Why The DOJ Can’t Prosecute Banksters: Map of Clemens Investigation
At a time when there are still no significant prosecutions of major players, banks and investment shops responsible for the financial fraud that nearly toppled the world economy and is still choking the US economy, we get an explanation why from an unlikely source – the Roger Clemens trial in Judge Reggie Walton’s courtroom in the DC District. During defense examination of FBI special agent John Longmire today, a map of the FBI/DOJ investigation of Roger Clemens, who was accused of lying about getting a few steroid shots in the late 90s and early 2000s, was displayed. We are now two full months into the second trial of Roger Clemens stemming from this investigation.
Any more questions on why DOJ cannot get around to prosecuting banksters??
What Henry Kissinger and others have said of Ivy League professorial over-competition, one might say about the Clemens case: The prosecution [competition] is so fierce because the stakes are so low.
Given the number, variety and reach of political commissars, many of whom pass for corporate lobbyists, roaming the halls of the DoJ and everywhere in Washington, it’s a wonder any prosecutions are pursued or any business gets done in Washington. Oh, wait….
How much are they spending on this prosecution? At this point, does anyone really believe the government is going to win this case? All this because Clemens might have lied about taking a needle in the ass? No wonder we are turning into a banana republic.
Also, too, screw you you DFHs.
If that map symbolizes flights taken, there’re gonna be some FBI/DOJers with radiation sickness thanks to the TSA see’all Xrays.
How much will Hardin pocket?
He is milking Roger….
Quote of the day from Debbie Clemens
Debbie confirms she never received shots from anyone else except medical people. Says her family is “a corporation.”
Curt Schilling goes Chapter 7, leaving creditors in the lurch.
The problem is not DOJ, the issue is dickheads….
If there’s a bigger clearer map I’m missing the link. But I think red key up in the top righthand corner fuzzily says:
FBI Investigation (3/5/2008 to present)
235 Interviews [3C2s?]
68 Interview Locations
4 Assistant U.S. Attorneys
My bold. I was thinking of whenever they’re going to get around to staffing Obama’s 55-guy mortgage fraudclosure taskfarce.
@thatvisionthing: Plus, just thinking. If the Wizard of Oz is redacted in court papers (state secret?), maybe there’s a secret navel lint FBI task force we’ve never heard about (somebody lied?).
@thatvisionthing: Wait, 1 [phone call?] in Berlin? Linking to Washington DC? This map is only FBI, can we see the CIA map now too?
Need to read the SI article for the perspective
Can it be healthy for one’s cynicism to be so resoundingly validated?
Thanks, bmaz. Really. However, I think I’ll head back toward something truly edifying and substantial, like more reading into the causes of World War I and the subsequent financial collapse.
(I don’t own any firearms. Relevance? you may ask. Aside from the obvious these days, on July 28, 1914 tout Paris was abuzz with the acquittal at trial of this lady —on the very day that Austria-Hungary was declaring war on, and bombing, Serbia while Tsar Nicholas II was beginning the mobilization of Russia for WWI. Thus the first cracks in one of the world’s first exercises in propagandistic nonchalance. And I have yet to see anything that really looks like the cause of the damn thing. Anyway, the desperate can just aim their lonely gaze elsewhere.)
@Bay State Librul: DOJ ARE THE DICKHEADS
@thatvisionthing: Yes, exactly.
Schneiderman’s chief of staff at NN12 is telling HuffPo that DDay is a 100% liar: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/eric-schneiderman-foreclosure_n_1582148.html Neil Barofsky and Rick Jacobs say nuh uh.
You seeing fireworks?
This kind of evidence is why many lawyer move on to be Kabbalist.
Think I’m going to cross Schneiderman off my list of people to trust.
If Schneiderman’s people are willing to lie about so obvious an issue as whether he was invited to speak or send someone to defend his views, he must be willing to lie about something equally obvious: that he sold out his constituents for a seat at the banksters’ table.
In any contest between dday and Rick Schneiderman, dday wins hands down and twice on Sundays. Schneidy baby has decided he’d rather be a made man, another connected well-paid putz. The losers in the bankster-immunizing fraud settlement, homeowners and taxpayers, I guess they can pound salt.
Sorry. I might seems quite ignorant. I am indeed. What is the link to Berlin?
@MKP: Heh, I have no idea. Sorry.
I hear they are also considering re-trying John Edwards, Just the important cases for our boys at DOJ.
@justbetty: What a hoot. Let’s attack now powerless, co-religionist Democrats for their sexual escapades and other hypocrisies. But my, oh my, let us not attack our nominal but still powerful political opponents for theirs. And let us avoid at all costs investigating, documenting and prosecuting the powerful for their crimes.
In the Confucian world that exists inside the Beltway, where power makes right, that would upset the order of the universe. In the American political world, where attempting to subject the powerful to the force of law that applies so harshly to others, that would be doing one’s job and fulfilling one’s obligations of office.
As Chris Hedges has said, that Mr. Obama would behave and “lead” that way was painfully predictable from his measly two years in the Senate. That Americans and those who follow him would accept it answers one of the questions about why Rome fell.
re earl of huntingon’s comment:
“In any contest between dday and Rick Schneiderman, dday wins hands down and twice on Sundays…”
especially after one has had a chance to view this shit-eating, egg-sucking grin:
there is something about that smile and face, something deep i can’t dig out yet, that reminds me of john edwards, a politician i instinctively disliked and distrusted – he was, in the southern vernacular, a pretty-boy – a term that carries no implications of gender, but implies a handsome, self-involved male with little depth of character.
Yeah, but, in my opinion, your post commits the sin of moral equivalence.