yeah, friends could run against each other, win or lose, and there is no sense tllhere woulde a toxicity just on one campaign. i would be furious if i ran for office and my mom, my sister, my dad didn t vote for me. you re out of the house! even if you were standing in for a friend and you didn t even want to win? no. you still have to vote for me. there is more to explore in this story, so i m sure we ll be following this closely. the self-automated mega panel stays. up next, big blanank, big blunder. they re trying to explain $2 million gone wrong. why the president isn t bringing wall street to justice. i m going to read one of these. i m going to read one of these! [ female announcer ] unlike sprays and dust rags, swiffer 360 dusters extender gets into hard to reach places so you can get unbelievable dust pick up in less time.
governme government. it s basically a form of socialism for wall street that says, any time that you make a mistake or become. and you threatened the integrity of the. we re going to bail her out and you re going to suffer greatly because of it. you can t have that that s not. thank you for those views as well as defending the sbifr rest of your life. thanks to our self-regulated, self-moderating interrogatory mega panel. as i mentioned also, david gregory sitting down with jamie dimon to talk about that $2 billion loss.
billion that s billion with a b on risky bets. it could lead an additional billion in coming weeks. they talked about being poorly monitored and bad judgment. they said they ll fix it and move on. shockingly, lawmakers not convinced and say the big banks need tighter regulation. this recent $2 billion loss should remind them not just of the language of the law but what the dangers are of not having some restrictions on proprietary bets by banks. yet even with today s evidence of a taxpayer bad casino run amok, at this point america may be powerless at bringing wall street to justice. joining us now is schweitzer who asks, why can t obama bring wall street to justice? what should we think about the
latest news given your argument about how the feds have really failed to hold wall street account for the whole financial mess? i think it means business as usual. look, there have been a lot of promises made about new regulatory regimes that are going to change the rules and make things better. the fact of the matter is the people on wall street, they re very clever. they find ways around regulatory regime, so they ve done that over the past 20 years. i think it means business as usual. i think that rather than trying to create a new regulatory regime, we need to decide that if firms are too big to fail, they re too big and they need to be broken up. because otherwise, we re simply inviting trouble and we re inviting a situation where we, the taxpayers, are going to have to bail these guys out. peter, i want to play for you we have some sound and video where david gregory from meet the press pretaped an interview with jamie dimon the other day, so this is before the news broke
d dimon had to say. he ll be doing a post-interview to update the story, but look at the way he cast this before this news broke. you know, wall street is at the epicenter. i blame both of them on the policies and procedures. you start to blame every single bank and politician. no, that s not true. the idea he was talking about, it s been wrong to blame every single banker, that the culture has been hard on banking. that seems a little stale, doesn t it? it sure does. i think there is a small grain of truth in what he s saying in that not everybody on wall street is making these risky bets, not everybody on wall street is frankly breaking the law by committing fraud. but the reality is that at a lot of the big firms, this has been kind of a practice, and the reality is, you know, even with the new regulatoryplacwith dodd example, what you re really doing is regulating everybody. you re not really taking individuals who broke the law,