Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on June 16, 2009, 06:40:55 AM
-
Glenn Beck has done some good work bringing attention to this case:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html
Today the WSJ jumps in:
President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.
A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
Associated Press
Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama.
Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.
At the end of May, Mr. Walpin's office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be "suspended" from receiving federal funds. The Corporation's official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin's office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California.
So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension.
The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation's findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals shown to have misused them.
Mr. Brown's office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin's office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama's top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown's office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he'd referred, he'd never been cut out in such fashion.
Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation's board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.
We've long disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congress designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars.
There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.
That's because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he'd be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.
White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.
Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior adviser."
If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.
-
Krauthammer was right in noting that Fox news is a fantastic outlet that is the only major source of news that is not corrupted with the MSM bias. A few city newspapers, and talk radio and that is it.
That God (or Murdoch) for Fox. I don't know how I could stand watching all the propaganda from the other outlets. CNN is at least reeanable but the rest are all NYT style propaganda.
-
The Obama Administration's fast-track sale of bankrupt auto-parts supplier Delphi hit a speed bump late last week when Judge Robert Drain ordered that Delphi conduct an open auction for its assets. That has a number of distressed-debt investors circling. It may also mean that the public will get some answers about the curiously structured sale that GM had quietly put forward the same day it filed for bankruptcy protection itself.
Under that deal, a bankrupt GM -- which is to say, taxpayers -- was set to provide most of the funding for Delphi's exit from bankruptcy, with private-equity firm Platinum Equity throwing in some cash and getting a sizable equity stake in return. The investors who have so far provided most of the debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing during Delphi's four-year bankruptcy case would have gotten as little as 20 cents on the dollar -- almost unheard-of in bankruptcy cases.
Those investors cried foul, pointing out that DIP financers generally have the right to take control of the company if they can't be paid in full. GM and the government at first threatened to play hardball, claiming that Platinum was the only buyer acceptable to GM and so its deal was the only one on the table. Judge Drain wasn't buying it, however. "I don't know what makes Platinum acceptable to GM and why Platinum is unique," he said. "Unless I hear more, there's something going on here that doesn't to me make sense."
That's putting it mildly. When the government arranged the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, it noted with some justification that, as the DIP financer for the cases, it had wide latitude to determine the companies' fates and ownership structure. But when it comes to Delphi's private DIP lenders, it has taken a very different position, apparently in the interests of wrapping up Delphi's case as quickly as possible to speed GM's own exit from bankruptcy. Taxpayers and investors alike deserve to know more about what looks like a sweetheart deal for one favored group of investors, and Judge Drain deserves kudos for putting on the brakes.
-
Will Democrats cover up the AmeriCorps mess?
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/16/09 12:13 AM EDT
Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama's sudden -- and suspicious -- decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no -- unless some. Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.
In dismissing Walpin, the president seemed to trample on the law -- a law he himself had co-sponsored as a senator -- that protects inspectors general from political influence and retribution. In addition, it appears that at least part of the reason Walpin was fired was for the tenacity he showed in investigating misuse of AmeriCorps money by a friend and supporter of the president, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. Walpin got the goods -- evidence of Johnson's serious misuse of federal dollars -- and the inspector general ended up getting fired for his troubles.
So the Walpin case is just the kind of thing the watchdogs of good government in the House and Senate might investigate. But Democrats enjoy solid majorities in both houses, and thus control what will be investigated, and how any investigation will proceed. As the minority party, Republicans have little power to do anything.
"We can't move something through a committee," says one Republican Senate aide. "We can't issue a subpoena. But we can write letters, and we can jump up and down."
That's pretty much what Republicans are reduced to doing now. They are asking the administration for information -- politely -- and are trying to get the message out through the press. That's all they can do.
They're not particularly optimistic about getting help from the other side. Would Majority Leader Harry Reid really have any interest in a tough probe of a Democratic White House, a Democratic AmeriCorps, and a Democratic mayor who just happens to be a friend of the president?
The committee that would normally be expected to look into the matter would be the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which oversees AmeriCorps. But the chairman is Sen. Edward Kennedy, who in April joined President Obama to celebrate the passage of the $5.7 billion Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which will triple the size of AmeriCorps. Kennedy is highly unlikely to support an investigation that might tarnish his favorite program.
Inspectors general as a whole are watched over by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, headed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Some Republicans hope -- a little -- that Lieberman will lend a hand, but they're not holding their breath.
The one lawmaker who has shown real interest in investigating the AmeriCorps matter is Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Throughout his career, Grassley has been something of a guardian angel for inspectors general, and he was on the Walpin case from the very beginning.
But Grassley is not just a Republican, he's also on the Senate Finance Committee, which really doesn't have much jurisdiction over this particular matter. So he did what Republicans can do -- he wrote a letter, to Alan Solomont, the former Democratic fundraiser who now heads AmeriCorps.
"It is vital that Congress obtain a full understanding of the role that you and your colleagues&hellipplayed in these matters," Grassley wrote. "Inspectors General have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when such concerns are as legitimate and meritorious as Mr. Walpin’s appear to be."
Grassley asked AmeriCorps to hand over all records and e-mails and documents and other information about the Walpin firing. But if Grassley is the only one doing the asking, the administration doesn't really have to comply.
In 1993, just after Bill Clinton was elected and Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, a lone Republican congressman, Rep. Bill Clinger, wanted to investigate the suspicious firings of the White House Travel Office staff.
But majority Democrats had no inclination to pursue the matter. Clinger tried and tried, wrote letter after letter, and jumped up and down, but he didn't begin to get results until after November 1994, when Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress.
When it comes to investigating allegations of wrongdoing, Republicans today are right back where they were in 1993.
Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at ExaminerPolitics.com.
Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Will-Democrats-cover-up-the-AmeriCorps-mess-48112457.html
-
AmeriCorps feared bad press if IG investigation continued
By: BYRON YORK
Chief Political Correspondent
06/24/09 5:42 AM EDT
One of the mysteries surrounding President Obama's firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin is what prompted the White House, supported by the board of directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, to try to get rid of Walpin so quickly and quietly?
On the evening of Wednesday, June 10, an official of the White House counsel's office called Walpin to tell him he had one hour to resign or be fired. The action flew in the face of a law (sponsored by Barack Obama when he was a senator) that requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus cause, when he intends to fire an IG. In this case, the White House apparently wanted to dispatch Walpin quickly by pushing him to resign, which would not have required the president to go through the congressional notification process. Instead, Walpin refused to quit, and only then did the White House tell Congress.
Why the rush? Walpin had certainly displeased the board by his aggressive investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Prior to his election as mayor, Johnson ran an educational organization called St. HOPE, which received $850,000 in AmeriCorps money. Walpin discovered that Johnson and St. HOPE had failed to use the federal money for the purposes specified in the grant and had also used federally-funded AmeriCorps staff for, among other things, "driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands."
Walpin recommended that Johnson be banned from ever receiving any more federal funds. But after the passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill, amid worries that such a ban on the mayor would keep Sacramento from receiving its share of the stimulus cash, the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service reached an agreement with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento under which Johnson would repay some of the mis-spent money and also be eligible to receive new federal grants in the future. Walpin strongly objected to the agreement. (Knowing his opposition, the board excluded him from the negotiations.)
Walpin's objections were the subject of a now-controversial May 20 meeting in which Walpin, to use his term, "lectured" the board on what he believed was its mistake in approving the Johnson settlement. On the morning of the meeting, the Sacramento Bee reported that a man named Rick Maya, who worked with Kevin Johnson in the St. HOPE project, claimed that Johnson's emails had been deleted during the time of Walpin's investigation. The Maya news suggested that there might have been obstruction of justice in the St. HOPE affair, and Walpin used it to drive home his point that the board should have let his investigation stand.
It appears the discussion of the St. HOPE matter was a turning point not only in the May 20 meeting but in Walpin's tenure at the Corporation. In a recent interview, a Republican member of the Corporation board told me that Walpin told board members at the meeting that he wanted to issue some sort of public statement to the effect that there should be more investigation of the St. HOPE matter. "He said, 'I feel so strongly about this that today I am going to issue a statement to the press calling for further investigation,'" the member said, recalling Walpin's words. "The board members all caught that. Several of us wrote down that he was going to be issuing a statement to the press that afternoon."
It was a distressing scenario for the board. As a favorite program of Barack and Michelle Obama, AmeriCorps was enjoying a higher profile than ever before. The Corporation also stood to receive vast amounts of new funding from the $5.7 billion Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which would triple the size of AmeriCorps. And in the midst of that, here was the agency's inspector general saying he might re-open an investigation into an embarrassing episode involving hundreds of thousands of mis-spent dollars and a politically prominent supporter of the president.
"Right now, when there is such a great emphasis on service, we did not need any press out there on this St. HOPE matter, which was already settled," the board member told me. "We thought he was going to use the press…He had an issue with the fact that a settlement was reached…and he was doing everything he could to continue to keep the issue at the forefront."
As it turned out, Walpin did not issue any statement, to the press or anyone else. (He doesn't recall whether he said precisely what the board member recalls, although, he told me, "There wouldn't have been anything wrong if I had.") Instead, Walpin contacted the FBI in Sacramento with word of the Maya allegations, and agents there are now investigating the matter.
Later in the meeting, members questioned Walpin about his intentions. It was at that point that they say Walpin became confused and disoriented. But whatever Walpin's demeanor, it appears that board members, of both parties, were worried about the possibility of embarrassing new revelations involving a sensational case they thought had been closed. After the meeting, the board began an accelerated effort to remove Walpin, compiling an informal list of grievances against him -- he could be difficult, he telecommuted, he was somehow disabled -- that the White House would ultimately cite as cause for his firing. But there is no doubt that, whatever the other reasons, the board feared that a revival of a scandal they thought was in the past would be embarrassing to the newly-prominent AmeriCorps.
For more background on the Walpin firing, see here and here and here and here.
-Byron York
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/AmeriCorps-feared-bad-press-if-IG-investigation-continued-48998746.html
-
States Given Leeway in Tallying New Jobs from Stimulus
By LOUISE RADNOFSKY
The White House is giving states a break when it comes to counting the number of jobs created or saved with the help of federal stimulus money.
President Barack Obama had promised that the stimulus plan would save or create 3.5 million jobs. Republicans have criticized the plan and the reliability of the administration's numbers.
The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll suggests growing public doubts, with 39% of those surveyed saying the stimulus is a "bad idea," up from 27% in January.
Meanwhile, some state officials worried about how they were supposed to count jobs credited to the stimulus. Now, the White House Office of Management and Budget has given states guidance calming these concerns.
"All we're asking them to do is a simple headcount; tell us how many people you hired," said Rob Nabors, the deputy director of the office, in an interview.
Recipients won't be asked to grapple with complicated estimates, he added. Instead, they may use their best guess whether a job would have been created or saved in the absence of a recovery plan, and to not count it if they are uncertain.
Philip Mattera, research director for the economic development research group Good Jobs First, said the method appeared to be "a bit impressionistic" and presented pitfalls. "One is the risk of unreasonable reporting; the other risk is how the whole system is perceived because of the possibility of unreasonable reporting," he said.
Craig Jennings, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan OMB Watch, also said the new guidance could allow state officials to use their own definition for the number of hours in a "full-time equivalent" job, thus making it possible to credit stimulus projects for more employment.
OMB officials said the method was the easiest and quickest way for recipients to give the required information, and that making the reports publicly available allowed anyone to question them.
The new counting guidance has come as a relief to officials in state capitols, said Chris Whatley, Washington director of the Council of State Governments, a nonpartisan network.
"The first guidance left it up to individual states to determine the methodology, and that caused confusion," he said. States had feared that they could be criticized either for being too optimistic, or too pessimistic, about the job numbers they reported.
Mr. Whatley said that states had plenty of data to support their job creation and retention estimates, and that "for the most part, it's a technocratic exercise."
Still, he said, "There are 50 different governors with 50 different personalities and they will expect different things from their staff."
Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@dowjones.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580125603844651.html
-
BO seems to be within normal ranges on this:
============
WSJ
By JONATHAN WEISMAN and YUKA HAYASHI
The U.S. Embassy in Tokyo has seen its share of luminaries in the ambassador's suite. Former Vice President Walter Mondale, former Senate Majority Leaders Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker and former House Speaker Tom Foley are among those who have brokered relations with a complex and critical ally in a region bristling with military and trade tensions.
Obama Beholden to Campaign Donors?
WSJ's White House Correspondent Jonathan Weisman discusses President Obama's pick for the U.S. Ambassador post in Japan -- San Francisco Bay Area lawyer and Obama's chief Silicon Valley fundraiser John Roos, who has no diplomatic experience and no Japanese.
President Barack Obama's pick for the post is from a different mold: John Roos, a San Francisco Bay area lawyer, was the president's chief Silicon Valley fundraiser and contributions "bundler." He has no diplomatic experience.
Mr. Obama's choice of Mr. Roos, along with other political boosters -- from former investment banker Louis B. Susman, known as the "vacuum cleaner" for his fundraising prowess, to Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney -- has raised eyebrows among some who thought the president would extend his mantra of change to the diplomatic corps.
"We're not only insulting nations [that] we're appointing these bundlers to, we're risking U.S. diplomatic efforts in these key countries," said Craig Holman, a government-affairs lobbyist at watchdog group Public Citizen.
This tension can be traced back to Mr. Obama's claim during last year's campaign that President George W. Bush engaged in an "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy." Mr. Obama said he instead would ensure that hires are based on merit, rather than party or ideology. The American Academy of Diplomacy, an association of former diplomats, seized on the comments in lobbying him to lower the portion of ambassadors drawn from outside the foreign-service establishment to as little as 10% from the 30% average since President John F. Kennedy's tenure. (Mr. Bush's score was 33%.)
Foto caption: Entertainment executive Charles Rivkin is among major fund-raisers tapped for top ambassadorial postings.
Of the Obama administration's 55 ambassadorial nominees so far, 33 -- or 60% -- have gone to people outside the foreign-service ranks, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
That ratio is almost certain to tilt back toward career diplomats as dozens of the remaining posts are filled.
"The president said in January that he would nominate extremely qualified individuals like Mr. Roos, former Congressman Tim Roemer, and Miguel Diaz, who didn't necessarily come up through the ranks of the State Department, but want to serve their country in important diplomatic posts," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Mr. Obama has chosen some diplomatic heavy hitters. Diplomacy experts have praised the experience of Christopher Hill, ambassador to Iraq; Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, ambassador to Afghanistan; and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.
Representatives of Mr. Roos and other ambassadorial nominees said they wouldn't comment before confirmation, a customary position for all nominees, White House aides said.
Ronald E. Neumann, president of the Academy and a retired Foreign Service officer, cautioned that it is far too early to tell how the Obama lineup will look. When administrations turn over, the first ambassadors to leave their posts often are the prior president's political appointees; those spots are first to be filled, in turn, with new political appointees. Mr. Roos's predecessor in Tokyo, in fact, was a former business partner of Mr. Bush, although he had served as ambassador to Australia before the Japan post.
The president's slate of nominees thus far, Mr. Neumann said, "tells you it's not change, but it doesn't yet tell you what it is."
Mr. Obama's ambassadorial nominees include Kentucky Internet executive Matthew Barzun, an Obama fundraiser, for Sweden; Colorado businessman Vinai Thummalapally, the president's roommate at Occidental College, for Belize; and Howard W. Gutman, who pulled together a half million dollars in Obama contributions, for Belgium.
The Court of St. James's in London would get Mr. Susman, the former investment banker, who bundled at least $100,000 from donors for Mr. Obama's presidential run and $300,000 for his inauguration celebration, according to Public Citizen. Mr. Rooney, tapped for Ireland, threw his weight behind Mr. Obama ahead of the Pennsylvania primary. And Charles H. Rivkin, who if confirmed will be heading for Paris, is chief executive of entertainment company W!LDBRAIN Inc. and former president of Jim Henson Co., creator of the Muppets.
White House officials say the term "political appointee" often undersells a nominee's qualifications. Mr. Diaz, a professor at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, may not have diplomatic experience, but he would be the first theologian to be U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. Mr. Roemer, nominated as ambassador to India, also has no Foreign Service experience, but he was a prominent member of the 9/11 Commission.
Mr. Susman wasn't among the biggest fund-raisers for Mr. Obama, but he worked in Chicago at the epicenter of the Obama political apparatus. People familiar with his nomination attribute it to his role as an influential businessman and lawyer in the president's hometown.
Mr. Rivkin developed a connection with France and its language while his father was U.S. ambassador to Senegal and Luxembourg, both French-speaking countries, people familiar with the nomination say. Since 1968, the family has presented the annual Rivkin Award honoring constructive dissent in the Foreign Service. Mr. Gutman, a former Supreme Court clerk, served presidents of companies and countries for more than two decades at the Washington office of law firm Williams & Connolly.
The Swiss media aired some concerns about the choice of car-dealership magnate Don Beyer for the Geneva posting. The hope was for someone seasoned in financial issues, given White House pressure on Switzerland to make its banking system more transparent, according to Mr. Holman of Public Citizen.
Many in Japan, meanwhile, were surprised and even disappointed at the choice of Mr. Roos -- in part because it had been rumored in local media that the choice was to be Joseph Nye, a Harvard University professor of international relations and former assistant secretary of defense. Some commentators suggested the Roos nomination showed Mr. Obama's lack of interest in relations with Japan.
The Japanese now appear to be making the best of Mr. Roos's eventual arrival. The Nihon Keizai Shimbun business daily said the U.S.-Japan relationship has grown so mature that it doesn't require a big name as a go-between.
A White House official offered Tokyo some reassuring words: "John Roos is very close to the president, and having that can be very important."
Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com and Yuka Hayashi at yuka.hayashi@wsj.com
-
One Web Site: $18,000,000
Posted by Jim Harper
A company called Smartronix will get $18,000,000 to redesign Recovery.gov, the federal Web site intended to track where federal Recovery Act spending goes.
The government purchased technology for a similar site (with a somewhat smaller scope), USASpending.gov, from the non-profit group OMB Watch for only $600,000. A private company already provides information on Recovery Act spending to the public for free.
I wrote here enthusiastically about the plans of the Sunlight Foundation to go after this contract, saying “[T]he contract award will now be subject to public scrutiny. Value-for-dollar to the taxpayer will be easily discernible, and that will raise the political risks of awarding the contract based on cronyism or go-with-whatchya-knowism. Transparency in all things.”
Sunlight did not ultimately bid. Instead, it took some lessons about the government contracting business. The transparency I wrote about materialized, though, and we can take a lesson, too: The federal government will pay $18,000,000 for one freaking Web site.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/07/09/one-web-site-18000000/
-
I keep trying to post here the news of the revokation of the deployment of the soldier who refused to go to overseas because Bama was not born here and it will not post.
I don't know why it won't post (curiously) but I think it quite obvious why this issue keeps getting swept under the rug.
Why can't the public have all the evidence about this guy's birth place?
Any rational person could only come up with one conclusion here. This guy was not born in the US.
Why cannot Judicial Watch or somebody else investigate this issue and get to the truth?
-
July 15, 2009, 4:00 a.m.
Bigger Than Madoff
Government health care is a target for massive fraud.
By Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven
Every year, criminals and cheats pilfer over $100 billion — that’s $40 billion more than Bernie Madoff scammed off his investors — in federal benefits to which they are not legally entitled. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, refundable tax credits, and many other programs are targets for looting.
Government fraud has been in the news lately because analysts are expecting major abuses of the Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus plan. One Deloitte expert argued that “swindlers, con men, and thieves could siphon off as much as $50 billion” of stimulus funds, which are vulnerable because policymakers are under pressure to shovel it out the door quickly.
Even more troubling is the potential for fraud and abuse created by President Obama’s other big spending proposals — particularly his giant health-care plan. Obama wants to inject hundreds of billions more tax dollars into federal health care instead of fundamentally reforming Medicare and Medicaid — broken programs that are already subject to Madoff-sized larceny. That is incredibly unfair to those of us paying the bills.
Take Medicare. The Government Accountability Office reports that the program makes about $17 billion in improper payments each year. And that doesn’t include problems in the new $60-billion-per-year prescription-drug plan, which is a juicy target for criminals. Harvard University’s Malcolm Sparrow, a specialist in health-care fraud, recently testified to Congress that official estimates are “lacking in rigor,” are “comfortingly low and quite misleading,” and exclude many kinds of fraud and abuse. He thinks that as much as 20 percent of the federal health-care budget is consumed by fraud, which would be $85 billion a year for Medicare.
Medicare makes a staggering 1.2 billion electronic payments each year, making it highly vulnerable to cheating by health-care providers and organized-crime rings. Criminals need only fill out the government forms carefully and the “claims will be paid in full and on time, without a hiccup, by a computer, and with no human involvement at all,” according to Sparrow. A perfect example is the recent case of a high-school dropout in Miami who was able to single-handedly bilk Medicare out of $105 million from her laptop by submitting 140,000 separate claims for equipment and services.
Medicaid is also a huge abuse target. The GAO puts Medicaid fraud at $33 billion — 11 percent of state and federal spending on the program. Again, that is likely a substantial underestimate. A former Medicaid investigator believes that up to 40 percent of New York State’s Medicaid budget is siphoned off in fraud and improper payments, but New York probably has a worse problem than elsewhere. Using Sparrow’s 20 percent estimate instead, Medicaid rip-offs top $60 billion a year nationwide.
How does all this fraud and abuse occur? In many ways, including billing for services and medical equipment not provided, misrepresenting the services provided, and double billing. That last one is common. In one recent case, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey double-billed Medicaid repeatedly over the years by directly submitting claims for outpatient physician services, even as doctors working in the hospital’s outpatient centers were submitting their own claims for exactly the same procedures.
Another trouble spot is Medicaid’s nursing-home benefits, which are meant for people with low incomes and few financial assets. Since nursing homes are expensive, the program creates a big incentive for higher-income families to falsify their status and apply for the benefits. Indeed, a whole industry of financial consultants helps ineligible seniors hide their income and assets so that they qualify. The result is that the program loses about $10 billion a year to fraudulent claims.
The bottom line is that the enormous size and complexity of federal health programs results in a huge waste of taxpayer funds. The inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services recently told Congress: “Although it is not possible to measure precisely the extent of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, everywhere it looks the Office of Inspector General continues to find fraud against these programs.”
Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest fraud targets, but this problem plagues all government subsidy programs. Official loss estimates for other programs include: $12 billion for the Earned Income Tax Credit, $5 billion for Supplemental Security Income, and $14 billion for unemployment insurance. All in all, the cost to taxpayers is well over $100 billion a year, which translates into a theft of $1,000 or more from every household in America every year.
We think that there are good policy reasons to dramatically cut Medicare, Medicaid, and other benefit programs. But at the very least, the vast magnitude of graft in these programs should give every policymaker pause before pumping even more taxpayer money into the federal subsidy empire.
— Chris Edwards is the director of tax-policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-author of Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to Defend It. Tad DeHaven is a budget analyst at the Cato Institute.
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTIyMTUxM2FkOTA4YmVkYzdlZGE3ODhkMzBiZDRkNDQ=
-
July 17, 2009
Vote For Dave
By Ken Russell
Dave McArthur owns a few bakeries in St Louis, Missouri; McArthur's Bakery. His bakeries make treats of legendary appeal throughout the St Louis area and Dave is a local media personality as well. Most of us think apple turnovers and politics aren't really compatible in the same sentence, but recently Dave's made them so. He didn't want to. He never intended to. He was forced into a corner and for his own survival, he had to. Here's why.
Dave has to make his cold mixed doughy goodness hot; really hot in order to turn the goo into heaven in your mouth. Bakery, baker, bake, hot, heat, ovens -- don't touch!
In other words, Dave is a user of energy and he needs to use that energy efficiently to feed his family, pay his 88 employees, and pay his vendors. But Dave, and the rest of the bakeries throughout the United States -- along with the glass blowers, hamburger stands, plastic injection molders, you name it --, have a new headache: The American Clean Energy and Trade Act (ACES) or Cap and Trade.
You will have a new headache too, because as you'll see from this one American small business, things are going to change as promised and not in a hopeful way if this monstrosity becomes law. It already passed in the House of Representatives.
Dave asked -- no, I've seen him twice on Fox News and the Glenn Beck Show -- he begged his representative Russ Carnahan (D-MO) to tell him exactly how the cap and trade bill will affect him. In fact Dave merely wants to know if there is a maximum amount he can see in natural gas and electricity prices as a result of the bill. It's a yes or no answer. Yes, there is a maximum amount or no there is no maximum amount.
Carnahan, who promised to meet with Dave privately to discuss the simple yes or no answer, stood him up for who knows what reason. However, Dave did get a ridiculous, purposely difficult to understand, non-answer in the form of a letter from Carnahan's staff member. And condescending? Well, Russ wanted Dave to know that he "doesn't take comprehensive energy reform lightly" and made it impossible for Dave to figure out just how much more he will have to spend to heat up his donut dough. You see, at the time Dave asked Russ Carnahan the simple question, the good Congressman had not yet read the bill for which he voted. Ain't that America? It gets better.
Dave was informed that the University of Missouri could come and give Dave's bakeries an "energy assessment." Since McArthur's Bakery spends more than $100,000.00 per year in energy costs (his cost is actually $158,000.00), he qualifies for a no cost to him (but a cost to taxpayers) "energy audit, detailing operating expenses, energy consumption and an action plan to help reduce your overall costs and energy consumption."
