Grand juries are well known for indicting whomever the prosecutor asks them too; I took the quote from the prosecutor about how the grand jury voted to indict a

Grand juries are well known for indicting whomever the prosecutor asks them too; I took the quote from the prosecutor about how the grand jury voted to indict as an admission of weakness in his case, because that was literally the least persuasive thing he could have said. "We know the bank did bad things, because I told some people the bank did bad things, and they agreed that I had told them that the bank had done bad things!" > Abacus sold hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent mortgages to Fannie, reaping many millions of dollars in commissions and fees. Yeah, but from the article: "And what of the prosecutors’ claim that Abacus was driven by greed to conduct the fraud? Figures provided to jurors show the bank has made a modest $123,000 in servicing fees on the loans." And while you do a good job quoting the prosecutors theory about the bank, it's worth repeating that the jury disagreed pretty thoroughly. At a minimum we can say the prosecution completely failed to prove their theory. And I'd go further: I'd say that the details which have come out bring into question the entire prosecution.