In role reversal, Elizabeth Warren grills financial regulators

, The National Law Journal


In her first appearance as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) came out swinging at the seven top financial regulators who appeared Thursday morning to discuss implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Kevin Bedolla

    While I appreciate Ms. Warren's "spunk" in asking the question, is what by implication she asks practical. Assume we are talking about a major bank such as Chase or Citi. The resources required to take a case to trial against such an institution would be astronomical. Could such a trial be finished in less than a year? Doubtful. And then there would be appeals to the Supreme Court. Examine the results of cases the government has prosecuted against the likes of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. When such results can be accomplished by private defendants with almost limitless assets to defend a case, imagine the the prospect of prosecuting a criminal case against a giant banking institution with exponentially more resources. I suspect the only thing that would come out of such a case would be jobs for the armies of lawyers on both sides of the case. And perhaps something should be done to stop the district attorneys and US attorneys from trying to "make examples" of so many common citizens "on thin grounds."

  • Gordon Schlicke

    Hooray for Elizabeth Warren: Many a financial CEO with full knowledge walked away with millions. They may have spent some of it defending a few anemic attempts at punishment. More than a few of these CEO's today own three homes: seashore, mountains, and desert. I believe they also knew exactly where to donate a lot of money to our public servants, Until an entire generation says, "That's enough" and changes it, we have to put up with it. Prosecutors don't prosecute unless they are little more than 99% sure of conviction. We won't ever change that.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202588299763

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.