Is there a place for a logical counter-point in there not having been charges against people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? It seems like a selective enforcement of rules or consequences in both situations to me.
Is there a place for a logical counter-point in there not having been charges against people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? It seems like a selective enforcement of rules or consequences in both situations to me.
Your argument is a non sequitur. You are saying in essence: "Someone, somewhere, under totally different circumstances was not prosecuted. Therefore, this particular prosecution is selective prosecution, and therefore inappropriate." By that logic, we should just stop prosecuting crimes altogether, on the logic that we are unable to prosecute all crimes consistently.
There wasn't an argument per se, but an attempt to point out a possibly, similarly politically-influenced miscarriage of justice.
It may be a non sequitur to suggest that the pardon of one convicted financial criminal is similar to the lack of convictions in another likely financial crime context, but it seemed germane and parallel to me.
They should be charged too. Every conviction for financial crimes is an incredibly hard fought victory, because this country runs on fraud. Your argument is why we should treasure CZs conviction and seek many many many more like it.
This was part of my point and a nuance I appreciate as well, and that the pardon resonates for me with the apparent lack of charges for those responsible for the financial crisis.
The right thing to do is to prosecute the responsible for 2008, not to pardon people responsible for other crimes...
Yes, exactly, and yet I don't think there has been much in the way of charges brought against those responsible for fraudulently rating the securities.
Those people responsible for the 2008 financial crisis yet not charged, they should be charged with breaking what law?
Some form of fraud for misrepresenting the risk that the mortgages that were bundled together, seems like the obvious answer. But I'm not a forensic accountant or someone with the nuanced legal understanding to define a charge here. Do you think there was no crime in the actions taken by either the banks or the rating agencies? No failure of fiduciary responsibility?