Both Belling and John Lott think that the SEC's charges against Goldman, Sachs are going to be very hard to prove.
That's a "DOH!!!" moment.
Indulge yourself with a bit of cynicism.
The GS boyzzzz contributed ~$1 million to the Obama campaign; GS alumni populate the Obama regime.
Got that so far? Good.
Obama has a political need to find a scapegoat on Wall Street. Can't be "anti-Bank" without a scapegoat. So......
Let's have SEC come up with charges which are .......ahhhh........difficult to prove, but will get headlines. Like, for example, "Fraud" in connection with synthetic CDO's.
Long after the headlines die out, GS and the SEC arrive at a mutually-satisfactory "resolution" of some kinda slap-wrist fine or 'cease and desist' agreement. No biggie; just enough to make it seem as though it were real, but not enough to actually HURT anyone.
Who, me.....a cynic?
Well, look how it's being played by the Regime's money-machine.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The charges against Goldman are substantial and the SEC has a strong case. We should wait and see how this plays out.
The fact that you chose this route instead of commending the SEC for it's charges brought against Goldman are unfortunate. In fact, the SEC is doing exactly what you wanted them to do for the last year. It makes no difference if this was a political move or not. These things are always partially political. The fact is that it was the right thing to do. This is exactly what the SEC was designed to do.
If you had a memory, you might have recalled this:
Note, in particular, the last line of the post.
Wasn't THAT long ago that the post went up, fella.
You shouldn't use the term "regime" when referring to the Obama administration. Don't you know that terms like that are seditious and hateful?
Post a Comment