Politics

Out of context: Reply #12286

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 33,770 Responses
  • luckyorphan0

    On April 16, at 8:41 pm, Fred McWoozy said this in response to a posting about the recent SEC case against Goldman Sachs:

    "Did any of you guys read the Goldman sachs story? You're all acting like this is some big deal. These aren't criminal charges. They're civil charges. When are you guys going to get away from being 'headline' readers?"

    Then he jacked my style and commented on himself (after hating me for it):
    "CIVIL COMPLAINT. CIVIL COMPLAINT."

    And today, we learn this:

    Prosecutors Said to Start Inquiry Into Goldman
    By LOUISE STORY and MICHAEL J. de la MERCED
    Published: April 29, 2010

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/3…

    It's a mixed bag, because as the article states:

    "Federal prosecutors would face a higher bar in bringing a criminal case against Goldman, whose role in the mortgage market came under sharp scrutiny this week during a marathon hearing in the Senate. In contrast to civil cases, the burden of proof is higher in criminal ones, where prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The stakes are high for Goldman, but they are also high for the United States attorney’s office. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York lost a case last year filed against two hedge fund managers at Bear Stearns, whose collapse presaged the turmoil on Wall Street.

    Prosecutors built much of that case around internal e-mail messages at Bear Stearns, much the way the S.E.C. and senators have pointed to e-mail at Goldman in which employees had disparaged investments that they were selling to their customers.

    In the end, however, prosecutors were unable to prove to a jury any criminal wrongdoing by the Bear Stearns employees."

    luckyorphan 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread