*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Grimm.

This one will be gone soon..

Screw Hilary in 2016. I'm all for Warren in 2016.

Common sense, logic, and not allowing people to avoid answering her questions.

That last statement: *quality

More than quality.

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by Lendl.

I wouldn't necessarily want her as a president. She's probably in a better position to get more done right where she is. Let's not forget that the Legislative branch is more powerful than the Executive. Remember that the next time you blame the presidency for spending and etc. It's the Legislature writing the checks, not the president.

The problem with the presidency is that no matter how good you are, half the nation thinks you're the anti-christ. There is just too much bullshit and back room deals required to become president in either party All that bullshit makes you beholden to the influential...not the people.

Why can't other politicians see the political value in behaving like Warren? She got elected on her convictions, and I sure hope she'll get re-elected. I'm with Bryce, I hope she's the next president, and I sure hope there are enough Americans left who still have the sense to see how this is the way things SHOULD be.

EVERY member of Senate and Congress should be this aggressive about their convictions. I don't even care if they're anti-abortion loons, Libertarians, or hard-line conservatives. Why can't they stand up and speak clearly to their convictions the way she does? Are they all so scared? Or don't they have real convictions, so they just flow with the current and do the minimum it takes to get reelected?

I'm hoping (against great odds) for a Clinton/Warren ticket in 2016. Warren truly impresses me every time I see one of these hearings.

I understand your point about the distribution of power. I also agree that congress needs more like Warren.
..but in addition to that, the country needs a Leader who has the guts to say what's right - someone to change things not by passing laws, but by drawing bold paths on the map, and helping the populace decide if those are the right routes to follow.
In order for Congress to act in the best interests of the people, it needs pressure from the people. It takes a strong leader to encourage the people to fight injustice.
..as you say, unfortunately, such a leader may not be electable as president. I thought for a second that Obama could do it.. oh well, at least he is inspiring while he is campaigning...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

To be fair to these guys - sounds like she should be asking these questions to the Justice Department if the Treasury doesn't have the statutory authority to prosecute - and that's a good question - why Doesn't Eric Holder pull these guys in?

The answer may at least partially be that these crimes were committed overseas - harder to prosecute and extradite for American laws being broken in places where these are not even crimes perhaps. It's messy.

She clearly knows who has authority and who doesn't. My read is that this is either television grandstanding or a shot over the bow.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yeah - as much as I agree with her sentiment - it seems like she is channeling voter outrage and possibly grandstanding for political gain. She's an ascendent star to be sure.

Rather than channeling all of our outrage - I'd like to see some real results. Drag Eric Holder in. He's got a lot to answer for.

A shame. Looks like she'd be good at it if she took it seriously.

I almost feel bad for the guys dragged into that room. It is not within their power to make these actual decisions, so even if they concede that the bank in question should be shut down, nothing will happen.

Entertaining but not productive. It would be even more productive if the people who could pull the plug were in the room.

Listen again...she is crystal clear over and over again that she is asking for an "expert opinion" from these guys who are supposed to be the experts in our government on money laundering.

They don't need to have the "authority" to shut down a bank to provide an "expert opinion" do they? Why won't they answer? It's not a trick question...they fully investigated this bank and apparently gave them the maximum fines that they were allowed to...so why dance around the question? How could they not have an opinion?

Ah, the ultimate douchebag answer over and over "It's too complicated to answer with a yes or a no"

Dag,
She asked for their personal opinion regarding the matter, and apparently, they can't even compose one. These guys proceeded to grammatically decompose her question and avoid the simple predicate of "Yes" or "No" with regards to whether banks should be unlicensed if the laundered amount is large enough. Her question was very clear, and all she wanted to hear was their opinion, not their active policy.

It's must be very frustrating for her to be sitting there and listening to these pedantic answers when she and they know exactly what she was asking.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

She's asking for expert opinions about criminal charges - these guys are bean counters - not the experts on criminal code. They could give personal opinions, which seems like what she wants, but you could see why they wouldn't do that, unless they want the Attorney General opining on monetary policy..

Hey! Bean counters have feelings too.

If the world ever need a fight club it's now.

Astonishing that the socialists here love Warren while she is incapable of defining the middle class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SNZ0u1u-ZA

Thanks for the non sequitur, but...

Who here has declared themselves a socialist? More importantly, what does the middle class have to do with socialism? Even more importantly, what do financial rules and regulations of a capitalist economic system have to do with socialism?

It's a rhetorical question really. Everyone knows that large financial institutions will never be shut down as long as we tolerate them buying out our government.

Actually, they were answering her question very clearly and I guess she doesnt have the capacity to understand what they were telling her. Basically, Cohen's group can only impose fines. There are other groups that can shut down banks. Cohen was well within his right to not speak for another group that he does not work for. He was also very smart for not speaking hypotheticals because it may or may not line up with what their organization feels. Warren is basically interrogating the wrong person for those opinions. She needs to be asking those questions of Lew, the head of the Treasury Dept.

Unfortunately people in their positions aren't allowed to have 'personal' opinions.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Or at least not to express them, unfortunately true.

She's asking the wrong people, but getting to the right people.

Warren: "When do we consider closing down an institution that is engaged in criminal behavior?"
Powell: "When there is a criminal conviction from the Justice department."

These guys have pointed clearly that prosecuting criminal behavior is the jurisdiction of the Justice department. I hope that she has them up next.

So they could answer the question:

"The justice dept has the power to do that and they make the judgement calls. My professional, or even personal, opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Our department cannot say where the line might be because we have no power to enforce that line"

Instead of prevaricating for minutes, they could have quite quickly and concisely pointed out who has the power to drop the hammer so that she could move on to them. She probably already knows the answer, but the only way to get it in the public view is to drag it out of poor bastards like that first guy who perpetually looked like a deer in headlights...

And to be blunt, if it costs him a little embarrassment, isn't that worthwhile to have the issue out in public?