether Spiderman can beat up Wolverine. They are both fictional, as is the idea that either President is tough on corporate fat cat bankers.

States were granting immunity like crazy, especially in the aftermath with the robosigning scandal, where some 50-100k workers were breaking the law.

The culture Bush fostered in the corporate world will take a long time to reign in.

And let's not pretend that federal laws were not broken wholesale and with absolute impunity.

Foreclosing on people without registering in the local assessors office (in person). Some states required it, others didn't. Employees were told to foreclose assuming it wasn't necessary. These people had licenses, thousands were willfully doing it, the prosecutions would go on for years. Google robosigning settlements.

Racist!!!! Greenwald!!!!!!

The pathetic smears give me a chuckle.

comparing Presidents on these sorts of things may not have much validity - not without all factors accounted for.

He sets out to pander to the crowd that says that Democrats are not Liberal enough. He's not alone, there is a cadre of journalists that cater to that crowd.

Those folks will happily ignore data that contradicts them and present a small subset of data that seems to make their point even though it is misleading. We see this kind of thing over and over again.

Look how desperately some are clinging to their talking points that Obama was "worse at prosecuting corporate criminals than Bush".

Your data clearly refutes that, but the crowd that Taibbi panders to is not interested in the facts. They want to go on railing at Democrats and President Obama while thumping their own chests and self-righteously proclaiming how wonderfully progressive they are.

There is nothing progressive about twisting the facts to fit an agenda.

Wall Street financial shell gamers than I am comparing presidential records. My advice is use your local credit union if you really must borrow. So many politicians take money from these sociopathic corporations I don't expect much real oversight.