Isn't that great? Who knows more about running a business than a bunch of university professors and students who have never run a business? Yeah, they will show up to tell Dave what he intimately already knows. It's like "giving" Dave a free, taxpayer funded firm-grasp-of-the-obvious. No condescension there.
Oh but wait, I forgot. Guess how Dave and his partner and brother Randy, after calls, letters, and e-mails to Carnahan, were able to finally get Carnahan's attention?
At one of McArthur's bakeries there is a scrolling electronic sign. You know, the kind that lets motorists know you can get 3 donuts for $1.49? (and I'm telling you in my opinion they are one thousand times tastier than Krispy Kremes). After weeks of frustration from being 100% ignored by the guy who is supposed to represent him, Dave ran "Russ Carnahan Voted to Close Us and Other Small Businesses" on the marquee.
Guess what? Threats came from the über-Democratically controlled city to force Dave to take down the words. Had Dave not claimed his Constitutional right to free speech, making his sign a local news story which forced the city to back down, do you think Carnahan would have immediately contacted Dave and Randy to discuss with them cap and trade? Neither do I, because until the sign went up, Carnahan ignored McArthur.
The result? A promised face-to-face meeting with Carnahan that was broken and in its place, a "political speak" letter answering none of Dave's questions; a sort of "Dave, I'm giving you permission to eat cake," response from King Russ Antoinette.
Where do I come in? It's where you should come in. Your government is methodically, purposefully, knowingly, forcefully and powerfully punishing hard work, free enterprise and the largest employment source, small business, out of existence or into subjection to its whims. It's not at the "are they really doing this?" stage anymore. It's very near the reality stage. For a number of reasons including our dumbed down school system, our Fourth Estate, our overall national apathy toward anything not related to American Idol, Michael Jackson, or The Big Me and worse, a lie that says crippling businesses will "Save the Planet."
The fact that a roaring successful, well known and loved local business is crying out for help against an oppressive government, falling on deaf and condescending ears, ought to send a chill and not a leg tingle down all of our legs -- and spines. Dave McArthur is but one small voice sounding a huge warning to expose the lie to us all and we better take action or it will be to our peril. He hasn't been there. He is there and he understands that we need to send this oppressive government back to where it actually represents freedom and the Constitution so that prosperity can survive and hard work can be rewarded.
I'm not motivated to get involved because Dave's dangerously good chocolate cake soon won't be available, nor because Dave's a friend of mine. Dave McArthur doesn't know me from Adam. I'm motivated because I know freedom is about to end in this nation at an afterburner speed by the very ones elected and sworn to protect and defend that freedom. Dave is living proof of that. Their aim is for pure power over you and I. Mine is for freedom, free enterprise and glazed donuts. Yours should be too. My vote is for Dave.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/vote_for_dave_1.html at July 17, 2009 - 03:27:36 PM EDT
-
Perhaps there's a better niche under which to file this, but in view of the current economic climate this demonstrates corrupt priorities if nothing else.
Flying Miss Nancy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Washington: The Democrat-controlled House wants to buy nearly $200 million worth of private jets so lawmakers and a few high-level bureaucrats can travel in style. We truly have an imperial Congress.
Just last week Washington announced it would cut $100 million from the federal administrative budgets and acted like that was some big achievement. Now this week we learn that about the same time those cuts were made public, the House OK'd the purchase of the private jets.
The taxpayer money the House plans to spend is to be used to buy three Gulfstream G550s at roughly $65 million each. These are long-range business jets with large, palatial interiors and three temperature zones. Company literature says the "impeccably equipped cabin" of a G550 offers "best-in-class comforts" and can be configured "with up to four living areas."
"At Gulfstream," the company says, "we have anticipated your every need."
Sounds like just the sort of plane the House speaker, Senate majority leader and their extended entourages could enjoy on a nonstop junket to Asia — or merely for a quick turnaround to visit constituents in San Francisco or Las Vegas.
The notion that some lawmakers feel it beneath their dignity to travel with the masses on commercial jets is nothing new. But news of the House plan does bring to mind three salient facts, all of which the Democratic leadership hopes the public does not think of in relation to the jet purchase.
Congress isn't short of hypocrisy. Most of the Democrats and their environmentalist allies are reflexively opposed to private jet travel because of its excessive carbon footprint. Or, at least, they are opposed to private jet travel for others.
Neither does it recognize irony. CEOs of the Big Three automakers were excoriated for traveling in their private jets last year to testify in Washington.
And some have an outsized sense of privilege. In 2007, just a month into the new Democratic majority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked that taxpayers provide a jet that could make a nonstop flight to her Bay Area district. She reportedly wanted a luxury, stateroom-outfitted version of Boeing's 757-200 like those the vice president, first lady and Cabinet officials fly on.
And there was a lot of foot-stamping when the Bush White House said no.
At least one of the three jets approved by the House will be sent to the Air Force's 201st Airlift Squadron, which, among other duties, shuttles members of Congress.
It seems Pelosi One might yet get off the ground.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334363404866691
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090807/ts_nm/us_bankofamerica_lawmaker
Reuters) – A leading Democrat in the House of Representatives who has rebuffed Republican efforts to subpoena records of a mortgage program for favored borrowers at Countrywide Financial Corp got home loans from that lender, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Representative Edolphus Towns, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, obtained two loans from Countrywide, which was bought last year by Bank of America, the newspaper said, citing information from the lawmaker's mortgage documents.
Towns has turned down calls from the committee's ranking Republican, Darrell Issa, for the panel to subpoena mortgage records showing who received loans through Countrywide's VIP program, the journal said.
The program offered loans to politically influential figures and other favored borrowers at more attractive terms than were available to the general public.
The mortgage documents on the loans to Towns contain a Countrywide address and branch number that correspond to the VIP program, the Journal reported.
Towns told the paper through a spokeswoman that his decision not to subpoena the VIP records "has nothing to do with his mortgages" and that if the mortgages came through the VIP program "it was without his knowledge."
Towns was not immediately available for comment outside regular U.S. office hours.
In June, Issa wrote to Bank of America asking it to disclose any special mortgage terms the bank's Countrywide unit gave to politically influential customers over an eight-year period. Bank of America bought Countrywide last year after the mortgage lender collapsed under the weight of bad mortgages and defaults.
Countrywide's VIP program of preferential mortgage rates was also known as the "Friends of Angelo" program, after Countrywide founder Angelo Mozilo.
In February, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, a Democrat, said he would refinance two mortgages that he took out in 2003 under Countrywide's VIP program. (Reporting by Santosh Nadgir in Bangalore, editing by Vicki Allen)
-
THE DESTRUCTION OF SARAH PALIN
Well, Sarah Palin has stepped down as Governor of Alaska. Fighting a seemingly endless string of harassment lawsuits has taken pretty much all of her time and $500,000 of her money. That’s real money to the Palins. That’s real money to me, and probably to you too.
At least fifteen ethics complaints had been leveled against Governor Palin, and all of them have been dismissed as baseless. But that’s beside the point, isn’t it? Decent people, like most of you out there, probably don’t appreciate just how easy it is to destroy someone of integrity if you have no integrity of your own.
Here’s how it works. Fifteen assorted bloggers and miscreants of various stripes launch unsubstantiated ethics complaints against the Governor of Alaska, who, because of Alaska state law, is not immune from having to fight them. Fifteen charges of corruption – no matter whether they are true or not – means that the public hears nothing but the words “Palin” and “Corruption” being solemnly reported by the press. Even the phrase “cleared of corruption charges” makes that subconscious connection.
And that’s all it takes: false accusations. Consider this:
Bill Clinton spent every second of his Presidency – every second – knowing exactly what to say if the words “Paula Jones” or “Gennifer Flowers” or “Monica Lewinski” came up in conversation, or at a press conference, or even in the middle of deep sleep. If Hillary just whispered the words:
“Monica Lewinski”
…Bill would bolt upright in bed and sputter: “I did not have sex with that woman! Whichever one you mentioned!”
He’s ready for accusations because he knows he’s guilty. That’s what guilty people do all day: work on the explanation and the alibi. But an innocent person, when charged with corruption or lying or worse – well, it shakes them to the core, the same way it would shake you to your core if you were accused of some heinous act you did not commit. And if these false accusations came at you again and again and again, how many times would it take before you said, to hell with this. Who needs this? This is destroying my family. A guilty person has that factored going in; it’s part of their mental equation. But it’s enough to drive an innocent person out, and that was the goal. Wasn’t it?
There’s a reason the word Satan means “the Accuser” in Hebrew, and why “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is one of the Ten Commandments. A false accusation against an innocent person is often more effective than a real accusation is against a guilty one.
Now to simply say that Democrats had to attack this Republican is to miss the savagery of the assault, a viciousness that was evidenced on the first day of her announcement as John McCain’s running mate and which continued unabated long after the election. The example of Sarah Palin, you see, is fatal to the liberal worldview.
For forty years now Liberals have defined feminism in a binary way. You simply could not be a feminist – and by implication you could not really demand the opportunities that modern feminism promised – unless you categorically came down on the side of “choice.” You could go out into a man’s world, dress like a man, act like a man, achieve all the wealth and power of a man, perhaps even have a boutique single child — or two, if you could afford a decent nanny.
But Sarah Palin’s decision to see her Down’s Syndrome child to term was an act of such blinding moral clarity that it tore down the drapes and flung open the windows of Miss Havisham’s fetid little parlor. To see Trig Palin being held in his sister’s arms reminded the entire country that this choice has consequences. And furthermore, it showed that you could be Mayor, or Governor, or potentially President of the United States, and still have a big family, dress and talk like a woman, and get there with a mate who was nothing more or less than a good man and loving husband and commercial fisherman, and not ride to power on the coattails of a billionaire businessman, or media mogul, or political superstar.
By choosing life – a flawed life, some would say – Sarah Palin effortlessly displayed what once was the universal maternal instinct… and that put her way, way off the reservation. To present such a clear example of competence, achievement and respect while at the same time running full in the face of the liberal feminist first (and only) commandment, Sarah Palin earned the kind of hatred from the left that is only well and truly reserved for those people who so effortlessly put the lie to their entire philosophy. This is the kind of hate reserved for black Americans like Thomas Sowell or my own friend Alfonzo Rachel, who become traitors to their race as Palin became a traitor to her sex, for having the audacity – the gall, the unmitigated nerve – to have their own thoughts, and make up their own minds, and free themselves from the rigid – and racist and sexist – roles that have been cut out for them by the liberal establishment that perpetually shrieks that it is only working in their best interest out of a rarefied moral superiority.
And there’s another side of the Democratic Party’s mythical image of itself that she stole from under their feet: the Palin’s are working people, the kind of people the Democratic Party once claimed proudly as their irreducible base before they became the Limousine Leftists we see today. She comes home and makes dinner for the family while Todd – the now-former First Dude – is out in the garage releasing some of the tensions of a hard day at work by tricking out his snow machine for racing season.
No wonder Democrats and Liberals feared her so. And now we get to the heart of the matter. Because it was not just Democrats and Liberals who so fervently wished to see her destroyed. Many Republicans felt the same way. The LA Times reports:
“I am of the strong opinion that, at present day, she is not ready to be the leading voice of the GOP,” said Todd Harris, a party strategist who likened Palin to the hopelessly dated “Miami Vice” — something once cool that people regard years later with puzzlement and laughter.” The Times then goes on to quote one Stuart K. Spencer, who has been advising GOP candidates for more than 40 years, who says, “I can’t tell you one thing she brought to the ticket.”
Mr. Harris and Mr. Spencer, I’m not a GOP strategist, so unfortunately I am not able to associate myself with the glory and success that people like you have led the Republican Party to in these last several election cycles.. Here’s what I can tell you, though: as a person of small reputation in little backwater pools on the internet, I spent months – months – defending John McCain as the Republican nominee. Not because he was my first choice, or my second choice, or my third choice… because he wasn’t.
I did it because I felt I had some idea of what this Obama tsunami was going to bring. And I saw, with my own eyes – pay attention now, professional GOP strategists — untold numbers of life-long conservatives saying they were going to sit this one out…just stay at home on Election Day.
Then Sarah Palin came along, and those same people – those exact same people! – wrote about sending in hundreds of dollars and asking for lawn signs, because for the first time in years they felt there was someone who understood what their lives were like: someone who went hunting and fishing, someone who worked hard for a living, someone who had fought corruption where they found it, regardless of the personal cost, someone who had a son fighting in Iraq, someone who knew how to handle a gun and actually owned one! Someone who unabashedly loved America, someone who could be tough and decisive and still be feminine, someone who put family above politics and who was doing a job with quiet competence and who by most accounts did not spent every living day of her life maneuvering and plotting and kissing ass because she had some defective political gene that drove her to want to become President from the age of three.
Sarah Palin — clinging with an incandescent lack of bitterness to her guns and her religion — energized the base of this party in a way I have never witnessed before. Now, of course, I need to again remind you that I am not a GOP strategist. But just between me and actual Republican strategist Stuart K. Spencer, who does not know what she brought to the ticket, I’ll tell you right now. I’ll clue you in.
She brought just about every vote that the Republicans got.
Those people – those actual conservatives that went out and voted – don’t think Sarah Palin cost John McCain the election. They think John McCain cost Sarah Palin the election. It was John McCain’s elitist genius advisors that buried her for two weeks after her knockout GOP acceptance speech – the one that put the McCain / Palin ticket up 7-15 points in the very week after Barack Obama’s Temple Coronation – and then hid her in a basement trying to polish her up to midtown Manhattan standards of sophistication and erudition before they walked her into back-to-back ambush interviews. It was these elitist “campaign staffers” that decided to buy $150,000 of high-end clothes for a woman who always looks best when she is dressed as who she is: a regular working person. And, of course, those clothes went on to become another of the “corruption” and “Diva” charges they leaked against her to protect their own miserable, cowardly asses so that they can continue to advise future campaigns into the dustbin of history.
Let’s wrap this up by getting to brass tacks here.
This isn’t a fight between Democrats and Republicans, or even between Liberals and Conservatives. This is a fight to the death between the populists and the elites.
Sarah Palin is the anti-Obama. He is urban; she is rural. He preaches dependency on the government and she leads a life of independence. He consistently apologizes for the sins of the country he was elected to lead, and she is unabashedly proud of it. He opposes the war in Iraq; she has skin in the game. And on and on.
And that is why she had to be destroyed, by the Democratic Party, by the New York media elites, and by many of the inside-the-beltway voices of various and sundry GOP “strategists.”
She needs to be destroyed because the one thing that can never be allowed to happen is this: you cannot have a voice in this political debate. You know who I mean. You rubes, you hicks out there in flyover country. Your job is pay taxes, vote for who they have decided over cocktails makes them feel better about themselves, and occasionally provide your inbred idiot sons and daughters for the army or police force or whatever you people without Ivy League educations do with your tawdry little lives.
Meanwhile, the Harvard-educated elitist geniuses will run the country according to their infinitely brighter intellectual and moral lights.
And whatever happens, do not be distracted by inconvenient facts that you might stumble upon as you listen to Faux News, or your hate-filled talk radio, or right-wing nutjob blogs. Pay no attention to the fact that small banks, run by hayseeds like yourselves, were in no financial troubles at all lending money and writing mortgages to people who could afford to pay it back, but who are now are being forced to pay for the failure of genius-level Harvard Business School ideas like Collateralized Debt Obligations which essentially brought down the greatest economy the world has ever seen.
And remember, it’s just a coincidence that Harvard grads John F. Kennedy and Robert S McNamara not only got us into the Vietnam war, they also determined the genius-level rules of engagement that caused inbound Naval aviators to look down at, but not attack, the surface-to-air missiles being unloaded at Haiphong Harbor. They’d see those same missiles again in a few weeks when they were shot down and killed by them.
That’s genius-level, Harvard-quality thinking. Not like that simpering idiot, that commonplace dolt Ronald Reagan. I mean, the man went to Eureka College, for God’s sake! Who’s even heard of Eureka College? The fact that he defied forty years of Harvard-educated State Department officials and defeated the Soviet Union with plain speaking and common sense and some antiquated, embarrassing and– one might say tacky – belief in his country and its people… well, that’s surely coincidence as well.
Here’s a final, quick little thought for you.
Saul Alinski wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote about it in her senior’s thesis. And if Hillary Clinton learned from it, Barack Obama taught from it: the term community organizer was coined by Alinski and was the centerpiece of his theory that the socialization of America could best be accomplished from within the system since Americans were alert to revolutions forced upon them from the outside.
One of the Rules for Radicals is Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. Think about the genius of that. Just let that sink in. When a Republican has an ethics scandal, it’s “hypocrisy” and “double standards” and all the rest. But when a Clinton or a Pelosi or a Charley Rangel or a Chris Dodd or a Barney Frank or a William Jefferson has an ethics scandal, no one bats an eye. Why? Because of course they’re immoral! They’re Democrats.
Alinski could see that moral people have to be held to moral standards when immoral people do not. We’d better learn a lesson from this, right quick. Here’s an example of the kind of lesson good and decent people must learn about people like Saul Alinski and his followers:
The Battle of Guadalcanal was the first real test of the US Marine Corps in World War II. There was real anger toward the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the atrocities they had committed in China and to American prisoners at Bataan, but the Marines had not yet dealt with them face to face and still reserved a professional soldier’s decency towards surrendering troops.
A Marine recon unit reported seeing Japanese troops flying a white flag on an isolated spit of land near Guadalcanal, and so A Marine named Frank Goettge asked for volunteers to help rescue these surrendering Japanese soldiers. 25 men stepped forward, and when they reached the beach the Marines warily went ashore to help the trapped Japanese. Once they were all within range, the Japanese opened fire with machine guns, and after hours of fighting only one Marine was able to escape. As he swam away he looked over his shoulder, and saw the flashing Samurai swords of the Japanese officers as they hacked at and beheaded the survivors. When reinforcements returned they found that their buddies had been mutilated and dismembered, and any Marine corps tattoos had been hacked off their arms and stuffed into their mouths.
The Marines never treated the Japense the same way after that.
Alinski and his followers want you to believe that if you fight dirty in response to people fighting dirty with you, then you have lost your morals and in fact your identity. But that’s a lie.
We are in a political fight to the death with people who will stop at nothing – and I’m not talking about your average decent Democrat, but rather these Alinski radicals. And if we don’t face the same realization as those Marines on Guadalcanal and give back as brutally as we have taken, then we will lose.
Which is what they want. And if we do lose to these kind of tactics, there will be no more decent people left in politics. As of today, we’re one short already.
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2009/07/27/the-destruction-of-sarah-palin/
-
Pentagon Takes Aim at Jets for Congressional Travel
Appropriations for Weapons and Other Items Drain Resources Needed to Fight Wars, Says a Spokesman for Defense Secretary
By BRODY MULLINS and AUGUST COLE
WASHINGTON -- The House's bid to buy new executive jets on the Pentagon's budget has broadened a conflict between Congress and the administration over defense priorities.
"It forces us to take money from things we do need to fund and redirect it for things we don't need," Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said Friday. "And in a time of war, we just can't afford that."
Lawmakers' move to upgrade the fleet of government jets -- used for travel by lawmakers and other senior government officials -- is just one of more than 1,000 spending projects lawmakers added to the Pentagon's budget for next year that weren't requested by President Barack Obama.
The request for additional executive jets, which pales next to the multibillion-dollar weapons systems targeted for cuts by Mr. Gates, comes at a time when the Obama administration is trying to shake up Pentagon budgeting and contracting.
"The bottom line is, for everything that they appropriate for us above and beyond what we've asked for, it will, at some point require us to find money from programs we do need," Mr. Morrell said.
Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.
"The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge," said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. "They don't have all of the knowledge, and they don't have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That's why we work together."
Congress says the extra jets are needed to replace an aging fleet of planes that are more expensive to operate and maintain. Congressional representatives say the planes are used 44% of the time by members of the military and 14.5% of the time by lawmakers. Administration and Pentagon officials say all the extra aircraft aren't needed.
The dispute over the jets is one element of a struggle between powerful members of Congress and the Obama administration over how to trim the federal budget in the face of ballooning deficits.
Overall, the House trimmed Mr. Obama's budget request for the Pentagon to $636.3 billion, down slightly from the $640.1 billion he sought. But in so doing, House appropriators also rearranged spending priorities, cutting programs Mr. Obama favored and replacing them with items he wanted cut.
In all, the House included more than 1,000 additional spending provisions totaling more than $2.8 billion, according to an analysis of the legislation by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Lawmakers set aside $485 million toward reviving a terminated Lockheed Martin Corp. contract to build new presidential helicopters, and added $674 million for three new C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes from Boeing Co. They also allocated $560 million to produce an additional engine design for the Lockheed-led F-35 Lightning II fighter jet after the Defense Department and White House said that one engine, made by United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit, was sufficient. General Electric Co. and Rolls Royce PLC are producing the second engine.
The House's plan to spend $550 million to buy eight business-class passenger jets to ferry senior government and military officials around the globe represents more than double Mr. Obama's request for $220 million to buy a total of four passenger jets, including two that are currently being leased by the Air Force.
The House Appropriations Committee, which approved the order for additional passenger planes, has said the new planes were needed to replace aging ones.
Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, the panel that approved the spending, declined Friday to discuss the planes.
The fight will continue when Congress returns from its recess. The administration persuaded lawmakers to kill plans to build more F-22 fighter jets. But a veto threat hangs over any added funding for the F-35's second engine, as well as for further money for new White House helicopters.
"We are very realistic, we know that you are only going to get a certain percentage of what you want," White House Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said Friday. "Changing Washington isn't easy. You are not going to get 100% of the cuts that you propose."
—Jake Sherman contributed to this article.
Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com and August Cole at august.cole@dowjones.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html
-
On the Huf post by Charles Rangel. A few posters have called him on it.
I don't know what other thread to post this under other then *corruption*.
From the esteemed Congressman:
"The relevant provisions apply to wealthy individuals and corporations that engage in abusive tax shelter transactions, and they have nothing to do with taxpayers who err in good faith on their tax returns."
What a joke.
The post from him:
***The Huffington PostSeptember 8, 2009
Rep. Charles RangelPosted: September 8, 2009 11:14 AM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
August Was a Sideshow, September Is for Progress
digg Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThis
Read More: Charlie Rangel, Health Care Bill, Health Care Debate, Health Care Reform, Health Reform, Rangel Tax Break, Tax Provision Health Care Bill, Politics News
Share Print CommentsThe August recess -- which was supposed to be all health care, all the time -- ended up being about anything and everything but health care. For a few tense days outside President Obama's town halls, it became about gun rights. Then abortion. For weeks, the focus was grandma and euthanasia. And now, Republicans are intent on making it about me.
The New York Post, with an assist from its ally Fox News Channel, reported last week that I had quietly snuck into the health care bill new provisions cracking down on taxpayers who make honest mistakes on their tax returns. That's quite an inflammatory scoop, even for the Post. It's also entirely made up.
The relevant provisions apply to wealthy individuals and corporations that engage in abusive tax shelter transactions, and they have nothing to do with taxpayers who err in good faith on their tax returns. They certainly aren't new. These provisions have passed both the House and Senate in the past, enjoyed bipartisan support, and were included in the president's budget. And they certainly weren't snuck in. These provisions were considered by the full Committee on Ways and Means during a public markup, and materials describing them have been public for months. Under this bill, the IRS will continue to waive penalties for taxpayers who err in good faith, and claims to the contrary are part of a continuing effort to undermine the health care bill by raising unrelated issues.
Our objective here is quite simple. We are attempting to provide health care for the millions of American families that cannot afford it, to end the discriminatory practice of denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, and to effectively lower costs by introducing competition and choice through a public option. This is not an attempt to fund abortions with taxpayer dollars or a secret attempt to hoist end-of-life decisions on America's elderly. This bill isn't a tax-penalty bill dressed up to look like a health insurance reform bill. It actually is a health insurance reform bill. That's it. The GOP would disingenuously have you think otherwise.
Republicans have decided the business of killing health care reform and upending a potential Obama victory is too important not to exploit anything that sticks, including an Ethics Committee investigation I myself initiated last fall. A spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner echoed the Post's faulty reporting about tax penalties, knowing full well no such language exists in the bill. The partisan attacks have had no impact on my effectiveness as Chairman. I am proud that the Committee on Ways and Means was the first committee in Congress to report out a truly comprehensive health reform bill, one with a strong public option that most represents the principles set out by President Obama. We did this by bringing the members of the Committee together for over 80 hours of spirited and detailed debate over the direction of reform.
The spectacles we've watched over the month of August have diverted attention away from our work and onto various distractions. Opponents cannot sideline health care reform on the merits, particularly when they lack a plan of their own, so they have resorted to unrelated wedge issues that serve to fire up the base but do little to advance actual reform. Folks responded by showing up to town halls with loaded firearms, burning public officials in effigy, making Nazi comparisons, and shouting down those with opposing viewpoints. But they forgot to bring something far more helpful: Facts. Solutions. Truth.
We have had our fill of sideshows in August. In September, we get back to the real work of providing health care reform to Americans who need it.
More in Politics...
Deeply Divided House Democrats Return To WorkWhy the President Has Been Losing on...It May Take A Revolt To Fix...Al Franken Draws Map Of U.S.--From Memory...
Ads by Google
Fast Relief for IRS Debt.
30 Second Quote to see how low you can settle IRS Debt.
FreedomTaxRelief.com
Comments6
Pending Comments1
FAQ: Comments and ModerationFAQ: HuffPost Accounts
Post Comment
Post Comment
You must be logged in to comment on this article. Log in or Create an account
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
View Comments: Newest First Oldest First HuffPost's Picks Expand All Collapse All
All comments on this article are pre-moderated. This means that every comment submitted will be reviewed by a moderator before it is posted to the site. Unfortunately, depending on the volume of comments, it may take time- + DickyTrik I'm a Fan of DickyTrik I'm a fan of this user permalink
Indeed! How can the country be worried about cracking down on honest mistakes done in good faith regarding tax returns when we have so much being done in BAD faith? Need I bring up those who oppose Ted Kennedy's healthcare initiatives or Van Jones' clean energy efforts?! What we need is to stop bothering our honest politicians so they can continue to work on overdue agendas!
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 PM on 09/08/2009
- + max hp I'm a Fan of max hp I'm a fan of this user 18 fans permalink
****************************** AN OPEN LETTER TO THE US CONGRESS ******************************
--------------------------------- Heed this or enjoy your last term in US Congress ----------------------------------
We, the people, DEMAND that a strong condition-free PUBLIC OPTION be included in whatever Health Care Reform legislation you enact. We will be watching your actions closely, so, keep the following in mind before casting your vote. Make it count for all Americans :-
Health Care Reform is MEANINGFULL only if:
1. There is a Public Option ( with a clear path to Single Payer, without Co-operatives or Triggers ).
2. Everybody is covered. (Without Exception)
3. Coverage can't be denied based on "Pre-existing" conditions.
4. It contains Patients' Rights.
5. Strict Regulations are imposed on insurance plans.
6. Affordability and costs to consumers, as well as providers, are addressed.
7. Accessibility, delivery and quality are maintained and/or improved.
8. There's oversight from medical, financial and nat.ional sec.urity persp.ectives.
9. Profit motive is REMOVED.
10. Innovation, Research guidelines and funding are addressed.
Health Care For Patients, NOT For Profit because Health Care For Profit is Health Care DENIED.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should an insurance middleman come between a patient and his/her doctor - especially, if the insurance middleman stands to gain from it.
Insurers and Employers have no business being in Health Care. They contribute nothing towards it.
.................... Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 09/08/2009
- + wonderone1 I'm a Fan of wonderone1 I'm a fan of this user permalink
Over the last eight years we have witnessed the most corrupt, unethical,and incompotent administration in U.S. History. The nerve of these republicans to try and distract attention from their failures and disdain for the poor by pointing to allegations lodged against Chairman Rangel; who I might add was an effective prosecutor and decorated veteran of the Korean conflict. Mr. Rangel, pass a health reform bill with a strong public action and ingnore these vipers, who have had 8 years to pass health care reform if they truly believed in it. Am I the only one who wishes the Democrats will just shut up and ram a bill down the throats of these ignorant, racist, intellectually challenged ingrates? Pass the bill, and these trailor park dwellers will thank you later.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 PM on 09/08/2009
- + RobHunt I'm a Fan of RobHunt I'm a fan of this user 5 fans permalink
"(They) reported last week that I had quietly snuck into the health care bill new provisions cracking down on taxpayers who make honest mistakes on their tax returns."
Mr. Rangel, How disingenous can you be? Do you really believe that the "attention" you've been getting recently has anything to do with language you've slipped into bills?
The fact is, people are OUTRAGED at the idea that a serial tax delinquent could be Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Every few months we learn more about your slipshod self-reporting that leaves out huge chunks of your income and assets. When people ask you why you can occupy FOUR rent-controlled apartments in one building, in defiance of the law, you tell them its "none of their business."
Some have called on you to resign as Chairman of that most powerful of House Committees, but that does not go far enough. You should resign your HOUSE SEAT immediately, and you should expect to be PROSECUTED for tax evasion and CONVICTED of same.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 PM on 09/08/2009
- + texaz3step I'm a Fan of texaz3step I'm a fan of this user permalink
Mr. Rangel, are you saying this line “Bar the IRS from waiving penalties against taxpayers who clearly erred in good faith" is not in the health care bill ? Does this also include someone that does it over and over, again and again?
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 09/08/2009
- + Kassandra I'm a Fan of Kassandra I'm a fan of this user 65 fans permalink
Well, in spite of the press Baucus sure doesn't have a plan that'll work. I wonder how he thinks Medicaid can take up the slack when it's being cut continually?
Give US a public Plan, Mr. Rangel*******
-
Rangel, Sign of the Times
This is why congressional approval ratings are at historic lows.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.), chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is becoming a metaphor for almost all the sins of our age.
Let us count the ways.
How about corruption? Currently, Rangel is under investigation by two House subcommittees for illegally holding four rent-stabilized apartments in New York and not disclosing more than $75,000 in income from a rental villa he owns. He also took free Caribbean trips paid for by corporate cronies and used his congressional letterhead to press for money for the City College of New York’s new educational center, which bears his name.
Rangel also acknowledged that he improperly listed his assets, as required by law, and failed to report additional checking accounts valued between $250,000 and $500,000 — princely sums acquired on a congressional salary.
Try also hypocrisy. Rangel is the head of the Ways and Means Committee that writes the nation’s income tax policy. The politician, who for generations has urged higher taxes, has chronically schemed to avoid paying them. Don’t dare try that if you are a waitress or schoolteacher.
In this regard, Rangel is similar to other Obama cabinet nominees and secretaries like Tom Daschle and Timothy Geithner — advocates of higher taxes and bigger government — who themselves were in violation of the federal tax code. In this weird new moral landscape, good public intentions apparently offset private lapses.
After the Republican scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R., Calif.), Rep. Mark Foley (R., Fla.), and Sen. Larry Craig (R., Idaho), new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to “drain the swamp,” to end the Republican “culture of corruption” and to create “the most ethical Congress ever.” Proclaiming ethical reform apparently means you have already enacted it.
In reality, by her tolerance for the ethically challenged like Rangel, John Murtha (D., Pa.), and others, Speaker Pelosi only reminds Americans that influence peddling and corruption are bipartisan sins: Those out of power allege them, those in power commit them.
Rangel’s situation also illustrates the problem of racial scapegoating by the nation’s elite, another example of rampant hypocrisy. During the health-care meltdown, overwhelmed by his own ethics problems, a frustrated Rangel lashed out at supposedly racist Americans: “Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?’”
Actually, they may wonder how it happened that the more successful and powerful you become in America, the more proof there is that the country is racist. Rangel would have us believe that an African-American’s election to the presidency, made possible in large part by millions of white supporters, translates into racist opposition to health-care legislation — or into Charles Rangel being unfairly charged with tax dodging.
Some of the most privileged Americans in the country have lectured us on race. Attorney General Eric Holder, a Columbia Law School grad, accused the country of cowardice for its reluctance to speak about race on his terms. President and Harvard Law alum Barack Obama asserted that a Cambridge, Mass., police officer acted stupidly in taking his friend, Harvard professor Skip Gates, down to the station after his invective-riddled hissy fit. New York governor David Paterson blames his sinking poll numbers on white racism, more prominent than ever, he thinks, in the age of Obama.
Then there is the case of controversial environmental czar and Yale Law graduate Van Jones claimed a “vicious smear campaign” did him in. Jones, remember, resigned after comparing President Bush to a crack addict, and asserting that white people were polluting the ghetto, and that only white students commit mass murders in the public schools, and, most disturbingly, after signing a “truther” petition calling for an investigation of the Bush administration’s purported role in causing 9/11. There were indeed smears that were racist — but largely on the part of Jones himself.
In all these disturbing trends, one Rep. Charles Rangel seems to be on the cutting edge. And still these political truths remain self-evident: Congressional reform Democrats are as corrupt as Republican reformers. Those who craft tax policy routinely violate it without compunction. Rules don’t apply to those in Washington, who are generous with someone else’s money, but stingy with their own. The false charge of racism has devolved into a convenient defense when elites find themselves trapped in their own self-created legal and ethical messes, or things don’t go their way.
If we wish to understand why congressional approval ratings are at historic lows, why corruption seems to be more blatant than ever, and why the public is tiring of racial scapegoating by the well-off, then we need look no further than Charles Rangel, emblem of our times.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. © 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWI0YzA4OGQ2NWRiZmFhZmNjNDI4MWE5MjA0ZDliNTg=
-
Remember Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens???
Remember who the msm was all over his case?
Did you know his conviction and indictment were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct?
The charges against him may have totally trumped up. I didn't know that until I just read this on Wikepedia. The msm has not publically exonerated him. Even Eric Holder had to admit there was misconduct.
Yet narry a peep about Rangle in the msm. If it wasn't for fox or drudge we probably wouldn't even know he is being investigated.
Controversies
In December 2003, the Los Angeles Times reported that Stevens had taken advantage of lax Senate rules to use his political influence to obtain a large amount of his personal wealth.[56] According to the article, while Stevens was already a millionaire "thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help," the lawmaker who is in charge of $800 billion a year, writes "preferences he wrote into law," from which he then benefits.[56]
Home remodeling and VECO
Stevens' home in Girdwood, AlaskaMay 29, 2007, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the FBI and a federal grand jury were investigating an extensive remodeling project at Stevens' home in Girdwood. Stevens' Alaska home was raided by the FBI and IRS on July 30, 2007.[57][58] The remodeling work doubled the size of the modest home. Public records show that the house was 2,471 square feet (230 m2) after the remodeling and that the property was valued at $271,300 in 2003, including a $5,000 increase in land value.[59] The remodel in 2000 was organized by Bill Allen, a founder of the VECO Corporation, an oil-field service company and has been estimated to have cost VECO and the various contractors $250,000 or more.[60] However, the residential contractor who finished the renovation for VECO, Augie Paone, "believes the [Stevens'] remodeling could have cost ― if all the work was done efficiently ― around $130,000 to $150,000, close to the figure Stevens cited last year."[61] The Stevens paid $160,000 for the renovations "and assumed that covered everything."[62]
In June, the Anchorage Daily News reported that a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., heard evidence in May about the expansion of Stevens' Girdwood home and other matters connecting Stevens to VECO.[63] In mid-June, FBI agents questioned several aides who work for Stevens as part of the investigation.[64] In July, Washingtonian magazine reported that Stevens had hired "Washington’s most powerful and expensive lawyer", Brendan Sullivan Jr., in response to the investigation.[65] In 2006, during wiretapped conversations with Bill Allen, Stevens expressed worries over potential misunderstandings and legal complications arising from the sweeping federal investigations into Alaskan politics.[66][67] On the witness stand, "Allen testified that VECO staff who had worked on his own house had charged 'way too much,' leaving him uncertain how much to invoice Stevens for when he had his staff work on the senator's house ... that he would be embarrassed to bill Stevens for overpriced labor on the house, and said he concealed some of the expense."[68]
[edit] Former aide McCabe
The Justice Department is also examining whether federal funds that Stevens steered to the Alaska SeaLife Center may have enriched a former aide.[69] Currently the United States Department of Commerce and the Interior Department's inspector general are investigating "how millions of dollars that Stevens (R-Alaska) obtained for the nonprofit Alaska SeaLife Center were spent."[69] According to CNN, "Among the questions is how about $700,000 of nearly $4 million directed to the National Park Service wound up being paid to companies associated with Trevor McCabe, a former legislative director for Stevens."[69]
[edit] Bob Penney
In September 2007, The Hill reported that Stevens had "steered millions of federal dollars to a sportfishing industry group founded by Bob Penney, a longtime friend." In 1998, Stevens invested $15,000 in a Utah land deal managed by Penney; in 2004, Stevens sold his share of the property for $150,000.[70]
[edit] Trial and aftermath
[edit] Indictment
On July 29, 2008 Stevens was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of failing to properly report gifts,[71][72] a felony,[1] and found guilty at trial three months later (October 27, 2008).[1] The charges relate to renovations to his home and alleged gifts from VECO Corporation, claimed to be worth more than $250,000.[73][74] The indictment followed a lengthy investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for possible corruption into Alaskan politicians and was based on his relationship with Bill Allen. Allen, then an oil service company executive, had earlier pleaded guilty, with sentencing suspended pending his cooperation in gathering evidence and giving testimony in other trials, to bribing several Alaskan state legislators, including a disputed claim about Stevens' son, former State Senator Ben Stevens. Stevens declared, "I'm innocent," and pleaded not guilty to the charges in a federal district court on July 31, 2008. Stevens asserted his right to a speedy trial so that he could have the opportunity to promptly clear his name and requested that the trial be held before the 2008 election.[75][76]
US District Court Judge in Washington DC Emmet G. Sullivan, on October 2, 2008 denied Stevens' chief counsel, Brendan Sullivan's mistrial petition due to allegations of withholding evidence by prosecutors. Thus, the latter were admonished, and would submit themselves for internal probe by the United States Department of Justice. Brady v. Maryland requires prosecutors to give a defendant all information for defense. Judge Sulllivan had earlier admonished the prosecution for sending home to Alaska a witness who might have helped the defense.[77][78]
The case was prosecuted by Principal Deputy Chief Brenda K. Morris, Trial Attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska.
[edit] Guilty verdict and consequences
Wikinews has related news: US Senator Ted Stevens convicted on 7 counts
On October 27, 2008, Stevens was found guilty of all seven counts of making false statements. Stevens is the fifth sitting senator ever to be convicted by a jury in U.S. history,[79] and the first since Senator Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ) in 1981[80] (although Senator David Durenberger (R-MN) pled guilty to a felony more recently, in 1995). Stevens faces a maximum penalty of five years per charge.[81] His sentencing hearing was originally scheduled February 25, but his attorneys told Judge Emmet Sullivan they would file motions to overturn the verdict by early December.[82] However, it was thought unlikely that he would have seen significant time in prison.[83]
Within a few days of his conviction, Stevens faced bipartisan calls for his resignation. Both parties' presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, were quick to call for Stevens to stand down. Obama said that Stevens needed to resign to help "put an end to the corruption and influence-peddling in Washington."[84] McCain said that Stevens "has broken his trust with the people" and needed to step down—a call echoed by his running mate, Sarah Palin, governor of Stevens' home state.[85] Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as fellow Republican Senators Norm Coleman, John Sununu and Gordon Smith also called for Stevens to resign. McConnell said there would be "zero tolerance" for a convicted felon serving in the Senate—strongly hinting that he would support Stevens' expulsion from the Senate unless Stevens resigned first.[86][87] Late on November 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that he would schedule a vote on Stevens' expulsion, saying that "a convicted felon is not going to be able to serve in the United States Senate."[88] Had Stevens been expelled after winning election, a special election would have been held to fill the seat through the remainder of the term, until 2014.[89] Some speculated Palin would have tried to run for the Senate via this special election.[90][91] No sitting Senator has been expelled since the Civil War.
Nonetheless, during a debate with his opponent Mark Begich days after his conviction, Stevens continued to claim innocence. "I have not been convicted. I have a case pending against me, and probably the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct by the prosecutors that is known." Stevens also cited plans to appeal.[92] Begich went on to defeat Stevens by 3,724 votes.[93]
On November 13, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced he would move to have Stevens expelled from the Senate Republican Conference (caucus) regardless of the results of the election. Losing his caucus membership would cost Stevens his committee assignments.[94] However, DeMint later decided to postpone offering his motion, saying that while there were enough votes to throw Stevens out, it would be a moot point if Stevens lost his reelection bid.[95] Stevens ended up losing the Senate race, and on November 20, 2008, gave his last speech to the Senate, which was met with a rare Senate standing ovation.[96]
In February 2009, FBI agent Chad Joy filed a whistleblower affidavit, alleging that prosecutors and FBI agents conspired to withhold and conceal evidence that could have resulted in a verdict of "not guilty."[97] In his affidavit, Joy alleged that prosecutors intentionally sent a key witness back to Alaska after the witness performed poorly during a mock cross examination. The witness, Rocky Williams, later notified the defense attorneys that his testimony would undercut the prosecution's claim that his company had spent its own money renovating Sen. Stevens' house. Joy further alleged that the prosecutors intentionally withheld Brady material including redacted prior statements of a witness, and a memo from Bill Allen stating that Sen. Stevens probably would have paid for the goods and services if asked. Joy further alleged that a female FBI agent had an inappropriate relationship with Allen, who also gave gifts to FBI agents and helped one agent's relative get a job.
As a result of Joy's affidavit and claims by the defense that prosecutorial misconduct caused an unfair trial, Judge Sullivan ordered a hearing to be held on February 13, 2009, to determine whether a new trial should be ordered. At the February 13 hearing the judge held the prosecutors in contempt for failing to deliver documents to Stevens' legal counsel.[98] Judge Sullivan called this conduct "outrageous."
[edit] Convictions voided and indictment dismissed
On April 1, 2009, NPR’s Nina Totenberg, citing sources close to the case, reported that Attorney General Eric Holder decided to drop the government’s opposition to the motion for a new trial. Totenberg also reported that Holder intended to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, meaning that he would not seek to retry the case. Since this occurred prior to sentencing, this would have the effect of vacating Stevens' conviction. Holder was reportedly very angry at the prosecutors’ apparent withholding of exculpatory evidence, and wanted to send a message that prosecutorial misconduct would not be tolerated under his watch. After the prosecutors had been held in contempt, Holder replaced the entire trial team, including top officials at the public integrity section. However, Totenberg reported, the misconduct, Stevens’ age, and the fact he was no longer in office prompted him to drop all charges against Stevens—effectively vacating the guilty verdict.[3] The Associated Press subsequently confirmed NPR’s report.[99]
The final straw for Holder, according to numerous reports, was the discovery of a previously undocumented interview with Bill Allen, the prosecution's star witness. Allen stated that the fair-market value of the repairs to Stevens' house was around $80,000—far less than the $250,000 he said it cost at trial. More seriously, Allen said in the interview that he didn't recall talking to Bob Persons, a friend of Stevens, regarding the repair bill for Stevens' House. This directly contradicted Allen's testimony at trial, in which he claimed Stevens asked him to give Persons a note Stevens sent him asking for a bill on the repair work. At trial, Allen said Persons had told him the note shouldn't be taken seriously because "Ted's just covering his ass." Even without the notes, Stevens' attorneys claimed that they thought Allen was lying about the conversation. [100]
Later that day, Stevens' attorney, Brendan Sullivan, said that Holder's decision was forced by "extraordinary evidence of government corruption." He also said that prosecutors not only withheld evidence, but "created false testimony that they gave us and actually presented false testimony in the courtroom"--two incidents that would have made it very likely that the convictions would have been overturned on appeal.[101]
On April 7, 2009, federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan formally accepted Holder's motion to set aside the verdict and throw out the indictment [102], based on what he called the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he'd ever seen. He also initiated a criminal contempt investigation of six members of the prosecution. Although an internal probe by the Office of Professional Responsibility was already underway, Sullivan said he was not willing to trust it due to the "shocking and disturbing" nature of the misconduct. [103]
-
BY DONALD L. BARLETT and JAMES B. STEELE
As the Bush administration waned, the Treasury shoveled more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in tarp funds into the financial system—without restrictions, accountability, or even common sense. The authors reveal how much of it ended up in the wrong hands, doing the opposite of what was needed.
Just inside the entrance to the U.S. Treasury, on the other side of a forbidding array of guard stations and scanners that control access to the Greek Revival building, lies one of the most beautiful interior spaces in all of Washington. Ornate bronze doors open inward to a two-story-high chamber. Chandeliers line the coffered ceiling, casting a soft glow on the marble walls and richly inlaid marble floor.
In this room, starting in 1869 and for many decades thereafter, the U.S. government conducted many of its financial transactions. Bags of gold, silver, and paper currency arrived here by horse-drawn vans and were carted upstairs to the vaults. On the busy trading floor, Treasury clerks supplied commercial banks with coins and currency, exchanged old bills for new, cashed checks, redeemed savings bonds, and took in government receipts. In those days, anyone could observe all this activity firsthand—could actually witness the government and the nation’s bankers doing business. The public space where this occurred became known as the Cash Room.
Today the Cash Room is used for press conferences, ceremonial functions, and departmental parties. And that’s too bad. If Treasury still used the room as it once did, then perhaps we’d have more of a clue about what happened to the billions of dollars that flew out of Treasury to selected American banks in the waning days of the Bush administration.
Last October, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, putting $700 billion into the hands of the Treasury Department to bail out the nation’s banks at a moment of vanishing credit and peak financial panic. Over the next three months, Treasury poured nearly $239 billion into 296 of the nation’s 8,000 banks. The money went to big banks. It went to small banks. It went to banks that desperately wanted the money. It went to banks that didn’t want the money at all but had been ordered by Treasury to take it anyway. It went to banks that were quite happy to accept the windfall, and used the money simply to buy other banks. Some banks received as much as $45 billion, others as little as $1.5 million. Sixty-seven percent went to eight institutions; 33 percent went to the rest. And that was just the money that went to banks. Tens of billions more went to other companies, all before Barack Obama took office. It was the largest single financial intervention by Treasury into the banking system in U.S. history.
But once the money left the building, the government lost all track of it. The Treasury Department knew where it had sent the money, but nothing about what was done with it. Did the money aid the recovery? Was it spent for the purposes Congress intended? Did it save banks from collapse? Paulson’s Treasury Department had no idea, and didn’t seem to care. It never required the banks to explain what they did with this unprecedented infusion of capital.
Exactly one year has elapsed since the onset of the financial crisis and the passage of the bailout bill. Some measure of scrutiny and control has since been imposed by the Obama administration, but even today it’s hard to walk back the cat and trace the money. Up to a point, though, it’s possible to reconstruct some of what happened in the first chaotic and crucial three months of the bailout, when Treasury was still in the hands of Henry Paulson and most of the money was disbursed. Needless to say, there is no central clearinghouse for information about the tarp money. To get details of any kind means starting with the hundreds of individual recipients, then poring over S.E.C. filings, annual reports, and other documentation—in other words, performing the standard due diligence that the government itself failed to perform. In the report that follows, we have no more than dipped a toe into the morass, but one fact emerges clearly: a lot of the money wound up in the coffers of some very surprising institutions— institutions that should have been seen as “troubling” as much as “troubled.”
A Reverse Holdup
The intention of Congress when it passed the bailout bill could not have been more clear. The purpose was to buy up defective mortgage-backed securities and other “toxic assets” through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as tarp. But the bill was in fact broad enough to give the Treasury secretary the authority to do whatever he deemed necessary to deal with the financial crisis. If tarp had been a credit card, it would have been called Carte Blanche. That authority was all Paulson needed to switch gears, within a matter of days, and change the entire thrust of the program from buying bad assets to buying stock in banks.
Why did this happen? Ostensibly, Treasury concluded that the task of buying up toxic assets would take too long to help the financial system and unlock the credit markets. So, theoretically, something more immediate was needed—hence the plan to inject billions into banks, whether or not they wanted or needed the money. To be sure, Citigroup and Bank of America were in precarious condition. So was the insurance giant A.I.G., which had already received an infusion from the Federal Reserve and ultimately would receive more tarp money—$70 billion—than any single bank. But rather than just aiding institutions in distress, Treasury set out to disburse money in a more freewheeling way, hoping it would pass rapidly into the financial system and somehow address the system-wide credit crunch. Even at this early stage, it was hard to escape the feeling that the real strategy was less than scientific—amounting to a hope that if a massive pile of money was simply thrown at the economy, some of it would surely do something useful.
On Sunday, October 12, between 6:30 and 7 p.m., Paulson made a series of calls to the C.E.O.’s of the biggest banks—the so-called Big 9—and asked them to come to Treasury the next afternoon for a meeting on the financial crisis. He was short on details, as he would be throughout the crisis. A series of e-mails obtained by Judicial Watch, a Washington public-interest group, offers a window on the moment. The C.E.O. of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit, had agreed to attend, but asked his staff to scope out the purpose. “Can you find out soon as possible what Paulson invite to VP [Vikram Pandit] for meeting at Treasury this afternoon is about?” a Citigroup executive in New York wrote the bank’s Washington office. When Citi’s high-powered lobbyist Nicholas Calio called Paulson’s office, he was told only that Pandit should attend.
Top Treasury staffers were likewise in the dark. Paulson’s chief of staff, James Wilkinson, sent out a 7:30 a.m. e-mail: “Can someone tell Michele Davis, [Kevin] Fromer and me who the ‘Big 9’ are?”
By midmorning, people finally had the names—Vikram Pandit, of Citigroup; Jamie Dimon, of J. P. Morgan Chase; Kenneth Lewis, of Bank of America; Richard Kovacevich, of Wells Fargo; John Thain, of Merrill Lynch; John Mack, of Morgan Stanley; Lloyd Blankfein, of Goldman Sachs; Robert Kelly, of the Bank of New York Mellon; and Ronald Logue, of State Street bank. Their destination was Room 3327, the Secretary’s Conference Room, on the third floor.
Paulson laid before them a one-page memo, “CEO Talking Points.” He wasn’t there to ask for their help, Paulson would say; he was there to tell them what he expected from them. To “arrest the stress in our financial system,” Treasury would unveil a $250 billion plan the next day to buy preferred stock in banks. Paulson’s memo told the bankers bluntly that “your nine firms will be the initial participants.” Paulson wasn’t calling for volunteers; he made it clear the banks had no choice but to allow Treasury to buy stock in their companies. It was basically a reverse holdup, with Paulson holding the gun and forcing the banks to take the money.
Some of the C.E.O.’s had misgivings, fearing that by accepting tarp money their banks would be perceived as shaky by investors and customers. Paulson explained that opting out wasn’t an option. “If a capital infusion is not appealing,” the memo continued, “you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.” Paulson gave the bankers until 6:30 p.m. to clear everything with their boards and sign the papers.
Treasury had prepared a form with blank spaces for the name of the bank and the amount of tarp money requested. Each C.E.O. filled in the two blanks by hand—$10 billion, $15 billion, $25 billion, whatever—and then signed and dated the document. That was all it took.
“There Is No Problem Here”
But this was just the beginning. It’s one thing to call nine big banks into a room and give them what turned out to be a total of $125 billion. That required little more than a few hours. It’s quite a different matter to look out over the landscape of 8,000 other U.S. banks and decide which ones should get slices of the tarppie. Moreover, the guiding principle was never clear. Was it to give money to essentially sound banks, so that they could help inject more money into the credit markets? Was it to pull troubled banks into the clear? Was it both—and more?
Regardless, the mechanism to disburse all this money even more widely was an entity called the Office of Financial Stability. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a functioning office yet—it was just a name written into a piece of legislation. To lead it, Paulson picked Neel Kashkari, a 35-year-old former Goldman Sachs banker who had followed Paulson to Treasury when he became secretary, in July 2006. Kashkari was an odd choice to oversee a federal bailout of private companies. A free-market Republican, he had downplayed the gravity of the subprime-mortgage crisis only months before his appointment, reportedly sending the message to one gathering of bankers, “There is no problem here.”
Kashkari and other Paulson aides cobbled together the Office of Financial Stability under immense time pressure. They press-ganged people from elsewhere in Treasury and from far-flung government departments. By the end of the year, there were more “detailees” on loan from other offices (52) than there were permanent staff (38). They were spread out all over Treasury, from the ground floor to the third. Some occupied space in leased offices six blocks away. It was a strange agglomeration of people—stretching from Washington to San Francisco—who had never worked together before.
There were no internal controls to gauge success or failure. The goal was simply to dispense as much money as possible, as fast as possible. When Treasury began giving billions to the banks, the department had no policies in place to ensure that the banks were using the money in ways that met the purposes of the program, however defined. One main purpose, as noted, was to free up credit, but there was no incentive to lend and nothing to stop a bank from simply sitting on the money, bolstering its balance sheet and investing in Treasury bills. Indeed, Treasury’s plan was expressly not to ask the banks what they did with the money. As the Government Accountability Office later learned, “the standard agreement between Treasury and the participating institutions does not require that these institutions track or report how they plan to use, or do use, their capital investments.” When the G.A.O. asked Treasury if it intended to ask all tarp recipients to provide such an accounting, Treasury said it did not—and would not. “There’s not a bank in this country that would lend money under [these] terms,” Elizabeth Warren, the chair of a Congressional Oversight Panel that was eventually charged by Congress with overseeing tarp activities, would tell a Senate committee.
There wasn’t even anyone within the tarp office to keep track of the money as it was being disbursed. tarpgave that job—along with a $20 million fee—to a private contractor, Bank of New York Mellon, which also happened to be one of the Big 9. So here was a case of a beneficiary helping to oversee a process in which it was a direct participant. Most of the tarp contracts—for everything from legal services to accounting—were awarded under an expedited procedure that government watchdogs regard as “high-risk,” because it lacks a wide array of routine safeguards. In its first three months of operation, the Office of Financial Stability awarded 15 contracts worth tens of millions of dollars to law firms, fiscal agents, management consultants, and providers of various other services. There was enormous potential for conflicts of interest, and no procedure to deal with them. When the possibility of conflict of interest was raised, two of the contractors voiced vague promises to maintain an “open dialog” and “work in good faith” with Treasury, and left it at that.
When Henry Paulson unveiled the bank-rescue plan, he emphasized that it wasn’t a bailout. “This is an investment, not an expenditure, and there is no reason to expect this program will cost taxpayers anything,” he declared. For every $100 Treasury invested in the banks, he maintained, it would receive stock and warrants valued at $100. This claim proved optimistic. The Congressional Oversight Panel that later reviewed the 10 largest tarp transactions concluded that Treasury “paid substantially more for the assets it purchased under the tarp than their then-current market value.” For each $100 spent, Treasury received assets worth about $66.
Ask and You Shall Receive
In those first few weeks, money gushed out of Treasury and into the tarp pipeline at a torrential rate. After giving $125 billion to the big banks, Treasury moved on to the second round, wiring $33.6 billion to 21 other banks on November 14 in exchange for preferred stock. A week later it sent $2.9 billion to 23 more banks. As noted, by the time Barack Obama took office, the tarp tab totaled more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. In its first six months, the new administration disbursed an additional $125 billion to banks, mortgage companies, A.I.G., and the big auto manufacturers.
To the public, the bailout looked like a gold rush by banks competing for tarp money. It was indeed partly that, but the reality is more complex. While some banks lobbied aggressively for tarp money, many others that had no interest in the money were pressured to take it. Treasury’s explanation is that regulators knew which banks were strongest and wanted to get more capital into their hands in order to free up credit. But it’s also true that spreading the money around to a large number of small and medium-size banks helped create the impression that the bailout wasn’t just for a few big boys on Wall Street.
It’s impossible to overstate how casual the process was, or how little Treasury asked of the banks it targeted. Like most bankers, Ray Davis, the C.E.O. of Umpqua Bank, a solid, respectable local bank in Portland, Oregon, followed with great interest all the news out of Washington last fall. But he didn’t see that tarp had much relevance to his own bank. Umpqua was well run. It wasn’t bogged down by a portfolio of bad loans. It had healthy reserves.
Then he got a call from a Treasury Department representative asking if Umpqua would like to participate in the Treasury program and suggesting it would be a good thing for Umpqua to do. Davis listened politely, but the fact was, he says, that Umpqua “didn’t need the funds. Our capital resources were very high.”
The next day, Davis was in his office when another call came through from the same Treasury representative. “Basically what he said was that the secretary of the Treasury would like to have your application on his desk by five o’clock tomorrow afternoon,” Davis recalls.
The “application” was the paperwork for a capital infusion, and Davis was told it would be faxed over right away. By now he was sold on participating. “Here was somebody from the secretary of the Treasury calling,” Davis says, “and complimenting us on the strength of our company and saying you need to do this, to help the government, to be a good American citizen—all that stuff—and I’m saying, ‘That’s good. You’ve got me. I’m in.’”
The most urgent task was to complete the application and get it back to Treasury the next day, and this had Davis in a sweat: “I pictured this 200-page fax that would take me three weeks of work crammed into one evening.” Imagine Davis’s surprise when a staff member walked in soon afterward with the official “Application for tarp Capital Purchase Program.” It consisted of two pages, most of it white space.
If tarp accomplishes nothing else, it has struck a mighty blow for simplicity in government. The application was only 24 lines long, and asked such tough questions as the name and address of the bank, the name of the primary contact, the amount of its common and preferred stock, and how much money the bank wanted. Anyone who has filled out the voluminous federal forms required in order to be eligible for a college loan would die for such an application. Davis recalls that, when the two faxed pages were brought to him, all he could say was “Really?” As soon as Umpqua’s application was approved, Treasury wired $214 million to Umpqua’s account.
What happened in Portland happened elsewhere across the country. Peter Skillern, who heads the Community Reinvestment Association, a nonprofit group in North Carolina, describes a conference he attended where bankers explained that they had been “contacted by their regulators and told by them that they would be taking tarp.”
One policy that tarp did decide to adopt was to keep confidential the name of any bank that was deniedtarp funds—but it never had to invoke this rule. In those early months, with billions being wired all across the country, no financial institution that asked for tarp money was turned away.
-
Small Bank, Sharp Teeth
With few restrictions or controls in place, bailout money found its way not only to banks that didn’t really need it but also to banks whose business practices left much to be desired. On November 21, $180 million in tarp money wound up in the affluent seaside community of Santa Barbara, California. The tarp dollars flowed mostly into the coffers of a beige, Spanish-style building on Carrillo Street, home to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.
This might appear to be just the kind of regional bank that Treasury had in mind as an ideal beneficiary oftarp. The bank has been a fixture in Santa Barbara for decades, serving small businesses as well as wealthy individuals. It sponsors Little League teams, funds scholarships to send local kids to college, and takes an active role in community groups. It plays up its “longstanding commitment to giving back to the communities we serve.”
How much tarp money made its way through S.B.B.&T. and into the local community is not known. But, as it happens, the bank also operates a little-known and controversial program far from the lush enclaves of Santa Barbara. Like an absentee landlord, the community bank with the “give back” philosophy in Santa Barbara turns out to be a big player in poor neighborhoods throughout the country. And not in a nice way. Outside Santa Barbara, S.B.B.&T. peddles what are known as refund-anticipation loans (rals)—high-interest loans to the poor that are among the most predatory around.
A ral is a short-term loan to taxpayers who have filed for a tax refund. Rather than waiting one or two weeks for their refund from the I.R.S., they take out a bank loan for an amount equal to their refund, minus interest, fees, and other charges. Banks operate in concert with tax preparers who complete the paperwork, and then the banks write the taxpayer a check. The loan is secured by the taxpayer’s expected refund. rals are theoretically available to everyone, but they are used overwhelmingly by the working poor. Ordinarily, the loans have a term of only a few weeks—the time it takes the I.R.S. to process the return and send out a check—but the interest charges and fees are so steep that borrowers can lose as much as 20 percent of the value of their tax refund. A recent study estimated that annual rates on somerals run as high as 700 percent.
Santa Barbara is one of three banks that dominate this obscure corner of the banking market—the other two being J. P. Morgan Chase and HSBC. But unlike the two big banks, for which rals are but one facet of a broad-based business, Santa Barbara has come to rely heavily for its financial well-being on these high-interest loans to poor people. Interest earned from rals accounted for 24 percent of the banking company’s interest earnings in 2008, second only to income generated by commercial-real-estate loans. Under pressure from consumer groups, some banks, including J. P. Morgan Chase, have lowered their ralfees. Not Santa Barbara. Chi Chi Wu, of the National Consumer Law Center, in Boston, calls Santa Barbara Bank & Trust “a small bank with sharp teeth.”
The U.S. Department of Justice and state authorities in California, New Jersey, and New York have taken action against tax preparers with whom S.B.B.&T. works, charging them with deceptive advertising and with preparing fraudulent returns. Santa Barbara later took a $22 million hit on its books because of unpaid refund-anticipation loans.
The bank insists that its tarp money didn’t go to finance ral. “The capital received by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust under the U.S. Treasury Department’s Capital Purchase Program was not intended nor is it being used to fund or provide liquidity for any Refund Anticipation Loans,” according to Deborah L. Whiteley, an executive vice president of Pacific Capital Bancorp, Santa Barbara’s parent company. Other banks that have received tarp money have made similar statements, contending that money received from Washington simply became part of their capital base and was not earmarked for any specific purpose. But in a conference call with analysts on November 21, Stephen Masterson, the chief financial officer of Pacific Capital Bancorp, admitted that tarp “obviously helps us .… We didn’t take the tarp money to increase our ral program or to build our ral program, but it certainly helps our capital ratios.”
Indeed, the infusion from Treasury may well have been a lifeline for Santa Barbara. The Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina, which has been tracking S.B.B.&T.’s finances and its ralprogram for years, concluded in 2008 that S.B.B.&T. would be losing money if it weren’t putting the squeeze on poor people around the country.
Gouging Needy Students
KeyBank of Cleveland is another institution that was given the nod by Treasury officials—and another bank whose lending practices prompt the question: What were they thinking?
Last fall KeyBank received $2.5 billion in tarp money. Its parent company is KeyCorp, a major bank holding company headquartered in Cleveland. With 989 full-service branches spread across 14 states, KeyCorp describes itself as “one of the nation’s largest bank-based financial services companies,” with assets of $98 billion. It also ranks as the nation’s seventh-largest education lender. In the summer of 2008, as banks and Wall Street firms were unraveling faster than they could count up their losses, KeyCorp delivered a decidedly upbeat report on its condition to investors. “Our costs are well controlled,” the company stated. “Our fee revenue is strong.…Our reserves are strong.…We remain well capitalized.”
What the report did not mention was a host of other problems. KeyCorp was in the midst of negotiations with the I.R.S. over questionable tax-leasing deals, and had had to deposit $2 billion in escrow with the government—forcing it to raise emergency capital and slash dividends after 43 consecutive years of annual growth. Meanwhile, consumer advocates had KeyBank in their sights because of the way it conducted its student-loan business, which they described as nakedly predatory. The Salt Lake Tribunereported that “KeyBank not only funds unscrupulous schools, it seeks them out, strikes up lucrative partnerships, and, in the process, suckers students into thinking the schools are legitimate.”
Over the years, thousands of students have secured education loans from KeyBank to attend a broad range of career-training schools—schools offering instruction in how to use or repair computers, how to become an electronics technician or even a nurse. One of the schools was Silver State Helicopters, which was based in Las Vegas and operated flight schools in a half-dozen states. During high-pressure sales pitches, people looking to change careers were encouraged to simultaneously sign up for flight school and complete a loan application that would be forwarded to KeyBank. Once approved, KeyBank, in keeping with long-standing practice, would give all the tuition money up front directly to Silver State. If a student dropped out, Silver State kept the tuition and the student remained on the hook for the full amount of the loan, at a hefty interest rate.
The same rule applied if Silver State shut itself down, which it did without warning on February 3, 2008. “Because the monthly operating expenses, even at the recently streamlined levels, continue to exceed cash flow,” an e-mail to employees explained, “the board has elected to suspend all operations effective at 5 p.m. today.” More than 750 employees in 18 states were out of work. More than 2,500 students had their training (for which they had paid as much as $70,000) cut short.
Silver State Helicopters was a flight school, but it might more accurately be thought of as a Ponzi scheme, according to critics. As long as there was a continual source of loan money, keeping the scheme afloat, all was well. KeyBank bundled the loans into securities, just as the subprime-mortgage marketers had done, and sold them on Wall Street. But when Wall Street failed to buy at an adequate interest rate, the money supply evaporated. As KeyBank dryly put it, “In 2007, Key was unable to securitize its student loan portfolio at cost-effective rates.” Without the loans—in other words, without the cooperation of Wall Street—the school had no income.
In February 2009, Fitch Ratings service, which rates the ability of debt issuers to meet their commitments, placed 16 classes of KeyCorp student-loan transactions totaling $1.75 billion on “Ratings Watch Negative,” signaling the possibility of a future downgrade in their creditworthiness.
Predator to the Rescue
The credit-card behemoth Capital One, an institution that many Americans probably don’t even realize is a bank, maintains its headquarters in McLean, in northern Virginia. Over the years, Capital One’s phenomenally successful marketing strategy has made the company the fifth-largest credit-card issuer in the U.S., and it has used its profits to expand into retail banking, home-equity loans, and other kinds of lending.
Capital One never revealed what it planned to do with the $3.5 billion tarp check it received from the U.S. Treasury on November 14, 2008, but three weeks later, the company bought one of Washington’s premier financial institutions, Chevy Chase Bank. To Washingtonians, Chevy Chase was a model corporate citizen. But outside Washington, it had a different reputation. The company’s mortgage subsidiary had engaged in practices that were at the core of the nation’s mortgage meltdown—risky loans with teaser interest rates that later went bad. The bank’s portfolio of mortgages from around the country was stuffed with a high percentage of so-called option arm—adjustable-rate mortgages with many different payment options. One of the most common kept a homeowner’s monthly payment the same for years, but the interest rate rose almost immediately. When the interest exceeded the amount of the monthly payment, the excess was tacked onto the principal, pushing homeowners ever deeper into debt. Having been lured by what a federal judge would call the “siren call” of this kind of mortgage, many Chevy Chase mortgage holders were on the brink of foreclosure, or had already fallen over the edge. By mid-2008, Chevy Chase’s “nonperforming” assets had tripled to $490 million since the previous September.
With Chevy Chase rapidly deteriorating, along came Capital One. Flush with tarp money, Capital One became a bailout czar of its own. It bought Chevy Chase for $520 million and assumed $1.75 billion of its bad loans. The purchase price was a fraction of what Chevy Chase would have brought before it wandered off into the wilderness of exotic mortgages and risky lending.
Meanwhile, even as it was bailing out Chevy Chase, Capital One was putting the squeeze on many thousands of its own credit-card holders, sharply raising their interest rates and imposing other conditions that made credit far more expensive and difficult to obtain. For many cardholders, rates jumped overnight from 7.9 percent to as much as 22.9 percent. Rather than using its multi-billion-dollar government infusion to prime the credit pump, Capital One in fact began turning off the spigot.
Capital One’s actions enraged its customers, many of whom had been cardholders for decades. The bank was engulfed with complaints. “The last I checked you were given money from the government for the specific purpose of freeing up credit to stimulate spending and help move the economy out of recession,” wrote a woman in Holland, Michigan. This was “just the opposite of what you did.” But other credit-card companies that received federal bailout money, such as Bank of America, J. P. Morgan Chase, and Citibank, would take the same route as Capital One, sharply raising interest rates, cutting off credit to millions of people, and frustrating the stated rationale for Treasury’s bailout.
-
After the Earthquake
Because all dollar bills are alike, and because follow-up tracking by the government has been so minimal, it’s often impossible to determine if any bank or other financial institution used tarp money for any particular, discernible purpose. Only A.I.G., Bank of America, and Citigroup were subject to any reporting requirements at all, and the reporting has been spotty. But what is possible to say is that tarpallowed many recipients to spend money in ways they would have been unable to do otherwise. It’s also the case that recipients of tarp money continued to behave as if a financial earthquake hadn’t just shaken the world economy.
The Riviera Country Club is about a mile from the Pacific Ocean, in a scenic canyon north of Los Angeles. Riviera is home to one of the most storied tournaments on the P.G.A. Tour. This year the tournament was sponsored by a tarp recipient, the Northern Trust Company of Chicago. Northern was founded more than a century ago to cater to wealthy Chicagoans, and not much about its clientele has changed since then, except that now the company caters to the wealthy not just in Chicago but everywhere. According to the bank, its wealth-management group caters to those “with assets typically exceeding $200 million.” The company manages $559 billion in assets—a sum nearly as great as what has so far been spent on the tarpprogram itself.
When Northern Trust received $1.6 billion in tarp funds, a spokesman for the bank said that it was “too soon to say specifically” how the money would be used. But the company’s president and C.E.O., Frederick Waddell, noted that “the program will provide us with additional capital to maximize growth opportunities.” Three months later, the bank sponsored the Northern Trust Open, flying in wealthy clients from around the country. To entertain them, the bank brought in Sheryl Crow, Chicago, and Earth, Wind & Fire. A Northern Trust spokesman declined to say how much all this cost, but explained that it was really just a business decision “to show appreciation for clients.”
Northern Trust was acting no differently from many other tarp recipients. One of the most blatant examples was Citigroup’s plan to buy a $50 million private jet to fly executives around the country. A public outcry forced Citigroup to abandon that scheme, but the bank quietly went ahead with a $10 million renovation of its executive offices on Park Avenue, in New York. Given that Citigroup had already gone to the government three times for tarp assistance totaling $45 billion, and was not a paragon of public trust, retrofitting the windows with “Safety Shield 800” blastproof window film may have just been common sense.
The excesses weren’t confined to big-city banks. A subsidiary of North Carolina–based B.B.&T., after accepting $3.1 billion in tarp money, sent dozens of employees to a training session at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Sarasota, Florida. TCF Financial Corp., based in Wayzata, Minnesota, sent 40 “high-performing” managers, lenders, and other employees on a junket in February to Cancún, soon after receiving more than $360 million in tarp funds.
But let’s face it: episodes like these, infuriating as they may be, aren’t the real issue. The real issue is tarpitself, one of the most questionable ventures the U.S. government has ever pursued. Adopted as a plan to buy up toxic assets—one that was quickly deemed impractical even by those who first proposed it—it evolved into something more closely resembling an all-purpose slush fund flowing out to hundreds of institutions with their own interests and goals, and no incentive to deploy the money toward any clearly defined public purpose.
By and large, the cash that went to the Big 9 simply became part of their capital base, and most of the big banks declined to indicate where the money actually went. Because of the sheer size of these institutions, it’s simply impossible to trace. Bank of America no doubt used a portion of its $25 billion in tarp funds to help it absorb Merrill Lynch. Citigroup revealed in its first quarterly report after receiving $45 billion intarp funds that it had used $36.5 billion to buy up mortgages and to make new loans, including home loans.
A.I.G., the largest single tarp beneficiary, wasn’t even a bank. The insurance company used its $70 billion in tarp funds to pay off a previous government infusion from the Federal Reserve. The original bailout money had flowed through A.I.G. to Wall Street firms and foreign banks that had incurred big losses on credit-default swaps and other exotic obligations. These were basically the casino-style wagers made by A.I.G. and the counterparties—wagers they lost. The government justified the help by saying it was necessary to prevent disruption to the economy that would be caused by a “disorderly wind-down” of A.I.G. The collapse of Lehman Brothers had occurred just days before the Fed took action, and the shock waves on Wall Street from yet another implosion might have been catastrophic. Bankruptcy court, where troubled corporations routinely wind down their disorderly affairs, would have been another option, though that prospect might not have quickly enough addressed the gathering sense of urgency and doom. We’ll never know. Certainly bankruptcy court would not have allowed A.I.G.’s clients to get full value for their bad investments.
Instead, A.I.G. was able to pay off its counterparties 100 cents on the dollar. The largest payout—$12.9 billion—went to Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment house presided over by Paulson before he moved into his Treasury job. Merrill Lynch, the world’s largest brokerage—then in the process of being taken over by Bank of America—received $6.8 billion. Bank of America itself received $5.2 billion. Citigroup, the nation’s largest bank, received $2.3 billion. But it wasn’t just Wall Street that benefitted. A.I.G. also funneled tens of billions of tarp dollars to banks on the other side of the Atlantic.
Some banks receiving tarp funds bristle at the notion that the taxpayer-funded program is a bailout. They say it is an investment in banks by the federal government, one that requires them to pay interest and ultimately pay back the money or face a financial penalty. In fact, many banks are making their scheduled payments to Treasury, and others have paid off billions of dollars in tarp funds (as well as interest). Totarp supporters, this is evidence of a sound investment. But at this stage it isn’t clear that every institution will be able to make the interest payments and buy back the government’s holdings. As of this writing, some banks, including Pacific Capital Bancorp, the parent of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, have not been able to make their scheduled payments. No one can predict how many banks will ultimately come up short. But in the meantime tarp has been a very good deal for banks, because it gave them, courtesy of the taxpayers, access to capital that would have cost them substantially more in the private market, while exacting nothing from the beneficiaries in the form of a quid pro quo.
Based on the reluctance of many banks to take the money in the first place, and the swiftness with which other banks have repaid tarp funds, the main conclusion to be drawn is that relatively few were actually endangered. Rather than targeting the weak for relief—or allowing them to fail, as the government allowed millions of ordinary Americans to fail—Paulson and Treasury pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the financial system without prior design and without prospective accountability. What was this all about? A case of panic by Treasury and the Federal Reserve? A financial over-reaction of cosmic proportions? A smoke screen to take care of a small number of Wall Street institutions that received 100 cents on the dollar for some of the worst investments they ever made?
More than five months after the bulk of the bailout money had been distributed into bank coffers, Elizabeth Warren plaintively raised the central and as yet unanswered question: “What is the strategy that Treasury is pursuing?” And she basically threw up her hands. As far as she could see, Warren went on, Treasury’s strategy was essentially “Take the money and do what you want with it.”
-
Congressional ethics report leaked, reveals names
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091030/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_leaked_ethics_report
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 30, 9:10 am ET
WASHINGTON – Internal investigations into the conduct of over two dozen House members have been exposed in an extraordinary, Internet-era breach of security involving the secretive process by which Congress polices lawmaker ethics.
Revelations of the mostly preliminary inquiries by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct — also known as the Ethics committee — and a panel that refers cases to it shook the chamber as lawmakers were immersed in a series of scheduled votes Thursday.
The panel announced that it was investigating two California Democrats — Reps. Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson — even as its embarrassed leaders took pains to explain that several other lawmakers also were identified in the leaked confidential committee memo but may have done nothing wrong.
The committee said it was investigating whether Waters used her influence to help a bank in which her husband owned stock, and whether the couple benefited as a result. Separately, the panel is looking into whether Richardson failed to disclose required information on her financial disclosure forms and received special treatment from a lender.
In the midst of a busy legislative day, ethics chairwoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., went to the House floor to announce that a confidential weekly report of the committee from July had leaked out in a case of "cyber-hacking."
A committee statement said that its security was breached through "peer to peer file sharing software" by a junior employee who was working from home. The staff member was fired.
The July report contains a summary of the committee's work at the time, but Lofgren said no inferences should be made about anyone whose name is mentioned.
The committee typically makes a public announcement about its activities only when it begins an investigation of potential rule-breaking, which is conducted by an investigative subcommittee whose members also are made public.
However, the weekly reports include a summary of the committee's work at an earlier stage, when its members and staff scrutinize lawmakers to see whether an investigation is warranted.
The Washington Post reported in its online edition Thursday that the document was disclosed on a publicly accessible computer network and made available to the newspaper by a source familiar with such networks.
The Post reported that more than 30 lawmakers and a few staff members were under scrutiny, including nearly half the members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
The previously disclosed inquiry involves lawmakers who steered appropriations to clients of a now-defunct lobbying firm and received campaign contributions from the firm and its clients.
The names included three lawmakers previously identified in the inquiry: the chairman of the defense subcommittee, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.; and Reps. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., and James Moran, D-Va.
The Post said others whose names were in the report included Reps. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., and Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.
