6 ms·

I watched Stumpf testify in front of the Senate Banking Committee, and while I agree that (from what I saw) he should be held accountable, what I don't understa

by zodiac 10y ago

I watched Stumpf testify in front of the Senate Banking Committee, and while I agree that (from what I saw) he should be held accountable, what I don't understand is why the right venue for it is the Senate instead of the Judiciary. Warren clearly thinks that Stumpf wasn't just doing a bad job, but that what he did and didn't do was criminal in some way (eg the talk of jail time, comparisons to Enron in the article). The CFPB settlement also indicates that there was wrongdoing, at least on the part of Wells Fargo the corporation. Isn't the right thing to do to prosecute Stumpf in court? The testimony seemed to me to have no purpose other than to put Stumpf "on trial", and it led to damaged PR and his resignation, but it looked like a "trial" without due process protections like knowing what exact charges he was facing. Another missing protection I was particularly disturbed by was how often she would cut him off and not allow him to defend himself (yes, his answers were clearly evasive, but it still isn't fair to do that).

anigbrowl 10y ago
It's fair in that the Senate can't impose any penalty on him other than a public shaming. I agree that it would be better if the judiciary took on this case. Unfortunately Congress holds the power of the purse and that effectively means it can keep the DoJ on a much shorter leash than most people appreciate. Also, sadly, the complexity of litigation means that if it goes to court Wells Fargo could just keep the proceedings spinning out for years before it ever gets to trial, by which point almost everyone will have forgotten what the original issue was. Indeed, this is more or less what happens now.
- hollerith 10y ago
  >It's fair in that the Senate can't impose any penalty on him other than a public shaming. They can compel him to answer questions, and those answer can then be used by prosecutors.
refurb 10y ago
The testimony seemed to me to have no purpose other than to put Stumpf "on trial" Think about it. Who would benefit from putting a banker on public trial? I'll give you a guess, their initials are EW.

by zodiac 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

It's fair in that the Senate can't impose any penalty on him other than a public shaming. I agree that it would be better if the judiciary took on this case. Unfortunately Congress holds the power of the purse and that effectively means it can keep the DoJ on a much shorter leash than most people appreciate. Also, sadly, the complexity of litigation means that if it goes to court Wells Fargo could just keep the proceedings spinning out for years before it ever gets to trial, by which point almost everyone will have forgotten what the original issue was. Indeed, this is more or less what happens now.

hollerith 10y ago
>It's fair in that the Senate can't impose any penalty on him other than a public shaming. They can compel him to answer questions, and those answer can then be used by prosecutors.

refurb 10y ago

The testimony seemed to me to have no purpose other than to put Stumpf "on trial" Think about it. Who would benefit from putting a banker on public trial? I'll give you a guess, their initials are EW.