The DOJ Attacks

[BigLouie]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/9594113/

Very interesting story about how the DOJ is attacking anyone they don't like without legal justification.

[CuteOldGuy]

Scary stuff, BL.

[WTF]

You control the banks and press and you wind up with this shit. I blame the American public who when their side does shit like this they turn a blind eye and vice versa.

[Jackie S]

Is this similar to The IRS targeting conservative political groups with threatening and over reaching enforcement, so that those groups just throw in the towel out of desperation?

Sooner or later, an over reaching and out of control Bureaucracy wil gore the ox that you hold sacred.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/9594113/

Very interesting story about how the DOJ is attacking anyone they don't like without legal justification.

This is a tough area. I think the government needs to be able to choke off the money supply of bad actors. If virus writers in Russia and China, mafia kingpins in Italy, and drug dealers in South America, and scamsters in Nigeria can't access old ladies in the states, it would be an effective anti-crime tool.
The problem is who gets to make the decisions on which accounts to lean on.

[Whirlaway]

This issue was originally reported on by the WSJ..............from the WSJ....behind the paywall so here is the entire article.............

By FRANK KEATING
April 24, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET
When you become a banker, no one issues you a badge, nor are you fitted for a judicial robe. So why is the Justice Department telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges? Justice's new probe, known as "Operation Choke Point," is asking banks to identify customers who may be breaking the law or simply doing something government officials don't like. Banks must then "choke off" those customers' access to financial services, shutting down their accounts.

Justice launched the effort in early 2013 as a policy initiative of the president's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which includes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulatory agencies. Though details are scant—much of the investigation has been conducted in secret—the probe aims to crack down on fraud in the payments system by focusing on banks that service online payday lenders and other services deemed suspicious by the government.

Justice's premise is simple: Fraudsters can't operate without access to banking services, and so the agency is going after the infrastructure that questionable merchants use rather than the merchants themselves. Most of these merchants are legally licensed businesses on a government list of "risky profiles." These include payday outfits and other short-term lenders.

Unfortunately, the strategy is legally dubious. Justice is pressuring banks to shut down accounts without pressing charges against a merchant or even establishing that the merchant broke the law. It's clear enough that there's fraud to shut down the account, Justice asserts, but apparently not clear enough for the highest law-enforcement agency in the land to prosecute.

Banks, which need a reliable and safe payments network to survive, have always worked with law enforcement to fight fraud and even terrorism in the financial system. Banks provide tips to law enforcement when a customer's behavior seems fishy, and they assist in investigations when asked. In the past year alone, banks have filed nearly a million suspicious activity reports with regulators, including suspicions of mortgage fraud, identity theft, counterfeit debit and credit cards, tax evasion and wire-transfer fraud.

But law-enforcement agencies and courts, not banks, are responsible for determining criminal violations. The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act spells out the proper partnership for banks and law-enforcement agencies. The law established record keeping and reporting requirements for banks so that law-enforcement agencies would have the evidence needed to prosecute criminals effectively. That is the division of labor and responsibility envisioned by Congress: drawing upon each other's strengths to fight crime.

Justice is now blurring these boundaries and punishing the banks that help them fight crime. If a bank doesn't shut down a questionable account when directed to do so, Justice slaps the institution with a penalty for wrongdoing that may or may not have happened. The government is compelling banks to deny service to unpopular but perfectly legal industries by threatening penalties. This puts them in a difficult business position.

Bank regulators—particularly the FDIC—have joined in the action, warning banks away from serving more than 22 categories of businesses, including "Get Rich Products," "Ammunition Sales," "Pharmaceutical Sales," "Home Based Charities," and even "As Seen on TV" businesses. Some of these businesses may indeed be risky. But that doesn't justify pre-emptively declaring them all criminals and freezing their access to the payments system.

Operation Choke Point's goal to fight financial fraud is admirable. But forcing banks to make judgments about criminal behavior and then holding them accountable for the possible wrongdoing of others is not a legal or effective way to do so. Banks contribute significantly to the law-enforcement mission and remain committed to helping agencies detect terrorist financing, money laundering and fraud. Justice shouldn't turn that commitment against them.

Originally Posted by BigLouie

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/9594113/

Very interesting story about how the DOJ is attacking anyone they don't like without legal justification.

[Whirlaway]

The USA article doesn't tell us where this is coming from..but the WSJ makes it clear - Obama.

When I started a thread about the Administrative State under Obama....the leftards defended Obama..............

If you all read more (outside your comfort zone) you would know that the conservative blogs have been talking about this for a long time, long before the USA Today or the WSJ................this is an issue both the right and left should be fighting against............

The Obama administration isn't creating this in a vacuum and only at the DOJ; it clearly is the same at the Comptroller of the Bank, IRS, the VA, EPA, EEOC, and probably many other federal agencies. It is a by product of BIG GOVERNMENT politics....Obama has taken it to new highs !

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1052766&highlight=



And Powerlineblog has been covering this issue for awhile:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...tive-state.php

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

.Obama has taken it to new highs l]

I knew it wouldn't take long to go partisan. You think Bush and stem cell research didn't have the left crying. Win the WH and you get perks. Naming Supreme Court Justice s and shit like this. The reason it is allowed is because people like you look the other way when your side does it and cry like stuck pigs when it goes against you. It is what it is.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

The problem is who gets to make the decisions on which accounts to lean on.

Like most any other issue...moral outrage is contained when you are doing the fucking and unleashed when you are getting fucked.

[Whirlaway]

Stem Cell Research ?????????????

That has nothing to do with the Administrative State that the USA Today article is talking about................

You are a dunce if you think Obama hasn't accelerated the Administrative State beyond previous presidencies....

You really can't discern, can you WTF?

In your mind = "Bush did it, so Obama can't be any worse !"

And for the umpteenth time "I THINK BUSH WAS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT" ! AND OBAMA IS FAR WORSE !!!!!!!

Originally Posted by WTF

I knew it wouldn't take long to go partisan. You think Bush and stem cell research didn't have the left crying. Win the WH and you get perks. Naming Supreme Court Justice s and shit like this. The reason it is allowed is because people like you look the other way when your side does it and cry like stuck pigs when it goes against you. It is what it is.

[BigLouie]

The problem with a lot if laws is that Congress passes them with one intent and then DOJ and other law inforcement agencies come up with creative ways to apply the law. Same with the infamous RIco laws

[Whirlaway]

True. Congress should write better (and fewer) laws that are not so ambiguous that bureaucrats can be mischievous in the implementation.

But it is the responsibility of the President to run his offices in a manner that complies with both the letter and intent of the laws. It is the president's responsibility to respect the constitutional limits intended by the law.

Originally Posted by BigLouie

The problem with a lot if laws is that Congress passes them with one intent and then DOJ and other law inforcement agencies come up with creative ways to apply the law. Same with the infamous RIco laws

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

The problem with a lot if laws is that Congress passes them with one intent and then DOJ and other law inforcement agencies come up with creative ways to apply the law. Same with the infamous RIco laws

+1

[BigLouie]

This was going to happen no matter who was elected president. Note his fears if Romney were elected

[Whirlaway]

True; but if we had a Congress and President who were committed to downsizing control and shifting powers back to the states, then the issue wouldn't be snowballing as it seems to be under Obama and the Democrats..................... .

At a minimum we need a Congress willing to stand up to an ever imperial Presidency.

Why do I think a Republican President with an opposing Democratic House wouldn't get away with the abuses that Obama does ?

Originally Posted by BigLouie

This was going to happen no matter who was elected president. Note his fears if Romney were elected