The committee, however, has not announced an investigation of any of these lawmakers.
Waters is the No. 3 Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee and chairwoman of its subcommittee on housing. She has been an influential voice in the committee's work to overhaul financial regulations.
Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at OneUnited Bank last year without mentioning her husband's financial ties to the institution.
Her husband, Sidney Williams, holds at least $250,000 in the bank's stock and previously had served on its board. Waters' spokesman, Michael Levin, said Williams was no longer on the board when the meeting was arranged.
Waters has said the National Bankers Association, a trade group, requested the meeting. She defended her role in assisting minority-owned banks in the midst of the nation's financial meltdown and dismissed suggestions she used her influence to steer government aid to the bank.
"I am confident that as the investigation moves forward the panel will discover that there are no facts to support allegations that I have acted improperly," Waters said in a statement.
The committee unanimously voted to establish an investigative subcommittee to gather evidence and determine whether Waters violated standards of conduct.
The committee said it would investigate "alleged communications and activities with, or on behalf of, the National Bankers Association or OneUnited Bank" and "the benefit, if any, Rep. Waters or her husband received as a result."
The committee also voted unanimously to investigate whether Richardson violated House rules, its Code of Conduct or the Ethics in Government Act by failing to disclose property, income and liabilities on her financial disclosure forms.
The investigation also will determine whether Richardson received an impermissible gift or preferential treatment from a lender, "relating to the foreclosure, recission of the foreclosure sale or loan modification agreement" for her Sacramento, Calif., property.
Richardson said she has been subjected to "premature judgments, speculation and baseless distractions that will finally be addressed in a fair, unbiased, bipartisan evaluation of the facts."
"Like 4.3 million Americans in the last year who faced financial problems because of a personal crisis like a divorce, death in the family, unexpected job and living changes and an erroneous property sale, all of which I have experienced in the span of slightly over a year, I have worked to resolve a personal financial situation," she said in a statement.
The committee ended an investigation of Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., and released a report finding no ethical violations. It investigated whether Graves used his position on the House Small Business Committee to invite a longtime friend and business partner of his wife to testify at a committee hearing on the federal regulation of biodiesel and ethanol production
-
WASHINGTON — There are no Secret Service agents posted next to the barista and no presidential seal on the ceiling, but the Caribou Coffee across the street from the White House has become a favorite meeting spot to conduct Obama administration business.
Here at the Caribou on Pennsylvania Avenue, and a few other nearby coffee shops, White House officials have met hundreds of times over the last 18 months with prominent K Street lobbyists — members of the same industry that President Obama has derided for what he calls its “outsized influence” in the capital.
On the agenda over espressos and lattes, according to more than a dozen lobbyists and political operatives who have taken part in the sessions, have been front-burner issues like Wall Street regulation, health care rules, federal stimulus money, energy policy and climate control — and their impact on the lobbyists’ corporate clients.
But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors’ log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the “most transparent presidential administration in history.”
The off-site meetings, lobbyists say, reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ “battalions” of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.
Rich Gold, a prominent Democratic lobbyist who has taken part in a number of meetings at Caribou Coffee, said that White House staff members “want to follow the president’s guidance of reducing the influence of special interests, and yet they have to do their job and have the best information available to them to make decisions.”
Mr. Gold added that the administration’s policy of posting all White House visits, combined with pressure to not be seen as meeting too frequently with lobbyists, leave staff members “betwixt and between.”
White House officials said there was nothing improper about the off-site meetings.
“The Obama administration has taken unprecedented steps to increase the openness and transparency of the White House,” said Dan Pfeiffer, director of communications. “We expect that all White House employees adhere to their obligations under our very stringent ethics rules regardless of who they are meeting with or where they meet.”
Attempts to put distance between the White House and lobbyists are not limited to meetings. Some lobbyists say that they routinely get e-mail messages from White House staff members’ personal accounts rather than from their official White House accounts, which can become subject to public review. Administration officials said there were some permissible exceptions to a federal law requiring staff members to use their official accounts and retain the correspondence.
And while Mr. Obama has imposed restrictions on hiring lobbyists for government posts, the administration has used waivers and recusals more than two dozen times to appoint lobbyists to political positions. Two lobbyists also cited instances in which the White House had suggested that a job candidate be “deregistered” as a lobbyist in Senate records to avoid violating the administration’s hiring restrictions.
A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that in “a small number of cases,” people might have been “wrongly” registered as lobbyists, based on federal standards. The official said that while the White House might have discussed such instances of possible “over-registration,” he was “quite confident that no lobbying shop has been instructed to deregister anyone.”
Many lobbyists still get in the front door at the White House — nearly 1,000 times, according to a New York Times examination of public White House visitors’ logs and lobbying registration records.
Those logs, though, present an incomplete picture. For instance, many of the entries do not reflect who actually took part in a meeting. The “visitee” often shows up not as the White House official who was the host, but as the administrative assistant who arranged the meeting.
-----------------------
Page 2 of 2)
David Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists, based in Washington, said the current “cold war” relationship between the White House and K Street lobbyists was one of mutual necessity, with the White House relying on lobbyists’ expertise and connections to help shape federal policies.
“You can’t close the door all the way because you still need to have these communications,” Mr. Wenhold said. “It makes a great sound bite for the White House to demonize us lobbyists, but at the end of the day, they’re still going to call us.”
Lobbyists say some White House officials will agree to an initial meeting with a lobbyist and his client at the White House, but then plan follow-up sessions at a site not subject to the visitors’ log.
One lobbyist recounted meeting with White House officials on a side lawn outside the building to introduce them to the chief executive of a major foreign corporation.
“I’ll call and say, ‘I want to talk to you about X,’ and they’ll say, ‘Sure, let’s talk at Starbucks,’ ” said another lobbyist who counted six or seven off-site meetings with White House officials on financial issues.
Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, has shown up several times at a closed gathering of liberal political activists and lobbyists that is held weekly at the Capital Hilton. Other Obama aides — like Jim Messina, the deputy chief of staff, and Norm Eisen, the special assistant for ethics — and senior aides in the Office of Management and Budget, the energy czar’s office and elsewhere have also taken part in off-campus meetings, lobbyists said.
Employees at Caribou Coffee — which many lobbyists said appeared to be the favorite spot for off-site meetings, in part because of its proximity to the White House — welcome the increased traffic.
“They’re here all the time — all day,” Andre Williams, a manager at Caribou Coffee, said of his White House customers. (He can spot White House officials by the security badges around their necks, or the Secret Service agents lurking nearby.)
“A lot of them like lattes — that or a ‘depth charge,’ a coffee with a shot of espresso,” Mr. Williams said. “The caffeine rush — they need it.”
Some administration officials and lobbyists say that meeting away from the White House allows officials to get some air without making visitors go through the cumbersome White House security process. Others, however, acknowledge that one motivation is the desire to avoid lobbyists’ names showing up too often on the White House logs.
A senior White House official said, “We don’t believe there’s anything untoward about these meetings, and we don’t think that represents any special access for lobbyists.”
The official added that “folks are allowed to get a cup of coffee, and we’re not going to bar patronage at any of the area’s fine coffeehouses.”
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/06/29/
-
'Reform' missed 'friends of Angelo'
By STEPHEN B. MEISTER
Last Updated: 12:26 AM, July 27, 2010
Posted: 12:19 AM, July 27, 2010
Democrats claim their sweeping financial-sector reforms will guard against the kind of problems that triggered the recent economic meltdown. But if they really wanted to do that, they would've focused on how so many US officials were simply . . .bought. Fat chance.
Nonetheless, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform, is demanding just such a review -- and, for the sake of the nation, he should get one.
Last week, Issa wrote to Alfred Pollard, general counsel to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, asking for a probe of "VIP" mortgage loans given to Fannie and Freddie executives by Countrywide Financial Corporation. He also disclosed that Senate staffers got 30 low-rate mortgages under the program.
Founder Angelo Mozilo built Countrywide into the nation's largest mortgage lender, with a portfolio at one point worth $1.4 trillion, by selling billions in mostly subprime loans to Fannie and Freddie. Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno, using the anti-redlining statute -- the Community Reinvestment Act -- relentlessly pressured banks to make loans to "the underserved." But the banks could not make enough subprime mortgage loans to satisfy our lawmakers unless the federal government bought the loans they originated. That's where Fannie and Freddie came in.
Eventually, Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered Fannie to spend 50 cents of every dollar buying subprime loans. Today, Fannie and Freddie are wards of the state and own, or are responsible for, $5.5 trillion worth of mortgages.
Documents strongly suggest that, through a VIP loan program at Countrywide for "Friends of Angelo," Mozilo helped spur officials to keep up Fannie and Freddie's multitrillion-dollar mortgage-spending spree and, especially, buying Countrywide's junk mortgages. Special account executives were hired to administer the "FOA" loan program. Their business cards contained the designation "VIP Loan Program," so that the VIPs who received these discounted loans would know they were being given special treatment. Thousands of dollars were saved by each VIP borrower, and each had to have known it.
"Friends of Angelo" loans went to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Senate Banking Committee chairman; Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Budget Committee chairman and a Finance Committee member; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson; Jim Johnson, a former Fannie CEO and adviser to candidate Barack Obama; Clinton Jones III, senior counsel to the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, and Franklin Raines, since-disgraced Fannie CEO.
But the more than 44,000 documents subpoenaed by Issa showed that the corruption in the system ran even deeper. They show that a staggering 153 VIP loans were extended to the quasi-governmental employees who decided what loans Fannie would buy with the taxpayers' money. Another 20 VIP loans were made to Freddie Mac executives.
Mozilo's seemingly systematic efforts to sway lawmakers, a cabinet member, White House staff and the executives at Fannie and Freddie appear to have paid off. In 2007, Countrywide alone originated 23 percent of a massive volume of Fannie and Freddie's mortgage purchases. In that year alone, Mozilo made more than $140 million. VIP borrower and Fannie CEO Jim Johnson signed a strategic agreement with Countrywide granting Fannie exclusive access to Countrywide's junk loans. Mozilo, in effect, had managed to make the United States and Countrywide joint venturers in the most prodigious -- and dangerous -- subprime-mortgage operation in our country's history.
Mozilo also seems to have stifled numerous bills in Congress aimed at reform -- despite warnings by Republicans that a failure to rein in Fannie and Freddie posed grave dangers to taxpayers. When Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) pushed for a comprehensive fix, Dodd successfully threatened a filibuster.
Meanwhile, despite ethical codes governing Congress, the Executive Branch and Fannie and Freddie, which ban the acceptance of gifts or discounts, influential "Friends of Angelo" accepted their discounted loans.
If House Leader Nancy Pelosi really were interested in reform and in "draining the swamp," she'd have launched a probe long ago. She didn't. Even worse, two-time VIP loan recipient Dodd served as sponsor of the financial-reform law, which makes no effort to deal with Fannie and Freddie, even though to date they've received $145 billion in taxpayer bailouts -- with no end in sight.
President Obama and his fellow Democrats singled out Wall Street in their massive reform package. They should have looked in the mirror first.
Stephen B. Meister is a partner in Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.
-
Is this not ridiculous? Now people are trying to say that the Rangel, Waters thing is racial. Of course. What else is new? Sharpton was on cable this weekend not explicitly saying this just stating one has to ask this question. He still refuses to apologize for his lies with Twana Brawley. He is on the cover of some mag supposedly with the title of reinventing himself. To me he is still the same race baiting hustler he has always been. I don't know why msm keeps giving him some sort of legitimacy. I guess they still find his BS still fits their liberal agenda and incorporates him into the progressive strategy to get fight republicans.
-
Also worth noting that FOX (e.g. Hannity) uses Sharpton to provoke raitings , , , but lets take further discussion if any to the Race thread on SCH or the Media thread here on P&R.
-
We could all use a little talk about the evils of corruption. Here is Maxine Waters 1995 giving an impassioned lecture about the (bogus) accusations against then Speaker Gingrich:
Compliments of CSPAN and pointed out by Drudge.
"The American public does not appreciate double standards." "...[Gingrich] must account for any and all of the wrongdoing!" [and suffer the consequences]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZegTfr5HRg[/youtube]
-
Over the last year, Save the Children emerged as a leader in the push to tax sweetened soft drinks as a way to combat childhood obesity. The nonprofit group supported soda tax campaigns in Mississippi, New Mexico, Washington State, Philadelphia and the District of Columbia.
At the same time, executives at Save the Children were seeking a major grant from Coca-Cola to help finance the health and education programs that the charity conducts here and abroad, including its work on childhood obesity.
The talks with Coke are still going on. But the soda tax work has been stopped. In October, Save the Children surprised activists around the country with an e-mail message announcing that it would no longer support efforts to tax soft drinks.
In interviews this month, Carolyn Miles, chief operating officer of Save the Children, said there was no connection between the group’s about-face on soda taxes and the discussions with Coke. A $5 million grant from PepsiCo also had no influence on the decision, she said. Both companies fiercely oppose soda taxes.
Ms. Miles said that after Save the Children took a prominent role in several soda tax campaigns, executives reviewed the issue and decided it was too controversial to continue.
“We looked at it and said, ‘Is this something we should be out there doing and does this fit with the way that Save the Children works?’ ” she said. “And the answer was no.”
Ms. Miles said the talks with Coke were continuing and the grant under discussion was significantly larger than past donations from the soft drink giant. Coke has given the group about $400,000 since 1991, according to a company spokeswoman.
Save the Children has received much more money from Pepsi through the PepsiCo Foundation, which it has designated as a “corporate partner” in recognition of the $5 million grant for work in India and Bangladesh. PepsiCo awarded the grant in early 2009, before the charity began its soda tax advocacy.
Representatives of both Coca-Cola and Pepsi said they had not asked the charity to alter its position on soda taxes.
But soda tax advocates say that soft drink makers are flexing their muscles in opposition to soda taxes. In Washington State, the American Beverage Association, a trade group that includes Coke and Pepsi, spent $16.5 million to win passage of a November ballot initiative that overturned a small tax on soft drinks enacted by the legislature to help plug a budget gap. The beverage association outspent supporters of the tax by more than 40 to 1, and the tax was repealed.
Jon Gould, deputy director of the Children’s Alliance, an advocacy group in Seattle, said Save the Children’s decision to abandon the issue was “a significant loss, especially at a time when the American Beverage Association has just shown that their resources are unlimited.” The alliance got $25,000 from Save the Children to help advocate for a soda tax.
Kelly D. Brownell, a soda tax advocate and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, said that many food and beverage companies made donations to nonprofit groups fighting hunger but it was less common for them to finance work to address obesity.
“It would be a shame if there were a quid pro quo and the groups felt pressure to oppose something like a soda tax,” Mr. Brownell said.
Public debate about soda taxes has intensified over the last year. Proponents say that if the tax were large enough, perhaps a penny an ounce or more, it could reduce consumption of sugary beverages, which are high in calories and can contribute to obesity. In addition, money raised by the tax could be spent on public health efforts to fight obesity.
The soda companies argue that it is unfair to blame their products for the obesity epidemic, which has complex causes. They say that policies should be focused instead on getting people to exercise more.
So far, tax proposals have gotten little traction. Last year, federal lawmakers considered a soft drink tax to help pay for health care reform, but that idea was dropped. Governors, state lawmakers and mayors have proposed taxes but made little headway.
Save the Children’s involvement in the issue began in late 2009, when it got a $3.5 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to fight childhood obesity through a program it called the Campaign for Healthy Kids. Save the Children initially financed the work of local groups, some of which focused on improving school lunches and requiring health education in schools. But local activists in Mississippi, New Mexico and Washington State used the grants to push for a soda tax.
When politicians in Philadelphia and Washington proposed soda taxes this year, the Campaign for Healthy Kids got more directly involved, paying for lobbyists and polling. “We really took the lead on those and were publicly identified with those,” said Andrew Hysell, an associate vice president for Save the Children and the director of the obesity campaign.
None of the soda tax measures supported by Save the Children passed, although in Washington, the city council removed a sales tax exemption for carbonated beverages.
Save the Children’s prominent role in Philadelphia and Washington led top executives of the charity to review the work. Ms. Miles said they concluded the advocacy was not part of the charity’s mission.
“We made a decision that it was an issue that was controversial among our constituents and really was not core to the work we’re doing in the U.S.,” Ms. Miles said. She said that while the charity’s constituents included corporate donors, concerns over fund-raising were not involved in the decision.
Mr. Hysell informed soda tax advocates of the change in October and the Campaign for Healthy Kids removed declarations of support for soda taxes from its Web site.
Officials of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who had encouraged Save the Children to advocate for soda taxes, are disappointed.
“They were obviously some of the strongest out there working on the issue, and we had such high hopes,” said Dwayne Proctor, team director for childhood obesity at the foundation. He said the two groups would continue to work together on other aspects of the obesity fight.
-
Woof,
It's good to have friends in high places....
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/jeffrey-immelt-council-on-jobs-and-competitiveness_n_812005.html
[tr][td][/table]4474-8223-2949588e90f6>1=33002]http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=d715c70d-f0d0- (http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=d715c70d-f0d0-[table)4474-8223-2949588e90f6>1=33002 [/url]
P.C.
-
Woof,
Judith Miller
The Mexicanization of American Law Enforcement
The drug cartels extend their corrupting influence northward.
Customs and Border Protection agents have been bought off by drug dealers.Beheadings and amputations. Iraqi-style brutality, bribery, extortion, kidnapping, and murder. More than 7,200 dead—almost double last year’s tally—in shoot-outs between federales and often better-armed drug cartels. This is modern Mexico, whose president, Felipe Calderón, has been struggling since 2006 to wrest his country from the grip of four powerful cartels and their estimated 100,000 foot soldiers.
But chillingly, there are signs that one of the worst features of Mexico’s war on drugs—law enforcement officials on the take from drug lords—is becoming an American problem as well. Most press accounts focus on the drug-related violence that has migrated north into the United States. Far less widely reported is the infiltration and corruption of American law enforcement, according to Robert Killebrew, a retired U.S. Army colonel and senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for a New American Security. “This is a national security problem that does not yet have a name,” he wrote last fall in The National Strategy Forum Review. The drug lords, he tells me, are seeking to “hollow out our institutions, just as they have in Mexico.”
Corruption indictments and convictions linked to drug-trafficking organizations, known in police parlance as DTOs, are popping up in FBI press releases with disturbing frequency. In April, for instance, the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of Texas announced that Sergio Lopez Hernandez, a 40-year-old Customs and Border Protection inspector, had been convicted of drug trafficking, alien smuggling, and bribery. Hernandez pleaded guilty to accepting over $150,000 in bribes and to conspiring to sell cocaine and bring illegal aliens into the country.
Or consider the case of border inspector Margarita Crispin—“precisely the kind of border corruption case that alarms us,” says William Abbott, an assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s criminal branch in El Paso, Texas. In 2005, he says, a federal informant tipped off the Bureau that Crispin was deliberately ignoring traffickers who moved drugs and other contraband through her border post. Then, in the spring of 2006, a van that had just gone through Crispin’s lane sputtered out of gas. The driver abandoned the vehicle and fled back across the border into Mexico—and when other inspectors opened the van’s doors, they found nearly 6,000 pounds of marijuana in plain sight. Crispin couldn’t explain why she hadn’t noticed the stash when she had examined the vehicle, according to an FBI press release on the case and an official who worked on it.
Another year of surveillance uncovered evidence of Crispin’s drug-cartel connections. Though she lived simply in El Paso, she socialized with known drug traffickers in Mexico and had bought two expensive homes and several luxury vehicles there through straw purchasers. Crispin was then arrested. After pleading guilty in 2008 to conspiring to import drugs and abusing the public trust, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison and ordered to forfeit $5 million in assets she was estimated to have stolen.
Government investigators believe that Crispin had been working for the cartels for at least a year before she applied to become an inspector. In other words, federal screening failed to detect that, at the time she applied for her job, the cartels had already recruited her to facilitate their cross-border trafficking. At one point, federal investigators say, Crispin claimed to have wanted out of her arrangement with the cartels. “But we think she was kidnapped and forcibly taken back to Mexico to remind her of whom she was working for,” Abbott says. Having family in both Juárez and El Paso, cities within sight of each other across the border, Crispin found herself trapped.
Abbott says that the Crispin case is atypical. But the potential damage, he stresses, is huge. “You have the mule: an illegal immigrant who carries five pounds of marijuana in his backpack across the border through the desert. Compare that with the border inspector who waves through five completely loaded vans, as she did.”
Experts disagree about how deep this rot runs. Some try to downplay the phenomenon, dismissing the law enforcement officials who have succumbed to bribes or intimidation from the drug cartels as a few bad apples. Peter Nuñez, a former U.S. attorney who lectures at the University of San Diego, says he does not believe that there has been a noticeable surge of cartel-related corruption along the border, partly because the FBI, which has been historically less corrupt than its state and local counterparts, has significantly ratcheted up its presence there. “It’s harder to be as corrupt today as locals were in the 1970s, when there wasn’t a federal agent around for hundreds of miles,” he says.
But Jason Ackleson, an associate professor of government at New Mexico State University, disagrees. “U.S. Customs and Border Protection is very alert to the problem,” he tells me. “Their internal investigations caseload is going up, and there are other cases that are not being publicized.” While corruption is not widespread, “if you increase the overall number of law enforcement officers as dramatically as we have”—from 9,000 border agents and inspectors prior to 9/11 to a planned 20,000 by the end of 2009—“you increase the possibility of corruption due to the larger number of people exposed to it and tempted by it.” Note, too, that Drug Enforcement Agency data suggest that Mexican cartels are operating in at least 230 American cities.
Washington is taking no chances. In recent months, the FBI’s Criminal Division has created seven multiagency task forces and assigned 120 agents to investigate public corruption, drug-related and otherwise, in the Southwest border region, says Debbie Weierman of the FBI’s public-affairs office in Washington. Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection, the largest U.S. law enforcement agency, has increased the number of its internal investigators over three years from five to 220.
And David Shirk, director of the San Diego–based Trans-Border Institute and a political scientist at the University of San Diego, says that recent years have seen an “alarming” increase in the number of Department of Homeland Security personnel being investigated for possible corruption. “The number of cases filed against DHS agents in recent years is in the hundreds,” says Shirk. “And that, obviously, is a potentially huge problem.” An August 2009 investigation by the Associated Press supports his assessment. Based on records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, court records, and interviews with sentenced agents, the AP concluded that more than 80 federal, state, and local border-control officials had been convicted of corruption-related crimes since 2007, soon after President Calderón launched his war on the cartels. Over the previous ten months, the AP data showed, 20 Customs and Border Protection agents alone had been charged with a corruption-related crime. If that pace continued, the reporters concluded, “the organization will set a new record for in-house corruption.”
While the FBI task forces focus mainly on corruption along the border, cartel-related vice has spread much deeper into the American heartland. Consider New Mexico’s San Juan County, some 450 miles north of the border, where the U.S. Attorney’s office has recently prosecuted a startling corruption case that may be a portent of things to come.
Back in 1994, Ken Christesen was a detective in the Four Corners, the region where the borders of Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico meet. That was the year that one Miguel Tarango was convicted of murdering a member of a rival drug gang in a territorial dispute. The conviction made Christesen realize that the Tarango family was “far more significant than we had initially thought” in the local drug trade, he tells me over coffee at Donna Kay’s, a popular café in Bloomfield, New Mexico.
Even in a county where 80 to 90 percent of all serious crimes are linked to drugs—an area where “you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a drug dealer”—the Tarangos stood out. The family was locally based but had ties to Mexico’s Sinaloa and Juárez cartels, and it had big ideas about controlling the lucrative trade in methamphetamine and other illicit drugs in San Juan County. The clan’s rising star was Daniel Tarango, Jr., a short, slim, American-born hipster with a pencil-thin mustache, a fondness for black T-shirts, and no visible means of support. After his father and uncle were convicted of heavy-duty meth trafficking, sent to federal prison, and deported, Danny, known to local cops as “the Runt,” took charge of the family business.
By 2002, Christesen had become a lieutenant in the San Juan County sheriff’s office, where he participated in Operation Farmland, an effort run by a federal, state, and local alliance called the Region II Narcotics Task Force. The operation, which targeted meth sales in the Four Corners, ended in 2003 with 250 people charged, among them Mike Marshall, a former sheriff’s deputy sentenced to five years in federal prison for distributing drugs. Christesen happened to know that Marshall and Danny Tarango had often been seen together. If Tarango had befriended Marshall, Christesen reasoned, might he also be trying to get inside information from active cops about the task force itself?
The hero of Operation Farmland was Levi Countryman, then a San Juan County sheriff’s deputy who had gotten many of the tips and intelligence that led to the massive arrests. Despite Countryman’s ostensibly heroic role in Farmland, Christesen was suspicious. Farmland hadn’t fingered a single member of the Tarango clan, despite its growing prominence in the county drug trade. And despite Farmland’s apparent success, methamphetamine still flowed freely into Farmington, Bloomfield, Shiprock, Aztec, and other forlorn, trailer-strewn desert towns in the Four Corners.
Christesen concluded that Danny Tarango and Levi Countryman were working together—that “we made the arrests, Levi became a hero, and Danny got rich by eliminating his competition,” Christesen recalls. But he had no proof. Nevertheless, when he took over the Narcotics Task Force in October 2004, he quietly put Levi Countryman at the top of his target list.
Christesen’s suspicions about Countryman had been reinforced in the spring of 2004, when officers searching one of Danny Tarango’s many houses found an all-terrain vehicle registered in Countryman’s name. What was Countryman’s ATV doing in the Runt’s garage? Under intense scrutiny, Countryman resigned as deputy sheriff and told friends that he would enter the private sector as a stock trader.
