Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why not treat all crime this way? Because government and law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. Here’s the closest and easiest reach to obvious regulatory capture from the other scumbag party: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute—if we do bring a crimi…
That's kind of my point. This was a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement, of a real problem. He literally says that it is concerning that prosecuting large institutions can cause economic harm. He isn't saying they won't prosecute, he says it's difficult because of the downsides. Holder made a mistake of wheeling out a complex nuance to a public that isn't prepared to handle it. I don't understand where is the e…
That was the direct context of his statement.
> Is that what you're saying?
I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department).
> What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org
Plenty. All the way back before the East India Trading Company - work your way out from there.
Many business structures and owners only follow laws as is convenient - expected, if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket and/or inconvenience ls that the ownership is insulated from.