Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dd36 2822 days ago
Why would DoJ spend time drafting a lawsuit against a law that isn’t yet law? Just seems odd. Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of telecoms? Doesn’t DoJ have enough on its plate?
1 comments

That's the point, the DoJ isn't spending time, they're regurgitating material produced by lawyers working for the carriers.

Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of the carriers? Because the current administration has demonstrated it will do anything they're paid to do.

Doesn't the DoJ have enough on its plate? Like what? The purpose of the DoJ is /ostensibly/ to protect people from abuses by people who have more money/resources than them. Including the police. The GOP/WH has demonstrated that human rights are low priority compared to most other things (especially those that can pay them).

Don’t forget when the too big to fail banks were given passes without so much a slap on the wrist under Holder’s oversight. The whole thing is a joke. Oh and he is now back serving the masters he protected. I can only imagine how much they are paying him for doing their bidding.
I agree with the need for more responsibility assignment, but claiming that banks were given a pass as a somehow atrocious thing is just shouting for mob justice.

The way would have been through Congress, SEC, FTC and the other relevant bodies.

The DoJ did pursue investigations against banks, but ... guess what, they were very likely compliant with criminal law, thus there was not much to stand on, and you are right, that it's a joke, because despite this, the DoJ managed to secure billions on Deferred Prosecution Agreements.

Do I weep for poor banks? Fuck no, but I hate the arbitrariness of this "justice".

No, this was no justice - as everyone rightly feels, but the DoJ was not in the position to make things right, Congress was. They could have mandated simpler, safer, cheaper banking for everyone, they could have taxed the irresponsible lenders and borrowers, they could have empowered the SEC to be able to proactively act, but no, they did only regulate a few investment banking things (and created a new consumer protection bureau, that is being gutted by the current administration).

Furthermore, the lack of criminal convictions is of course a problem, but just that would not be enough to disincentivize fraud and other criminal behavior, like money laundering. Both (as in personal responsibility for branch managers and hefty fines for the whole corporation) are needed to keep things in check. And the DoJ does not go after persons, most likely because the enormous interference from the whole war on x, from the ATF, DEA, DoD, etc. at the affected regions.

That process started under the bush administration, so it’s not just dems.

The answer for that of course is that banks especially pay every representative, regardless of party.