But sensitive task-force information kept leaking out to the Tarangos, much to Christesen’s frustration. Every time Christesen got close to persuading someone to talk or testify in a drug-related case, the inquiry would fall apart. A parade of witnesses who had agreed to testify would suddenly change their minds. One potential witness in a drug case against Josh Tarango, Danny’s younger brother, refused to testify in 2006 after her daughter’s car was burned on her front lawn. “Every time we got close to tying Tarango to Countryman,” Christesen recalls, “an informant would be burned”—intimidated, that is. “I began to think that our own building was bugged. I even asked the FBI to do a sweep.” Tired of waiting for federal help, “we finally bought old equipment and did it ourselves.” The sweep turned up nothing. Meanwhile, violence in San Juan County kept escalating, much of it apparently tied to Danny Tarango.
In January 2007, the FBI finally responded to Christesen’s repeated appeals and quietly opened an investigation into whether the task force’s operations were being compromised from within. Because everyone on the task force was potentially a suspect, the FBI agents told no one in local law enforcement—not even Christesen—precisely what they were doing and whom they were targeting. But after wiretapping Danny Tarango’s cell-phone calls, they discovered that information about the task force was still being provided by Countryman. Christesen’s suspicions were all too true: Countryman was getting his information from a state police officer named Keith Salazar, one of the unit’s most trusted, experienced members. Countryman and Tarango even referred to Salazar by the code name “Candy” because the information he provided was so “sweet.”
In court, Salazar later argued that he had been forced to betray his fellow officers—that Countryman had threatened, if Salazar refused to cooperate, not only to expose the fact that he had skimmed funds from the task force’s kitty, but also to harm him and his family. But the cell-phone conversations that prosecutor Reeve Swainston played in court made a mockery of that claim. Calling each other several times a day, referring to each other as “bro,” joking and swearing like fraternity brothers staging college pranks, Salazar and Countryman were obviously close friends who enjoyed their dirty work. Salazar eagerly provided Countryman with the names of his fellow officers, even those serving undercover. He gave Countryman pictures he had taken of them, their home addresses, their birth dates and Social Security numbers, and detailed descriptions of their cars and license-plate numbers. He also disclosed the identity of confidential informants; the dates, times, and locations of impending search warrants; the nature of ongoing antidrug investigations in New Mexico and Colorado; and other material that Countryman requested. And he did all this for just $1,000 a month from Tarango.
For his part, Countryman was the perfect middleman. As soon as he got sensitive information from “Candy,” he would call Tarango and pass it along. As a result, Salazar never had to talk to Tarango or meet with him, insulating him from scrutiny. All three men used cell phones specifically dedicated to their double-dealing, creating what Swainston called in his indictment a “compartmentalized line of communication.” But Countryman was more than a go-between; he also distributed some of the methamphetamine he received from Tarango, street profits from which supplemented the $8,000 a month that Tarango routinely paid him.
Christesen suspected that Tarango had turned other law enforcement officers and local and state officials, and he hoped that the FBI’s investigation would uncover them. But the FBI had to cut short its investigation and move against the three men in December 2007, after agents overheard Tarango and Countryman discussing ways to intimidate and possibly harm a deputy sheriff. Among the tactics they discussed were following the deputy’s wife around town, taking photos of her and her children, leaving a photo of her on her car, throwing hypodermic needles on her lawn, delivering a box filled with dying rats to the family’s home, and leaving a pig’s head on the front porch. They agreed that this might send her a message that “her husband needs to back off,” a court document states, quoting part of an intercepted conversation between Tarango and Countryman. Further, the FBI overheard Tarango telling Countryman that he had watched the family’s home at various hours, and Countryman telling Tarango that this deputy’s “ass needed to be whacked.”
Tarango vetoed the proposal, but the FBI had heard enough. Arrest warrants for all three men were promptly issued. But before Tarango could be served, he escaped to Mexico. When the police arrested Countryman at a Denny’s restaurant in Farmington, the county seat, they found a handgun in his truck. In a safe at his home were 13 more firearms, $18,000 in cash, and almost eight pounds of marijuana.
In a sentencing memorandum, Countryman said that his heavy drinking had “clouded” his judgment and asked to be enrolled in a substance-abuse program. Countryman and Salazar pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute drugs and were each sentenced to six years in prison. Their attorneys argued successfully in court for lighter sentences because of their post-arrest cooperation with law enforcement. And this past June, for reasons that remain murky, Danny Tarango returned from Mexico. His trial is expected to begin soon.
Christesen, who is now running for sheriff in San Juan County, still fears that Danny Tarango’s web of corruption may have been far broader than the public has been told. In the wake of the Countryman and Salazar arrests, the New Mexico state police’s narcotics division was quietly disbanded and reorganized. The fact that the state said so little about its actions leads Christesen and others to believe that the conspiracy may have involved other, still-unnamed, corrupt cops, border patrol agents, and public officials.
But “law enforcement and the communities they serve have been irreversibly damaged” merely by the information that Salazar and Countryman gave Tarango and his Mexican associates, Christesen wrote in a statement that he gave to prosecutor Swainston. In his own statement, Swainston asserted that nine separate law enforcement agencies in New Mexico and six in Colorado had been damaged by Salazar’s betrayal. “It is hard to imagine anything more frightening for a law enforcement officer than to find out after the fact that those upon whom you just executed a . . . search warrant knew you were coming because one of your own told them so,” Swainston wrote in an impassioned 47-page sentencing memorandum.
“Cops hate these cases, hate to investigate and prosecute them, because it shows we’re not perfect, that we’re vulnerable to corruption like other human beings,” Christesen says. “A Salazar looks bad for all of us. But how many other counties like ours are there in the Southwest? How can we be sure that our law enforcement system isn’t being Mexicanized? I’m worried that they’ll start with bribes, and end as they have in Mexico, with intimidation and murder.”
Michael Hayden, director of the Central Intelligence Agency under President George W. Bush, called the prospect of a narco-state in Mexico one of the gravest threats to American national security, second only to al-Qaida and on par with a nuclear-armed Iran. But the threat to American law enforcement is still often underestimated, say Christesen and other law enforcement officials.
Last year, FBI officials tell me, the Bureau worked on nearly 2,500 public corruption cases and convicted more than 700 dishonest public servants throughout the nation. Most of them were unrelated to the cartels, and Special Agent Abbott, of the FBI’s criminal branch in El Paso, says that only 15 to 30 of his region’s cases so far have involved drug-related corruption among law enforcement officials. “But given the damage that can be done by just one corrupt officer or inspector,” he adds, “this is an important vulnerability. We know it.”
Judith Miller is a contributing editor of City Journal, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
P.C.
-
This too is one of the costs of the War on Drugs.
Seems to me that pot is not such a big deal and that there would be a lot less corruption because there would be a lot less profit if there were some sort of reasonable compromise worked out here in the US.
-
This too is one of the costs of the War on Drugs.
Seems to me that pot is not such a big deal and that there would be a lot less corruption because there would be a lot less profit if there were some sort of reasonable compromise worked out here in the US.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0816/p01s03-woam.html
Mexicans take over drug trade to US
With Colombian cartels in shambles, Mexican drug lords run the show.
.
By Danna Harman, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / August 16, 2005
CIUDAD JUÁREZ, MEXICO
The kingpins of this hemisphere's drug trade are no longer Colombians.
In the largest reorganization since the 1980s, senior US officials say, Mexican cartels have leveraged the profits from their delivery routes to wrest control from the Colombian producers. The shift is also because of the success authorities have had in cracking down on Colombia's kingpins.
As a result, Mexican drug lords are calling the shots in what the UN estimates is a $142 billion a year business in cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and illicit drugs on US streets.
"Today, the Mexicans have taken over and are running the organized crime, and getting the bulk of the money," says John Walters, the White House drug czar, in a phone interview. "The Colombians have pulled back."
One consequence of the new dominance of Mexican cartels is a spike in violence, especially along the 2,000-mile US-Mexico border where rival cartels are warring not only against Mexican and US authorities, but also against one another for control of the lucrative transit corridors.
While the Colombian cartels still control most of the production of cocaine and heroin, explains Jorge Chabat, a drug expert at the Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), a university in Mexico City, the more profitable part of the trade - transport to the US, and distribution there - has come under control of various Mexican cartels. Those organizations include: Osiel Cárdenas' Gulf cartel, Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán's Sinaloa cartel, Arellano Felix's organization in Tijuana, and the Juárez cartel, said to be led by Vicente Carrillo.
"With the successful dismantling of some of the biggest cartels in Colombia, it was only natural that the Mexicans, who had for years had close contacts with the Colombians and knew the routes and the business, would take over," says Mr. Chabat. "...and now, they are fighting among themselves."
The drugs, says Ron Brooks, president of the US National Narcotics Officers Association in West Covina, Calif., are either flown from Colombia to Mexico in small planes, or, in the case of marijuana and methamphetamine, are produced locally. Then, the drugs are shipped into the US by boat, private vehicles, or in commercial trucks crossing the border. US Border Patrol statistics show that last year 48 million pedestrians, 90 million private vehicles and 4.4 million trucks crossed from Mexico into the United States.
According to the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, as much as 90 percent of the cocaine sold in the US in 2004 was smuggled through Mexican territory. Mexico is also the No. 2 supplier of heroin, the largest foreign source of marijuana, and the largest producer of methamphetamine. Moreover, Mexican criminal groups now dominate operations in the US, says the bureau's latest report, released in March, and control most of the 13 primary drug distribution centers in the US.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/mexican-cartels-move-into-human-trafficking/2011/07/22/gIQArmPVcI_story.html
Mexican cartels move into human trafficking
Going to legalize this?
-
Meth and the Brain •Meth releases a surge of dopamine, causing an intense rush of pleasure or prolonged sense of euphoria.
•Over time, meth destroys dopamine receptors, making it impossible to feel pleasure.
•Although these pleasure centers can heal over time, research suggests that damage to users' cognitive abilities may be permanent.
•Chronic abuse can lead to psychotic behavior, including paranoia, insomnia, anxiety, extreme aggression, delusions and hallucinations, and even death.
"There [are] a whole variety of reasons to try methamphetamine," explains Dr. Richard Rawson, associate director of UCLA's Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. "[H]owever, once they take the drug … their reasons are pretty much the same: They like how it affects their brain." Meth users have described this feeling as a sudden rush of pleasure lasting for several minutes, followed by a euphoric high that lasts between six and 12 hours, and it is the result of drug causing the brain to release excessive amounts of the chemical dopamine, a neurotransmitter that controls pleasure. All drugs of abuse cause the release of dopamine, even alcohol and nicotine, explains Rawson, "[But] methamphetamine produces the mother of all dopamine releases."
For example, in lab experiments done on animals, sex causes dopamine levels to jump from 100 to 200 units, and cocaine causes them to spike to 350 units. "[With] methamphetamine you get a release from the base level to about 1,250 units, something that's about 12 times as much of a release of dopamine as you get from food and sex and other pleasurable activities," Rawson says. "This really doesn't occur from any normally rewarding activity. That's one of the reasons why people, when they take methamphetamine, report having this euphoric [feeling] that's unlike anything they've ever experienced." Then, when the drug wears off, users experience profound depression and feel the need to keep taking the drug to avoid the crash.
Brain scan images from Dr. Volkow's study. Image copyright Nora Volkow/American Journal of Psychiatry.
When addicts use meth over and over again, the drug actually changes their brain chemistry, destroying the wiring in the brain's pleasure centers and making it increasingly impossible to experience any pleasure at all. Although studies have shown that these tissues can regrow over time, the process can take years, and the repair may never be complete. A paper published by Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, examines brain scans of several meth abusers who, after 14 months of abstinence from the drug, have regrown most of their damaged dopamine receptors; however, they showed no improvement in the cognitive abilities damaged by the drug. After more than a year's sobriety, these former meth users still showed severe impairment in memory, judgment and motor coordination, similar to symptoms seen in individuals suffering from Parkinson's Disease.
In addition to affecting cognitive abilities, these changes in brain chemistry can lead to disturbing, even violent behavior. Meth, like all stimulants, causes the brain to release high doses of adrenaline, the body's "fight or flight" mechanism, inducing anxiety, wakefulness and intensely focused attention, called "tweaking." When users are tweaking, they exhibit hyperactive and obsessive behavior, as journalist Thea Singer's sister Candy did on her meth binges. "When she was high, which was almost always, she had to be on the computer -- diddling with programs to make them run faster, ordering freebies on the Internet," writes Singer. "Then computers faded, and she was obsessed with diving into dumpsters -- rescuing audio equipment from behind Radio Shack, pens from behind Office Depot." Heavy, chronic usage can also prompt psychotic behavior, such as paranoia, aggression, hallucinations and delusions. Some users have been known to feel insects crawling beneath their skin. "He picks and picks and picks at himself, like there are bugs inside his face," the mother of one meth addict told The Spokesman-Review. "He tears his clothes off and ties them around his head." The same article told the story of another former addict, who, even after five years of sobriety, can't go to the bathroom without propping a space heater against the door, in case someone is after him.
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/
-
Woof,
Legalizing all drugs would cause all kinds of problems, not just for the users but for employers and society at large. Problems that could have worse consequences than the prohibition. Hard drug use generally leads people to do nothing but use drugs. They can't make an honest living so they turn to crime or they become dependant on the state to take care of them. I think we should make that as rare as possible and besides our drunks don't need any competition. Legalizing Mary Jane on the other hand might not be such a bad trade off but we still shouldn't think that it won't cause any problems. It will, but as Guro Craftydog said it will take a lot of money out of cartel hands and hopefully our corrupt politicans won't spend it all on velvet paintings of Elvis and whores. I don't know, there's no doubt that the cartels would be better stewarts of the cash, :| if we could just get them to stop killing people. Maybe if our government stopped supplying them with guns? We live in interesting times, don't we.
P.C.
-
GM:
Said with love, but please read for comprehension. My comments were limited to marijuana and to the the subject of this thread-- corruption. Not only that, but allow me to refresh your memory that I agree that drugs that bypass free will e.g. meth, present an entirely different question.
All:
Any further comments on War on Drugs issues should be posted in the War on Drugs thread.
-
Crafty,
Just pointing out that marijuana being totally legalized wouldn't do much to the Mexican cartels.
-
Ah-- I would have picked that up if you had said so :lol:
Anyway, it would take away their profits from Marijuana and undermine the loyalty of the people whom they would no longer be employing.
-
If the US legalized weed tomorrow, I doubt it would be much of a bump in the profit margins for the Mexican cartels. "Medical Marijuana" has to be cutting into their profits by cardholders who divert their "medicine" to their fellow stoners.
-
Woof, 1st post;
Congress members can do things legally that others get put in jail for. Now is that fair?
www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/
CBSNews.com|
Steve Kroft reports that members of Congress can legally trade stock based on non-public information from Capitol Hill.
Web Extras
Congress: Trading stock on inside information?What counts as "inside information"?Keeping Congress clean(CBS News) Editor's Note: The report "Insiders" received quite a reaction the week after it aired. Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's office called the report a "right-wing smear." While Republican Speaker John Boehner's office called his inclusion in the story "idiotic." But now, at least 93 members of Congress have signed on as cosponsors of the Stock Act, and for the first time the bill has been introduced in the Senate.
Washington, D.C. is a town that runs on inside information - but should our elected officials be able to use that information to pad their own pockets? As Steve Kroft reports, members of Congress and their aides have regular access to powerful political intelligence, and many have made well-timed stock market trades in the very industries they regulate. For now, the practice is perfectly legal, but some say it's time for the law to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a script of "Insiders" which aired on Nov. 13, 2011. Steve Kroft is correspondent, Ira Rosen and Gabrielle Schonder, producers.
The next national election is now less than a year away and congressmen and senators are expending much of their time and their energy raising the millions of dollars in campaign funds they'll need just to hold onto a job that pays $174,000 a year.
Few of them are doing it for the salary and all of them will say they are doing it to serve the public. But there are other benefits: Power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country, don't always apply to them.
Questioning Pelosi: Steve Kroft heads to D.C.
When Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and other lawmakers wouldn't answer Steve Kroft's questions, he headed to Washington to get some answers about their stock trades.
Most former congressmen and senators manage to leave Washington - if they ever leave Washington - with more money in their pockets than they had when they arrived, and as you are about to see, the biggest challenge is often avoiding temptation.
Peter Schweizer: This is a venture opportunity. This is an opportunity to leverage your position in public service and use that position to enrich yourself, your friends, and your family.
Peter Schweizer is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. A year ago he began working on a book about soft corruption in Washington with a team of eight student researchers, who reviewed financial disclosure records. It became a jumping off point for our own story, and we have independently verified the material we've used.
Schweizer says he wanted to know why some congressmen and senators managed to accumulate significant wealth beyond their salaries, and proved particularly adept at buying and selling stocks.
Schweizer: There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong.
Steve Kroft: What do you mean honest graft?
Schweizer: For example insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply.
Kroft: So congressman get a pass on insider trading?
Schweizer: They do. The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is-- is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on-- off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.
Kroft: Why does Congress get a pass on this?
Schweizer: It's really the way the rules have been defined. And the people who make the rules are the political class in Washington. And they've conveniently written them in such a way that they don't apply to themselves.
The buying and selling of stock by corporate insiders who have access to non-public information that could affect the stock price can be a criminal offense, just ask hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam who recently got 11 years in prison for doing it. But, congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws, even though they have daily access to non-public information and plenty of opportunities to trade on it.
Schweizer: We know that during the health care debate people were trading health care stocks. We know that during the financial crisis of 2008 they were getting out of the market before the rest of America really knew what was going on.
In mid September 2008 with the Dow Jones Industrial average still above ten thousand, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were holding closed door briefings with congressional leaders, and privately warning them that a global financial meltdown could occur within a few days. One of those attending was Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus, then the ranking Republican member on the House Financial Services Committee and now its chairman.
Schweizer: These meetings were so sensitive-- that they would actually confiscate cell phones and Blackberries going into those meetings. What we know is that those meetings were held one day and literally the next day Congressman Bachus would engage in buying stock options based on apocalyptic briefings he had the day before from the Fed chairman and treasury secretary. I mean, talk about a stock tip.
While Congressman Bachus was publicly trying to keep the economy from cratering, he was privately betting that it would, buying option funds that would go up in value if the market went down. He would make a variety of trades and profited at a time when most Americans were losing their shirts.
Congressman Bachus declined to talk to us, so we went to his office and ran into his Press Secretary Tim Johnson.
(CBS News)
Kroft: Look we're not alleging that Congressman Bachus has violated any laws. All...the only thing we're interested in talking to him is about his trades.
Tim Johnson: Ok...Ok that's a fair enough request.
What we got was a statement from Congressman Bachus' office that he never trades on non-public information, or financial services stock. However, his financial disclosure forms seem to indicate otherwise. Bachus made money trading General Electric stock during the crisis, and a third of GE's business is in financial services.
During the healthcare debate of 2009, members of Congress were trading health care stocks, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, who led the opposition against the so-called public option, government funded insurance that would compete with private companies. Just days before the provision was finally killed off, Boehner bought health insurance stocks, all of which went up. Now speaker of the House, Congressman Boehner also declined to be interviewed, so we tracked him down at his weekly press conference.
Kroft: You made a number of trades going back to the health care debate. You bought some insurance stock. Did you make those trades based on non-public information?
John Boehner: I have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities in my account. And haven't for years. I don't-- I do not do it, haven't done it and wouldn't do it.
Later Boehner's spokesman told us that the health care trades were made by the speaker's financial adviser, who he only consults with about once a year.
[Peter Schweizer: We need to find out whether they're part of a blind trust or not.]
Peter Schweizer thinks the timing is suspicious, and believes congressional leaders should have their stock funds in blind trusts.
Schweizer: Whether it's uh-- $15,000 or $150,000, the principle in my mind is that it's simply wrong and it shouldn't take place.
But there is a long history of self-dealing in Washington. And it doesn't always involve stock trades.
Congressmen and senators also seem to have a special knack for land and real estate deals. When Illinois Congressman Dennis Hastert became speaker of the House in 1999, he was worth a few hundred thousand dollars. He left the job eight years later a multi-millionaire.
Jan Strasma: The road that Hastert wants to build will go through these farm fields right here.
In 2005, Speaker Hastert got a $207 million federal earmark to build the Prairie Parkway through these cornfields near his home. What Jan Strasma and his neighbors didn't know was that Hastert had also bought some land adjacent to where the highway is supposed to go.
Strasma: And five months after this earmark went through he sold that land and made a bundle of money.
Kroft: How much?
Strasma: Two million dollars.
Kroft: What do you think of it?
Strasma: It stinks.
We stopped by the former speaker's farm, to ask him about the land deal, but he was off in Washington where he now works as a lobbyist. His office told us that property values in the area began to appreciate even before the earmark and that the Hastert land was several miles from the nearest exit.
But the same good fortune befell former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, who helped steer nearly $70 million dollars in government funds towards redeveloping this defunct Air Force base, which he and his brother both had a commercial interest in. Gregg has said that he violated no congressional rules.
It's but one more example of good things happening to powerful members of Congress. Another is the access to initial public stock offerings, the opportunity to buy a new stock at insider prices just as it goes on the market. They can be incredibly lucrative and hard to get.
(CBS News)
Schweizer: If you were a senator, Steve, and I gave you $10,000 cash, one or both of us is probably gonna go to jail. But if I'm a corporate executive and you're a senator, and I give you IPO shares in stock and over the course of one day that stock nets you $100,000, that's completely legal.
And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House. Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House.
Congresswoman Pelosi also declined our request for an interview, but agreed to call on us if we attended a news conference.
Kroft: Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the-- through the House.
Nancy Pelosi: But--
Kroft: And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: The-- y-- I-- I don't know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that?
Kroft: Well, I-- I-- I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal?
Pelosi: Well, we didn't.
Kroft: You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance--
Pelosi: No, it was not--
Kroft: --of a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: --it doesn't-- it only has appearance if you decide that you're going to have-- elaborate on a false premise. But it-- it-- it's not true and that's that.
Kroft: I don't understand what part's not true.
Pelosi: Yes sir. That-- that I would act upon an investment.
Congresswoman Pelosi pointed out that the tough credit card legislation eventually passed, but it was two years later and was initiated in the Senate.
Pelosi: I will hold my record in terms of fighting the credit card companies as speaker of the House or as a member of Congress up against anyone.
Corporate executives, members of the executive branch and all federal judges are subject to strict conflict of interest rules. But not the people who write the laws.
Schweizer: If you are a member of Congress and you sit on the defense committee, you are free to trade defense stock as much as you want to if you're on the Senate banking committee you can trade bank stock as much as you want and that regularly goes on-- in-- in all these committees.
Brian Baird: There should only be one thing in your mind when you're drafting legislation, 'Is this good for the United States of America?' That's it. If you're starting to say to yourself 'how's this going to affect my investments,' you've got-- you've got a mixed agenda and a mixed purpose for being there.
(CBS News)
Brian Baird is a former congressman from Washington state who served six terms in the house before retiring last year. He spent half of those 12 years trying to get his colleagues to prohibit insider trading in Congress and establish some rules governing conflicts of interest.
Baird: One line in a bill in Congress can be worth millions and millions of dollars. There was one night, we had a late, late night caucus and you could kind of tell how a vote was going to go the next day. I literally walked home and I thought, 'Man, if you-- if you went online and made-- some significant trades, you could make a lot of money on this.' You-- you could just see it. You could see the potential here.
So in 2004, Baird and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter introduced the Stock Act which would make it illegal for members of Congress to trade stocks on non-public information and require them to report their stock trades every 90 days instead of once a year.
Kroft: How far did you get with this?
Baird: We didn't get anywhere. Just flat died. Went nowhere.
Kroft: How many cosponsors did you get?
Baird: I think we got six.
Kroft: Six doesn't sound like a very big amount.
Baird: It's not, Steve. You-- you could have-- 'National Cherry Pie Week' and get 100 cosponsors.
When Baird finally managed to get a congressional hearing on the Stock Act, almost no one showed up. It's reintroduced every session, but is buried so deep in the Capitol we had trouble finding congressmen who had even heard of it.
Kroft: Have you ever heard of the Stock Act?
Steve Palazzo: The what?
Kroft: The Stock Act. Do you know anything about it?
Congressman: No.
Kroft: Congressman. Congressman. Congressman.
Congressman Quayle: I haven't heard about that one yet.
Kroft: Have you ever heard of something called the Stock Act?
Congressman Watt: No.
Male voice: I've heard about, but not. I can't say it's an issue I've spent a lot of time on.
Male voice: I would have no problem with that.
Kroft: Okay.
Male voice: But then again I am a big fan of, you know, instant disclosure on almost everything.
Kroft: They're looking for co-sponsors.
(Male voice) Yet I've never heard of it.
(CBS News)
Baird: When you have a bill like this that makes so much sense and you can't get the co-sponsorships, you can't get the leadership to move it, it gets tremendously frustrating. Set aside that it's the right thing to do, it's good politics. People want their Congress to function well. It still baffles me.
But what baffles Baird even more is that the situation has gotten worse. In the past few years a whole new totally unregulated, $100 million dollar industry has grown up in Washington called political intelligence. It employs former congressmen and former staffers to scour the halls of the Capitol gathering valuable non-public information then selling it to hedge funds and traders on Wall Street who can trade on it.
