No. Because a resource that the FED had lied about again and again would have been shown to be "under investigation" (ie. potentially bankrupt).
Nobody would have had real information on how deep the problem went, and the price of almost the largest financial resource ever would have dived at a time when the economy was already in trouble.
They didn't just choose to not charge Jamie Dimon. They choose to not charge the CDOs of his bank.
In reality the US has been engaged in a risky attempt to make bonds and stock prices go up to astronomical levels ever since the crash of 2001. There are a large number of coincidences that keep happening (7 different markets suddenly stopped trading after small slips in equity prices for 2-3 hours. Without exception during those trading halts the price of either the S&P or bond ETFs went up by 2-3% during the halts. This is just from the last month). Needless to say, most of those coincidences are in fact highly illegal if they weren't really accidents. The problem is the answer to "who benefits" seems to be mostly "the U.S. FED".
Nobody would have had real information on how deep the problem went, and the price of almost the largest financial resource ever would have dived at a time when the economy was already in trouble.
They didn't just choose to not charge Jamie Dimon. They choose to not charge the CDOs of his bank.
In reality the US has been engaged in a risky attempt to make bonds and stock prices go up to astronomical levels ever since the crash of 2001. There are a large number of coincidences that keep happening (7 different markets suddenly stopped trading after small slips in equity prices for 2-3 hours. Without exception during those trading halts the price of either the S&P or bond ETFs went up by 2-3% during the halts. This is just from the last month). Needless to say, most of those coincidences are in fact highly illegal if they weren't really accidents. The problem is the answer to "who benefits" seems to be mostly "the U.S. FED".