Baird: Now if you're a political intel guy. And you get that information. Long before it's public. Long before somebody wakes up the next morning and reads or watches the television or whatever, you've got it. And you can make real-- real-time trades before anybody else.
Baird says its taken what would be a criminal enterprise anyplace else in the country and turned it into a profitable business model.
Baird: The town is all about people saying-- what do you know that I don't know. This is the currency of Washington, D.C. And it's that kind of informational currency that translates into real currency. Maybe it's over drinks maybe somebody picks up a phone. And says you know just to let you know it's in the bill. Trades happen. Can't trace 'em. If you can trace 'em, it's not illegal. It's a pretty great system. You feel like an idiot to not take advantage of it.
P.C.
-
SECOND POST:
Woof,
I bet it's just those evil Repub's doing this stuff!! Ha!
By Newsmax Wires
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.
In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.
In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.
How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen.
Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House.
“Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" reported.
Kroft confronted Pelosi at a regular press conference after she declined an interview.
Kroft: Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the —through the House.
Nancy Pelosi: But —
Kroft: And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: The — y — I — I don't know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that?
Kroft: Well, I — I — I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal?
Pelosi: Well, we didn't.
Kroft: You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance--
Pelosi: No, it was not —
Kroft: — of a conflict of interest?
Pelosi: —it doesn't — it only has appearance if you decide that you're going to have — elaborate on a false premise. But it — it — it's not true and that's that.
Kroft: I don't understand what part's not true.
Pelosi: Yes sir. That — that I would act upon an investment.
The Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer stressed that what Pelosi did was completely legal.
“There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong,” he told Kroft.
“… Insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply,” Schweizer added. “The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is — is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on — off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.”
Pelosi’s office issued a statement Sunday saying, “It is very troubling that ‘60 Minutes’ would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career out of attacking Democrats.”
Schweizer’s books include “Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” and “Architects of Ruin,” according to Schweizer’s page on the Hoover Institution website.
P.C.
-
Woof, 3rd Post;
Yes, our government is corrupt, both Party's, top to bottom and they've got us pointing fingers at eachother while they screw all of us.
Sold Out
How Wall Street and Washington
Betrayed America
March 2009
Essential Information * Consumer Education Foundation
www.wallstreetwatch.org
2 SOLD OUT
SOLD OUT 3
Sold Out
How Wall Street and Washington
Betrayed America
March 2009
Essential Information * Consumer Education Foundation
www.wallstreetwatch.org
4 SOLD OUT
Primary authors of this report are Robert Weissman and James Donahue. Harvey Rosenfield,
Jennifer Wedekind, Marcia Carroll, Charlie Cray, Peter Maybarduk, Tom Bollier and Paulo
Barbone assisted with writing and research.
Essential Information
PO Box 19405
Washington, DC 20036
202.387.8030
info@essential.org
www.essential.org
Consumer Education Foundation
PO Box 1855
Studio City, CA 91604
cefus@mac.com
SOLD OUT 5
www.wallstreetwatch.org
Table of Contents
Introduction: A Call to Arms, by Harvey Rosenfield ..ccccc. 6
Executive Summary cccccccccccccccccc... 14
Part I: 12 Deregulatory Steps to Financial Meltdown ....................... 21
1. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the Rise of the Culture of cccc.. 22
Recklessness
2. Hiding Liabilities: Off-Balance Sheet Accounting cccccccccc 33
3. The Executive Branch Rejects Financial Derivative Regulation cccc.. 39
4. Congress Blocks Financial Derivative Regulation cccccccccc 47
5. The SECfs Voluntary Regulation Regime for Investment Banks cccc. 50
6. Bank Self-Regulation Goes Global: Preparing to Repeat the Meltdown? c 54
7. Failure to Prevent Predatory Lending ccccccccccccccc 58
8. Federal Preemption of State Consumer Protection Laws ccccccc.. 67
9. Escaping Accountability: Assignee Liability cccccccccccc 73
10. Fannie and Freddie Enter the Subprime Market ccccccccccc 80
11. Merger Mania cccccccccccccccccccccccc 87
12. Rampant Conflicts of Interest: Credit Ratings Firmsf Failure ccccc.. 93
Part II: Wall Streetfs Washington Investment ..cccccccc. 98
Conclusion and Recommendations:
Principles for a New Financial Regulatory Architecture ..cc... 109
Appendix: Leading Financial Firm Profiles of Campaign
Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures ...cccccccc 115
6 SOLD OUT
Introduction:
A Call to Arms
by Harvey Rosenfield*
Americafs economy is in tatters, and the
situation grows dire by the day. Nearly
600,000 Americans lost their jobs in January,
for a total of 1.8 million over the last
three months.
Millions more
will lose theirs
over the next
year no matter
what happens.
Students can no
longer pursue a college education. Families
cannot afford to see a doctor. Many Americans
owe more on their homes than they are
worth. Those lucky enough to have had
pensions or retirement funds have watched
helplessly as 25 percent of their value
evaporated in 2008.
What caused this catastrophe? As this
report chronicles in gruesome detail, over
the last decade, Wall Street showered Washington
with over $1.7 billion in what are
prettily described as gcampaign contributions.h
This money went into the political
coffers of everyone from the lowliest mem-
* President, Consumer Education Foundation
1 Source: Center for Responsive Politics,
<www.opensecrets.org>.
ber of Congress to the President of the
United States. The Money Industry spent
another $3.4 billion on lobbyists whose job
it was to press for deregulation . Wall
Streetfs license to steal from every American.
In return for the investment of more than
$5.1 billion, the Money Industry was able to
get rid of many of the reforms enacted after
the Great Depression and to operate, for
most of the last
ten years, without
any effective
rules or restraints
whatsoever.
The report,
prepared by
Essential Information and the Consumer
Education Foundation, details step-by-step
many of the events that led to the financial
debacle. Here are the ghighlightsh of our
economic downfall:
. Beginning in 1983 with the Reagan
Administration, the U.S. government
acquiesced in accounting rules
adopted by the financial industry
that allowed banks and other corporations
to take money-losing assets
off their balance sheets in order to
hide them from investors and the
public.
. Between 1998 and 2000, Congress
and the Clinton Administration repeatedly
blocked efforts to regulate
Industry1 $ to Politicians $ to Lobbyists
Securities $512 million $600 million
Commercial Banks $155 million $383 million
Insurance Cos. $221 million $1002 million
Accounting $81 million $122 million
SOLD OUT 7
gfinancial derivativesh . including
the mortgage-related credit default
swaps that became the basis of trillions
of dollars in speculation.
. In 1999, Congress repealed the Depression-
era law that barred banks
from offering investment and insurance
services, and vice versa, enabling
these firms to engage in speculation
by investing money from
checking and savings accounts into
financial gderivativesh and other
schemes understood by only a handful
of individuals.
. Taking advantage of historically low
interest rates in the early part of this
decade, shady mortgage brokers and
bankers began offering mortgages
on egregious terms to purchasers
who were not qualified. When these
predatory lending practices were
brought to the attention of federal
agencies, they refused to take serious
action. Worse, when states
stepped into the vacuum by passing
laws requiring protections against
dirty loans, the Bush Administration
went to court to invalidate those reforms,
on the ground that the inaction
of federal agencies superseded
state laws.
. The financial industryfs friends in
Congress made sure that those who
speculate in mortgages would not be
legally liable for fraud or other illegalities
that occurred when the
mortgage was made.
. Egged on by Wall Street, two government-
sponsored corporations,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
started buying large numbers of
subprime loans from private banks
as well as packages of mortgages
known as gmortgage-backed securities.h
. In 2004, the top cop on the Wall
Street beat in Washington . the
Securities and Exchange Commission
. now operating under the
radical deregulatory ideology of the
Bush Administration, authorized investment
banks to decide for themselves
how much money they were
required to set aside as rainy day reserves.
Some firms then entered into
$40 worth of speculative trading for
every $1 they held.
. With the compensation of CEOs increasingly
tied to the value of the
firmfs total assets, a tidal wave of
mergers and acquisitions in the financial
world . 11,500 between
1980 and 2005 . led to the predominance
of just a relative handful
banks in the U.S. financial system.
Successive administrations failed to
enforce antitrust laws to block these
mergers. The result: less competi8
SOLD OUT
tion, higher fees and charges for
consumers, and a financial system
vulnerable to collapse if any single
one of the banks ran into trouble.
. Investors and even government authorities
relied on private gcredit ratingh
firms to review corporate balance
sheets and proposed investments
and report to potential investors
about their quality and safety.
But the credit rating companies had
a grave conflict of interest: they are
paid by the financial firms to issue
the ratings. Not surprisingly, they
gave the highest ratings to the investments
issued by the firms that
paid them, even as it became clear
that the ratings were inflated and the
companies were in precarious condition.
The financial lobby made sure
that regulation of the credit ratings
firms would not solve these problems.
None of these milestones on the road to
economic ruin were kept secret. The dangers
posed by unregulated, greed-driven financial
speculation were readily apparent to any
astute observer of the financial system. But
few of those entrusted with the responsibility
to police the marketplace were willing to
do so. And as the report explains, those
officials in government who dared to propose
stronger protections for investors and
consumers consistently met with hostility
and defeat. The power of the Money Industry
overcame all opposition, on a bipartisan
basis.
Itfs not like our elected leaders in Washington
had no warning: The California
energy crisis in 2000, and the subsequent
collapse of Enron . at the time unprecedented
. was an early warning that the
nationfs system of laws and regulations was
inadequate to meet the conniving and trickery
of the financial industry. The California
crisis turned out to be a foreshock of the
financial catastrophe that our country is in
today. It began with the deregulation of
electricity prices by the state legislature.
Greased with millions in campaign contributions
from Wall Street and the energy industry,
the legislation was approved on a bipartisan
basis without a dissenting vote.
Once deregulation took effect, Wall
Street began trading electricity and the
private energy companies boosted prices
through the roof. Within a few weeks, the
utility companies . unable because of a
loophole in the law to pass through the
higher prices to consumers . simply
stopped paying for the power. Blackouts
ensued. At the time, Californians were
chastised for having caused the shortages
through gover-consumption.h But the energy
shortages were orchestrated by Wall Street
rating firms, investment banks and energy
companies, in order to force Californiafs
taxpayers to bail out the utility companies.
SOLD OUT 9
Californiafs political leadership and utility
regulators largely succumbed to the blackmail,
and $11 billion in public money was
used to pay for electricity at prices that
proved to be artificially manipulated by c
Wall Street traders. The state of California
was forced to increase utility rates and
borrow over $19 billion . through Wall
Street firms . to cover these debts.
Its electricity trading activities under investigation,
Enronfs vast accounting shenanigans,
including massive losses hidden in
off-balance sheet corporate entities, came to
light, and the company collapsed within a
matter of days. It looked at the time as
though the California deregulation disaster
and the Enron scandal would lead to
stronger regulation and corporate accountability.
But then 9/11 occurred. And for most of
the last decade, the American people have
been told that our greatest enemy lived in a
cave. The subsequent focus on external
threats, real and imagined, distracted attention
from deepening problems at home. As
Franklin Roosevelt observed seventy years
ago, gour enemies of today are the forces of
privilege and greed within our own borders.h
Today, the enemies of American
consumers, taxpayers and small investors
live in multimillion-dollar palaces and pull
down seven-, eight- or even nine-figure
annual paychecks. Their weapons of mass
destruction, as Warren Buffett famously put
it, were derivatives: pieces of paper that
were backed by other pieces of paper that
were backed by packages of mortgages,
student loans and credit card debt, the
complexity and value of which only a few
understood. Meanwhile, the lessons of
Enron were cast aside after a few insignificant
measures . the tougher reforms killed
by the Money Industry . and Wall Street
went back to business as usual.
Last fall, the house of cards finally collapsed.
For those who might have heard the
gblame the victimh propaganda emanating
from the free marketers whose philosophy
lies in a smoldering ruin alongside the
economy, the report sets the record straight:
consumers are not to blame for this debacle.
Not those of us who used credit in an attempt
to have a decent quality of life (as
opposed to the tiny fraction of people in our
country who truly got ahead over the last
decade). Nor can we blame the Americans
who were offered amazing terms for mortgages
but forgot to bring a Ph.D. and a
lawyer to their gclosing,h and later found out
that they had been misled and could not
afford the loan at the real interest rate buried
in the fine print.
Rather, Americafs economic system is
at or beyond the verge of depression today
because gambling became the financial
sectorfs principal preoccupation, and the pile
of chips grew so big that the Money Industry
displaced real businesses that provided real
10 SOLD OUT
goods, services and jobs. By that time, the
amount of financial derivatives in circulation
around the world . $683 trillion by
one estimate . was more than ten times the
actual value of all the goods and services
produced by the entire planet. When all the
speculators tried to cash out, starting in
2007, there really wasnft enough money to
cover all the bets.
If we Americans are to blame for anything,
itfs for allowing Wall Street to do
what it calls a gleveraged buy outh of our
political system by spending a relatively
small amount of capital in the Capitol in
order to seize control of our economy.
Of course, the moment the Money Industry
realized that the casino had closed, it
turned . as it always does . to Washington,
this time for the mother of all favors: a
$700 billion bailout of the biggest financial
speculators in the country. Thatfs correct:
the people who lost hundreds of billions of
dollars of investorsf money were given
hundreds of billions of dollars more. The
bailout was quickly extended to insurance
companies, credit card companies, auto
manufacturers and even car rental firms. In
addition to cash infusions, the government
has blown open the federal bank vaults to
offer the Money Industry a feast of discount
loans, loan guarantees and other taxpayer
subsidies. The total tally so far? At least $8
trillion.
Panicked by Wall Streetfs threat to pull
the plug on credit, Congress rebuffed efforts
to include safeguards on how taxpayer
money would be spent and accounted for.
Thatfs why many of the details of the bailout
remain a secret, hiding the fact that no one
really knows why certain companies were
given our money, or how it has been spent.
Bankers used it pay bonuses, to buy back
their own bank stock, or to build their empires
by purchasing other banks. But very
little of the money has been used for the
purpose it was ostensibly given: to make
loans. One thing is certain: this last Washington
giveaway . the Greatest Wall Street
Giveaway of all time . has not fixed the
economy.
Meanwhile, at this very moment of national
threat, the banks, hedge funds and
other parasite firms that crippled our economy
are pouring money into Washington to
preserve their privileges at the expense of
the rest of us. The only thing that has
changed is that many of these firms are
using taxpayer money . our money . to do
so.
Thatfs why you wonft hear anyone in
the Washington establishment suggest that
Americans be given a seat on the Board of
Directors of every company that receives
bailout money. Or that Americafs economic
security is intolerably jeopardized when
pushing paper around constitutes a quarter
or more of our economy. Or that credit
default swaps and other derivatives should
SOLD OUT 11
be prohibited, or limited just like slot machines,
roulette wheels and other forms of
gambling.
In most of the United States, you can go
to jail for stealing a loaf of bread. But if you
have paid off Washington, you can steal the
life-savings, livelihoods, homes and dreams
of an entire nation, and you will be allowed
to live in the fancy homes you own, drive
multiple cars, throw multi-million dollar
birthday parties. Punishment? You might not
be able to get your bonus this year or, worst
come to worst, if you are one of the very
unlucky few unable to take advantage of the
loopholes in the plan announced by the
Treasury Secretary Geithner, you may end
up having to live off your past riches because
you can only earn a measly $500,000
while you are on the dole. (More good news
for corporate thieves: this flea-bitten proposal
is not retroactive . it does not apply
to all the taxpayer money already handed
out).
Like their predecessors, Presidentelected
Obamafs key appointments to the
Treasury, the SEC and other agencies are
veterans of the Money Industry. They are
unlikely to challenge the narrow boundaries
of the debate that has characterized Washingtonfs
response to the crisis. So long as
the Money Industry remains in charge of the
federal agencies and keeps our elected
officials in its deep pockets, nothing will
change.
Here are seven basic principles that
Americans should insist upon.
Relief. Itfs been only five months since
Congress authorized $700 billion to bail out
the speculators. Congress was told that the
bailout would alleviate the gcredit crunchh
and encourage banks to lend money to
consumers and small businesses. But the
banks have hoarded the money, or misspent
it. If the banks arenft going to keep their end
of the bargain, the government should use its
power of eminent domain to take control of
the banks, or seize the money and let the
banks go bankrupt. On top of the $700
billion bailout, the Federal Reserve has been
loaning public money to Wall Street firms
money at as little as .25 percent. These
companies are then turning around and
charging Americans interest rates of 4
percent to 30 percent for mortgages and
credit cards. There should be a cap on what
banks and credit card companies can charge
us when we borrow our own money back
from them. Similarly, transfers of taxpayer
money should be conditioned on acceptance
of other terms that would help the public,
such as an agreement to waive late fees, and
an agreement not to lobby the government.
And, Americans should be appointed to sit
on the boards of directors of these firms in
order to have a say on what these companies
do with our money . to keep them from
wasting it and to make sure they repay it.
12 SOLD OUT
Restitution. Companies that get taxpayer
money must be required to repay it on terms
that are fair to taxpayers. When Warren
Buffett acquired preferred shares in Goldman
Sachs, he demanded that Goldman
Sachs pay 10 percent interest; taxpayers are
only getting back 5 percent. The Congressional
Oversight Panel estimates that taxpayers
received preferred shares worth about
two-thirds of what was given to the initial
bailout recipients. Even worse are the taxpayer
loan guarantees offered to Citigroup.
For a $20 billion cash injection plus taxpayer
guarantees on $306 billion in toxic
assets . likely to impose massive liabilities
on the public purse . the government
received $27 billion in preferred shares,
paying 8 percent interest. Now the Obama
administration has suggested that it might
offer a dramatically expanded guarantee
program for toxic assets, putting the taxpayer
on the hook for hundreds of billions
more.
Regulation. The grand experiment in letting
Wall Street regulate itself under the assumption
that free market forces will police the
marketplace has failed catastrophically.
Wall Street needs to operate under rules that
will contain their excessive greed. Derivatives
should be prohibited unless it can be
shown that they serve a useful purpose in
our economy; those that are authorized
should be traded on exchanges subject to
full disclosure. Further mergers of financial
industry titans should be barred under the
antitrust laws, and the current monopolistic
industry should be broken up once the
country has recovered.
Reform. It is clear that the original $700
billion bailout was a rush job so poorly
constructed that it has largely failed and
much of the money wasted. The federal
government should revise the last bailout
and establish new terms for oversight and
disclosure of which companies are getting
federal money and what they are doing with
it.
Responsibility. Americans are tired of
watching corporate criminals get off with a
slap on the wrist when they plunder and
loot. Accountability is necessary to maintain
not only the honesty of the marketplace but
the integrity of American democracy. Corporate
officials who acted recklessly with
stockholder and public money should be
prosecuted and sentenced to jail time under
the same rules applicable to street thugs.
State and local law enforcement agencies,
with the assistance of the federal government,
should join to build a national network
for the investigation and prosecution of the
corporate crooks.
Return . to a real economy. In 2007, more
than a quarter of all corporate profits came
SOLD OUT 13
from the Money Industry, largely based on
speculation by corporations operating in
international markets and whose actions call
into question their loyalty to the best interests
of America. To recover, America must
return to the principles that made it great .
hard work, creativity, and innovation . and
both government and business must serve
that end. The spectacle of so many large
corporations lining up for government
assistance puts to rest the argument made by
the corporate-funded think tanks and talking
heads over the last three decades that government
is gthe problem, not the solution.h
In fact, as this report shows, government has
been the solution for the Money Industry all
along.
Now Washington must serve America,
not Wall Street. Massive government intervention
is not only appropriate when it is
necessary to save banks and insurance
companies. For the $20 billion in taxpayer
money that the government gave Citigroup
in November, we could have bought the
company lock, stock and barrel, and then we
would have our own credit card, student
loan and mortgage company, run on careful
business principles but without the need to
turn an enormous profit. Think of the assistance
that that would offer to Main Street,
not to mention the competitive effect it
would have on the market. And massive
government intervention is whatfs really
needed in the health care system, which
private enterprise has plundered and then for
so many Americans abandoned.
Revolt. Things will not change so long as
Americans acquiesce to business as usual in
Washington. Itfs time for Americans to
make their voices heard.
14 SOLD OUT
Executive Summary
Blame Wall Street for the current financial
crisis. Investment banks, hedge funds and
commercial banks made reckless bets using
borrowed money. They created and trafficked
in exotic investment vehicles that
even top Wall Street executives . not to
mention firm directors . did not understand.
They hid risky investments in offbalance-
sheet vehicles or capitalized on their
legal status to cloak investments altogether.
They engaged in unconscionable predatory
lending that offered huge profits for a time,
but led to dire consequences when the loans
proved unpayable. And they created, maintained
and justified a housing bubble, the
bursting of which has thrown the United
States and the world into a deep recession,
resulted in a foreclosure epidemic ripping
apart communities across the country.
But while Wall Street is culpable for
the financial crisis and global recession,
others do share responsibility.2
For the last three decades, financial
regulators, Congress and the executive
branch have steadily eroded the regulatory
system that restrained the financial sector
from acting on its own worst tendencies.
The post-Depression regulatory system
2 This report uses the term gWall Streeth in the
colloquial sense of standing for the big players
in the financial sector, not just those located
in New Yorkfs financial district.
aimed to force disclosure of publicly relevant
financial information; established limits
on the use of leverage; drew bright lines
between different kinds of financial activity
and protected regulated commercial banking
from investment bank-style risk taking;
enforced meaningful limits on economic
concentration, especially in the banking
sector; provided meaningful consumer
protections (including restrictions on usurious
interest rates); and contained the financial
sector so that it remained subordinate to
the real economy. This hodge-podge regulatory
system was, of course, highly imperfect,
including because it too often failed to
deliver on its promises.
But it was not its imperfections that led
to the erosion and collapse of that regulatory
system. It was a concerted effort by Wall
Street, steadily gaining momentum until it
reached fever pitch in the late 1990s and
continued right through the first half of
2008. Even now, Wall Street continues to
defend many of its worst practices. Though
it bows to the political reality that new
regulation is coming, it aims to reduce the
scope and importance of that regulation and,
if possible, use the guise of regulation to
further remove public controls over its
operations.
This report has one overriding message:
financial deregulation led directly to the
financial meltdown.
It also has two other, top-tier messages.
SOLD OUT 15
First, the details matter. The report documents
a dozen specific deregulatory steps
(including failures to regulate and failures to
enforce existing regulations) that enabled
Wall Street to crash the financial system.
Second, Wall Street didnft obtain these
regulatory abeyances based on the force of
its arguments. At every step, critics warned
of the dangers of further deregulation. Their
evidence-based claims could not offset the
political and economic muscle of Wall
Street. The financial sector showered campaign
contributions on politicians from both
parties, invested heavily in a legion of
lobbyists, paid academics and think tanks to
justify their preferred policy positions, and
cultivated a pliant media . especially a
cheerleading business media complex.
Part I of this report presents 12 Deregulatory
Steps to Financial Meltdown. For
each deregulatory move, we aim to explain
the deregulatory action taken (or regulatory
move avoided), its consequence, and the
process by which big financial firms and
their political allies maneuvered to achieve
their deregulatory objective.
In Part II, we present data on financial
firmsf campaign contributions and disclosed
lobbying investments. The aggregate data
are startling: The financial sector invested
more than $5.1 billion in political influence
purchasing over the last decade.
The entire financial sector (finance, insurance,
real estate) drowned political
candidates in campaign contributions over
the past decade, spending more than $1.7
billion in federal elections from 1998-2008.
Primarily reflecting the balance of power
over the decade, about 55 percent went to
Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats.
Democrats took just more than half of the
financial sectorfs 2008 election cycle contributions.
The industry spent even more . topping
$3.4 billion . on officially registered
lobbying of federal officials during the same
period.
During the period 1998-2008:
. Accounting firms spent $81 million
on campaign contributions and $122
million on lobbying;
. Commercial banks spent more than
$155 million on campaign contributions,
while investing nearly $383
million in officially registered lobbying;
. Insurance companies donated more
than $220 million and spent more
than $1.1 billion on lobbying;
. Securities firms invested nearly
$513 million in campaign contributions,
and an additional $600 million
in lobbying.
All this money went to hire legions of
lobbyists. The financial sector employed
2,996 lobbyists in 2007. Financial firms
employed an extraordinary number of
former government officials as lobbyists.
16 SOLD OUT
This report finds 142 of the lobbyists employed
by the financial sector from 1998-
2008 were previously high-ranking officials
or employees in the Executive Branch or
Congress.
These are the 12 Deregulatory Steps to
Financial Meltdown:
1. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and
the Rise of the Culture of Recklessness
The Financial Services Modernization Act
of 1999 formally repealed the Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933 (also known as the Banking Act
of 1933) and related laws, which prohibited
commercial banks from offering investment
banking and insurance services. In a form of
corporate civil disobedience, Citibank and
insurance giant Travelers Group merged in
1998 . a move that was illegal at the time,
but for which they were given a two-year
forbearance . on the assumption that they
would be able to force a change in the
relevant law at a future date. They did. The
1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall helped create
the conditions in which banks invested
monies from checking and savings accounts
into creative financial instruments such as
mortgage-backed securities and credit
default swaps, investment gambles that
rocked the financial markets in 2008.
2. Hiding Liabilities:
Off-Balance Sheet Accounting
Holding assets off the balance sheet generally
allows companies to exclude gtoxich or
money-losing assets from financial disclosures
to investors in order to make the
company appear more valuable than it is.
Banks used off-balance sheet operations .
special purpose entities (SPEs), or special
purpose vehicles (SPVs) . to hold securitized
mortgages. Because the securitized
mortgages were held by an off-balance sheet
entity, however, the banks did not have to
hold capital reserves as against the risk of
default . thus leaving them so vulnerable.
Off-balance sheet operations are permitted
by Financial Accounting Standards Board
rules installed at the urging of big banks.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association and the American Securitization
Forum are among the lobby interests
now blocking efforts to get this rule reformed.
3. The Executive Branch Rejects
Financial Derivative Regulation
Financial derivatives are unregulated. By all
accounts this has been a disaster, as Warren
Buffetfs warning that they represent gweapons
of mass financial destructionh has
proven prescient.3 Financial derivatives have
3 Warren Buffett, Chairman, Berkshire
Hathaway, Report to Shareholders, February
21, 2003. Available at:
<http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/
SOLD OUT 17
amplified the financial crisis far beyond the
unavoidable troubles connected to the
popping of the housing bubble.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC) has jurisdiction over futures,
options and other derivatives connected
to commodities. During the Clinton
administration, the CFTC sought to exert
regulatory control over financial derivatives.
The agency was quashed by opposition from
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and, above
all, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. They challenged
the agencyfs jurisdictional authority;
and insisted that CFTC regulation might
imperil existing financial activity that was
already at considerable scale (though nowhere
near present levels). Then-Deputy
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers told
Congress that CFTC proposals gcas[t] a
shadow of regulatory uncertainty over an
otherwise thriving market.h
4. Congress Blocks Financial Derivative
Regulation
The deregulation . or non-regulation . of
financial derivatives was sealed in 2000,
with the Commodities Futures Modernization
Act (CFMA), passage of which was
engineered by then-Senator Phil Gramm, RTexas.
The Commodities Futures Modernization
Act exempts financial derivatives,
including credit default swaps, from regulation
and helped create the current financial
2002pdf.pdf>.
crisis.
5. The SECfs Voluntary Regulation
Regime for Investment Banks
In 1975, the SECfs trading and markets
division promulgated a rule requiring investment
banks to maintain a debt-to-netcapital
ratio of less than 12 to 1. It forbid
trading in securities if the ratio reached or
exceeded 12 to 1, so most companies maintained
a ratio far below it. In 2004, however,
the SEC succumbed to a push from the big
investment banks . led by Goldman Sachs,
and its then-chair, Henry Paulson . and
authorized investment banks to develop their
own net capital requirements in accordance
with standards published by the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision. This
essentially involved complicated mathematical
formulas that imposed no real limits,
and was voluntarily administered. With this
new freedom, investment banks pushed
borrowing ratios to as high as 40 to 1, as in
the case of Merrill Lynch. This superleverage
not only made the investment
banks more vulnerable when the housing
bubble popped, it enabled the banks to
create a more tangled mess of derivative
investments . so that their individual
failures, or the potential of failure, became
systemic crises. Former SEC Chair Chris
Cox has acknowledged that the voluntary
regulation was a complete failure.
18 SOLD OUT
6. Bank Self-Regulation Goes Global:
Preparing to Repeat the Meltdown?
In 1988, global bank regulators adopted a set
of rules known as Basel I, to impose a
minimum global standard of capital adequacy
for banks. Complicated financial
maneuvering made it hard to determine
compliance, however, which led to negotiations
over a new set of regulations. Basel II,
heavily influenced by the banks themselves,
establishes varying capital reserve requirements,
based on subjective factors of agency
ratings and the banksf own internal riskassessment
models. The SEC experience
with Basel II principles illustrates their fatal
flaws. Commercial banks in the United
States are supposed to be compliant with
aspects of Basel II as of April 2008, but
complications and intra-industry disputes
have slowed implementation.
7. Failure to Prevent Predatory Lending
Even in a deregulated environment, the
banking regulators retained authority to
crack down on predatory lending abuses.
Such enforcement activity would have
protected homeowners, and lessened though
not prevented the current financial crisis.
But the regulators sat on their hands. The
Federal Reserve took three formal actions
against subprime lenders from 2002 to 2007.
The Office of Comptroller of the Currency,
which has authority over almost 1,800
banks, took three consumer-protection
enforcement actions from 2004 to 2006.
8. Federal Preemption of State Consumer
Protection Laws
When the states sought to fill the vacuum
created by federal nonenforcement of consumer
protection laws against predatory
lenders, the feds jumped to stop them. gIn
2003,h as Eliot Spitzer recounted, gduring
the height of the predatory lending crisis, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
invoked a clause from the 1863 National
Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting
all state predatory lending laws, thereby
rendering them inoperative. The OCC also
promulgated new rules that prevented states
from enforcing any of their own consumer
protection laws against national banks.h
9. Escaping Accountability:
Assignee Liability
Under existing federal law, with only limited
exceptions, only the original mortgage
lender is liable for any predatory and illegal
features of a mortgage . even if the mortgage
is transferred to another party. This
arrangement effectively immunized acquirers
of the mortgage (gassigneesh) for any
problems with the initial loan, and relieved
them of any duty to investigate the terms of
the loan. Wall Street interests could purchase,
bundle and securitize subprime loans
. including many with pernicious, predatory
terms . without fear of liability for
SOLD OUT 19
illegal loan terms. The arrangement left
victimized borrowers with no cause of
action against any but the original lender,
and typically with no defenses against being
foreclosed upon. Representative Bob Ney,
R-Ohio . a close friend of Wall Street who
subsequently went to prison in connection
with the Abramoff scandal . was the
leading opponent of a fair assignee liability
regime.
10. Fannie and Freddie Enter the
Subprime Market
At the peak of the housing boom, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac were dominant purchasers
in the subprime secondary market.
The Government-Sponsored Enterprises
were followers, not leaders, but they did end
up taking on substantial subprime assets .
at least $57 billion. The purchase of subprime
assets was a break from prior practice,
justified by theories of expanded access to
homeownership for low-income families and
rationalized by mathematical models allegedly
able to identify and assess risk to newer
levels of precision. In fact, the motivation
was the for-profit nature of the institutions
and their particular executive incentive
schemes. Massive lobbying . including
especially but not only of Democratic
friends of the institutions . enabled them to
divert from their traditional exclusive focus
on prime loans.
Fannie and Freddie are not responsible
for the financial crisis. They are responsible
for their own demise, and the resultant
massive taxpayer liability.
11. Merger Mania
The effective abandonment of antitrust and
related regulatory principles over the last
two decades has enabled a remarkable
concentration in the banking sector, even in
advance of recent moves to combine firms
as a means to preserve the functioning of the
financial system. The megabanks achieved
too-big-to-fail status. While this should have
meant they be treated as public utilities
requiring heightened regulation and risk
control, other deregulatory maneuvers
(including repeal of Glass-Steagall) enabled
these gigantic institutions to benefit from
explicit and implicit federal guarantees, even
as they pursued reckless high-risk investments.
12. Rampant Conflicts of Interest:
Credit Ratings Firmsf Failure
Credit ratings are a key link in the financial
crisis story. With Wall Street combining
mortgage loans into pools of securitized
assets and then slicing them up into
tranches, the resultant financial instruments
were attractive to many buyers because they
promised high returns. But pension funds
and other investors could only enter the
game if the securities were highly rated.
The credit rating firms enabled these
20 SOLD OUT
investors to enter the game, by attaching
high ratings to securities that actually were
high risk . as subsequent events have
revealed. The credit ratings firms have a bias
to offering favorable ratings to new instruments
because of their complex relationships
with issuers, and their desire to maintain
and obtain other business dealings with
issuers.
This institutional failure and conflict of
interest might and should have been forestalled
by the SEC, but the Credit Rating
Agencies Reform Act of 2006 gave the SEC
insufficient oversight authority. In fact, the
SEC must give an approval rating to credit
ratings agencies if they are adhering to their
own standards . even if the SEC knows
those standards to be flawed.
Wall Street is presently humbled, but not
prostrate. Despite siphoning trillions of
dollars from the public purse, Wall Street
executives continue to warn about the perils
of restricting gfinancial innovationh . even
though it was these very innovations that led
to the crisis. And they are scheming to use
the coming Congressional focus on financial
regulation to centralize authority with industry-
friendly agencies.
If we are to see the meaningful regulation
we need, Congress must adopt the view
that Wall Street has no legitimate seat at the
table. With Wall Street having destroyed the
system that enriched its high flyers, and
plunged the global economy into deep
recession, itfs time for Congress to tell Wall
Street that its political investments have also
gone bad. This time, legislating must be to
control Wall Street, not further Wall Streetfs
control.
This reportfs conclusion offers guiding
principles for a new financial regulatory
architecture.
SOLD OUT 21
Part I:
12 Deregulatory Steps to
Financial Meltdown
22 SOLD OUT
REPEAL OF THE GLASSSTEAGALL
ACT AND THE RISE OF
THE CULTURE OF RECKLESSNESS
Perhaps the signature deregulatory move of
the last quarter century was the repeal of the
1933 Glass-Steagall Act4 and related legislation.
5 The repeal removed the legal prohibi-
4 Glass-Steagall repealed at Pub. L. 106.102,
title I, ˜ 101(a), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat.
1341.
5 See amendments to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. ˜˜ 1841-1850,
1994 & Supp. II 1997 (amended 1999).
tion on combinations between commercial
banks on the one hand, and investment
banks and other financial services companies
on the other. Glass-Steagallfs strict
rules originated in the U.S. Governmentfs
response to the Depression and reflected the
learned experience of the severe dangers to
consumers and the overall financial system
of permitting giant financial institutions to
combine commercial banking with other
financial operations.
Glass-Steagall and related laws advanced
the core public objectives of protecting
depositors and avoiding excessive risk
for the banking system by defining industry
structure: banks could not maintain investment
banking or insurance affiliates (nor
affiliates in non-financial commercial activity).
As banks eyed the higher profits in
higher risk activity, however, they began to
breach the regulatory walls between commercial
banking and other financial services.
Starting in the 1980s, responding to a steady
drumbeat of requests, regulators began to
weaken the strict prohibition on crossownership.
In 1999, after a long industry
campaign, Congress tore down the legal
walls altogether. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act6 removed the remaining legal restrictions
on combined banking and financial
service firms, and ushered in the current
hyper-deregulated era.
6 Pub. L. No. 106-102.
1
IN THIS SECTION:
The Financial Services Modernization Act of
1999 formally repealed the Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933 (also known as the Banking Act
of 1933) and related laws, which prohibited
commercial banks from offering investment
banking and insurance services. In a form of
corporate civil disobedience, Citibank and
insurance giant Travelers Group merged in
1998 . a move that was illegal at the time,
but for which they were given a two-year
forbearance . on the assumption that they
would be able to force a change in the
relevant law at a future date. They did. The
1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall helped create
the conditions in which banks invested
monies from checking and savings accounts
into creative financial instruments such as
mortgage-backed securities and credit
default swaps, investment gambles that
rocked the financial markets in 2008.
SOLD OUT 23
The overwhelming direct damage inflicted
by Glass-Steagall repeal was the
infusion of investment banking culture into
the conservative culture of commercial
banking. After repeal, commercial banks
sought high returns in risky ventures and
exotic financial instruments, with disastrous
results.
Origins
Banking involves the collection of funds
from depositors with the promise that the
funds will be available when the depositor
wishes to withdraw them. Banks keep only a
specified fraction of deposits in their vaults.
They lend the rest out to borrowers or invest
the deposits to generate income. Depositors
depend on the bankfs stability, and communities
and businesses depend on banks to
provide credit on reasonable terms. The
difficulties faced by depositors in judging
the quality of bank assets has required
government regulation to protect the safety
of depositorsf money and the well being of
the banking system.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the
Supreme Court prohibited commercial banks
from engaging directly in securities activities,
7 but bank affiliates . subsidiaries of a
7 See California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U.S. 362,
370-71 (1897) (holding that national bank
may neither purchase nor subscribe to stock
of another corporation); Logan County Natfl
Bank v. Townsend, 139 U.S. 67, 78 (1891)
(holding that national bank may be liable as
shareholder while in possession of bonds
holding company that also owns banks .
were not subject to the prohibition. As a
result, commercial bank affiliates regularly
traded customer deposits in the stock market,
often investing in highly speculative
activities and dubious companies and derivatives.
The Pecora Hearings
The economic collapse that began with the
1929 stock market crash hit Americans hard.
By the time the bottom arrived, in 1932, the
Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 89
percent from its 1929 peak.8 An estimated
15 million workers . almost 25 percent9 of
the workforce . were unemployed, real
output in the United States fell nearly 30
percent and prices fell at a rate of nearly 10
percent per year.10
obtained under contract made absent legal
authority); National Bank v. Case, 99 U.S.
628, 633 (1878) (holding that national bank
may be liable for stock held in another
bank).
8 Floyd Norris, gLooking Back at the Crash of
f29,h New York Times on the web, 1999,
available at:
<http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/i
ndex-1929-crash.html>.
9 Remarks by Federal Reserve Board Chairman
Ben S. Bernanke, gMoney, Gold, and the
Great Depression,h March 2, 2004, available
at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/s
peeches/2004/200403022/default.htm>.
10 Remarks by Federal Reserve Board Chairman
Ben S. Bernanke, gMoney, Gold, and the
Great Depression,h March 2, 2004, available
at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/s
peeches/2004/200403022/default.htm>.
24 SOLD OUT
The 1932-34 Pecora Hearings,11 held
by the Senate Banking and Currency Committee
and named after its chief counsel
Ferdinand Pecora, investigated the causes of
the 1929 crash. The committee uncovered
blatant conflicts of interest
and self-dealing by commercial
banks and their
investment affiliates. For
example, commercial banks
had misrepresented to their
depositors the quality of
securities that their investment
banks were underwriting
and promoting, leading
the depositors to be overly
confident in commercial banksf stability.
First National City Bank (now Citigroup)
and its securities affiliate, the National City
Company, had 2,000 brokers selling securities.
12 Those brokers had repackaged the
bankfs Latin American loans and sold them
to investors as new securities (today, this is
known as gsecuritizationh) without disclosing
to customers the bankfs confidential
findings that the loans posed an adverse
11 The Pecora hearings, formally titled gStock
Exchange Practices: Hearings Before the
Senate Banking Committee,h were
authorized by S. Res. No. 84, 72d Cong., 1st
Session (1931). The hearings were convened
in the 72d and 73d Congresses (1932-1934).
12 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
website, gThe Roaring 20s,h Undated,
available at:
<http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/learning/
when/1920s.html>.
risk.13 Peruvian government bonds were sold
even though the bankfs staff had internally
warned that gno further national loan can be
safely madeh to Peru. The Senate committee
found conflicts when commercial banks
were able to garner confidential
insider information
about their corporate
customersf deposits and
use it to benefit the bankfs
investment affiliates. In
addition, commercial
banks would routinely
purchase the stock of
firms that were customers
of the bank, as opposed to
firms that were most financially stable.
The Pecora hearings concluded that
common ownership of commercial banks
and investment banks created several distinct
problems, among them: 1) jeopardizing
depositors by investing their funds in the
stock market; 2) loss of the publicfs confidence
in the banks, which led to panic
withdrawals; 3) the making of unsound
loans; and 4) an inability to provide honest
investment advice to depositors because
banks were conflicted by their underwriting
relationship with companies.14
13 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
website, gThe Roaring 20s,h Undated,
available at:
<http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/learning/
when/1920s.html>.
14 Joan M. LeGraw and Stacey L. Davidson,
gGlass-Steagall and the eSubtle Hazardsf of
The Pecora hearings
concluded that common
ownership of commercial
banks and investment banks
created several distinct
problems.
SOLD OUT 25
Congress Acts
The Glass-Steagall Act consisted of four
provisions to address the conflicts of interest
that the Congress concluded had helped
trigger the 1929 crash:
. Section 16 restricted commercial national
banks from engaging in most
investment banking activities;15
. Section 21 prohibited investment
banks from engaging in any commercial
banking activities;16
. Section 20 prohibited any Federal
Reserve-member bank from affiliating
with an investment bank or other
company gengaged principallyh in
securities trading;17 and
Judicial Activism,h 24 New Eng. L. Rev.
225, Fall 1989.
15 12 U.S.C. ˜ 24, Seventh (1933) (provided that
a national bank gshall not underwrite any
issue of securities or stockh ).
16 12 U.S.C. ˜ 378(a) (1933) (git shall be
unlawful - (1) For any person, firm,
corporation, association, business trust, or
other similar organization, engaged in the
business of issuing, underwriting, selling, or
distributing, at wholesale or retail, or
through syndicate participation, stocks,
bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities,
to engage at the same time to any extent
whatever in the business of [deposit
banking].h
17 12 U.S.C. ˜ 377 (1933) (prohibited affiliations
between banks that are members of the
Federal Reserve System and organizations
gengaged principally in the issue, flotation,
underwriting, public sale, or distribution at
wholesale or retail or through syndicate
participation of stocks, bonds, debentures,
notes, or other securities.....h). Federal
Reserve member banks include all national
banks and some state-chartered banks and
are subject to regulations of the Federal
Reserve System, often referred to as the
. Section 32 prohibited individuals
from serving simultaneously with a
commercial bank and an investment
bank as a director, officer, employee,
or principal.18
One exception in Section 20 permitted
securities activities by banks in limited
circumstances, such as the trading of municipal
general obligation bonds, U.S.
government bonds, and real estate bonds. It
also permitted banks to help private companies
issue gcommercial paperh for the purpose
of obtaining short-term loans. (Commercial
paper is a debt instrument or bond
equivalent to a short-term loan; companies
issue gcommercial paperh to fund daily (i.e.,
short-term) operations, including payments
Federal Reserve or simply gthe Fed.h The
Fed, created in 1913, is the central bank of
the United States comprised of a central,
governmental agency . the Board of
Governors . in Washington, D.C., and
twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks,
located in major cities throughout the nation.
The Fed supervises thousands of its member
banks and controls the total supply of money
in the economy by establishing the rate of
interest it charges banks to borrow. It is
considered an independent central bank
because its decisions do not have to be
ratified by the President and Congress.
Federal Reserve member banks must
comply with the Fed's minimum capital
requirements. (See gThe Structure of the
Federal Reserve System,h Federal Reserve,
available at:
<http://federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frser
i.htm>.)
18 12 U.S.C. ˜ 78 (1933) (provided that no
officer, director, or employee of a bank in
the Federal Reserve System may serve at the
same time as officer, director, or employee
of an association primarily engaged in the
activity described in section 20).
26 SOLD OUT
to employees and financing inventories.
Most commercial paper has a maturity of 30
days or less. Companies issue commercial
paper as an alternative to taking out a loan
from a bank.)
Glass-Steagall was a
key element of the Roosevelt
administrationfs
response to the Depression
and considered
essential both to restoring
public confidence in a
financial system that had
failed and to protecting
the nation against another
profound economic
collapse.
While the financial
industry was cowed by
the Depression, it did not
fully embrace the New
Deal, and almost immediately sought to
maneuver around Glass-Steagall. A legal
construct known as a gbank holding companyh
was not subject to the Glass-Steagall
restrictions. Under the Federal Reserve
System, bank holding companies are gpaperh
or gshellh companies whose sole purpose
is to own two or more banks. Despite
the prohibitions in Glass-Steagall, a single
company could own both commercial and
investment banking interests if those interests
were held as separate subsidiaries by a
bank holding company. Bank holding companies
became a popular way for financial
institutions and other corporations to subvert
the Glass-Steagall wall separating commercial
and investment banking. In response,
Congress enacted the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (BHCA)
to prohibit bank holding
companies from acquiring
gnon-banksh or engaging in
gactivities that are not
closely related to banking.h
Depository institutions were
considered gbanksh while
investment banks (e.g. those
that trade stock on Wall
Street) were deemed gnonbanksh
under the law. As
with Glass-Steagall, Congress
expressed its intent to
separate customer deposits
in banks from risky investments
in securities. Importantly, the BHCA
also mandated the separation of banking
from insurance and non-financial commercial
activities. The BHCA also required
bank holding companies to divest all their
holdings in non-banking assets and forbade
acquisition of banks across state lines.
But the BHCA contained a loophole
sought by the financial industry. It allowed
bank holding companies to acquire nonbanks
if the Fed determined that the nonbank
activities were gclosely related to
banking.h The Fed was given wide latitude
Glass-Steagall was a key
element of the Roosevelt
administrationfs response to
the Depression and considered
essential both to restoring
public confidence in
a financial system that had
failed and to protecting the
nation against another
profound economic collapse.
SOLD OUT 27
under the Bank Holding Company Act to
approve or deny such requests. In the decades
that followed passage of the BHCA, the
Federal Reserve frequently invoked its
broad authority to approve bank holding
company acquisitions of investment banking
firms, thereby weakening the wall separating
customer deposits from riskier trading
activities.
Deference to regulators
In furtherance of the Fedfs authority under
BHCA, the Supreme Court in 1971 ruled
that courts should defer to regulatory decisions
involving bank holding company
applications to acquire non-bank entities
under the BHCA loophole. As long as a
Federal Reserve Board interpretation of the
BHCA is greasonableh and gexpressly
articulated,h judges should not intervene, the
court concluded.19 The ruling was a victory
for opponents of Glass Steagall because it
increased the power of bank-friendly regulators.
It substantially freed bank regulators to
authorize bank holding companies to conduct
new non-banking activities without
judicial interference,20 rendering a significant
blow to Glass-Steagall. As a result,
banks whose primary business was managing
customer deposits and making loans
began using their bank holding companies to
19 Investment Company Inst. v. Camp, 401 U.S.
617 (1971).
20 Jonathan Zubrow Cohen, 8 Admin. L.J. Am.
U. 335, Summer 1994.
buy securities firms. For example, Bank-
America purchased stock brokerage firm
Charles Schwab in 1984.21 The Federal
Reserve had decided that Schwabfs service
of executing buy and sell stock orders for
retail investors was gclosely related to
bankingh and thus satisfied requirements of
the BHCA.
In December 1986, the Fed reinterpreted
the phrase gengaged principally,h in
Section 20 of the BHCA, which prohibited
banks from affiliating with companies
engaged principally in securities trading.
The Fed decided that up to 5 percent of a
bankfs gross revenues could come from
investment banking without running afoul of
the ban.22
Just a few months later, in the spring of
1987, the Fed entertained proposals from
Citicorp, J.P Morgan and Bankers Trust to
loosen Glass-Steagall regulations further by
allowing banks to become involved with
commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds
and mortgage-backed securities. The Federal
Reserve approved the proposals in a 3-2
vote.23 One of the dissenters, then-Chair
Paul Volcker, was soon replaced by Alan
21 Securities Industry Association v. Federal
Reserve System, 468 U.S. 207 (1984).
22 gThe Long Demise of Glass-Steagall,h PBS
Frontline, May 8, 2003, available at:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/s
hows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html>.
23 gThe Long Demise of Glass-Steagall,h PBS
Frontline, May 8, 2003, available at:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/s
hows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html>.
28 SOLD OUT
Greenspan, a strong proponent of deregulation.
In 1989, the Fed enlarged the BHCA
loophole again, at the request of J.P. Morgan,
Chase Manhattan, Bankers Trust and
Citicorp, permitting banks to generate up to
10 percent of their revenue from investment
banking activity.
In 1993, the Fed approved an acquisition
by a bank holding company, in this case
Mellon Bank, of TBC Advisors, an administrator
and advisor of stock mutual funds. By
acquiring TBC, Mellon Bank was authorized
to provide investment advisory services to
mutual funds.
By the early 1990s, the Fed had authorized
commercial bank holding companies to
own and operate full service brokerages and
offer investment advisory services. Glass
Steagall was withering at the hands of
industry-friendly regulators whose free
market ideology conflicted with the Depression-
era reforms.
The Financial Services Modernization Act
While the Fed had been progressively
undermining Glass-Steagall through deregulatory
interpretations of existing laws, the
financial industry was simultaneously
lobbying Congress to repeal Glass-Steagall
altogether. Members of Congress introduced
major deregulation legislation in 1982,
1988, 1991, 1995 and 1998.
Big banks, securities firms and insurance
companies24 spent lavishly in support
of the legislation in the late 1990s. During
the 1997-1998 Congress, the thre
-
Woof, 4th Post;
SOLD OUT 29
million,26 in considerable part to support
Glass-Steagall repeal, now marketed under a
new and deceptive name, “Financial Modernization.”
The Clinton administration
supported the push
for deregulation. Clinton’s
Treasury Secretary, Robert
Rubin, who had run Goldman
Sachs, enthusiastically
promoted the legislation. In
1995 testimony before the
House Banking Committee,
for example, Rubin had
argued that “the banking
industry is fundamentally different from
what it was two decades ago, let alone in
1933. … U.S. banks generally engage in a
broader range of securities activities abroad
than is permitted domestically. Even domestically,
the separation of investment banking
and commercial banking envisioned by
Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”
Remarkably, he claimed that Glass-Steagall
could “conceivably impede safety and
soundness by limiting revenue diversification.”
27 At times, the Clinton administration
even toyed with the idea of allowing a total
blurring of the lines between banking and
26 Data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
<www.opensecrets.org>.
27 “Rubin Calls for Modernization Through
Reform of Glass-Steagall Act,” Journal of
Accountancy, May 1, 1995, available at:
<http://www.allbusiness.com/government/b
usiness-regulations/500983-1.html>.
commerce (meaning non-financial businesses),
but was forced to back away from
such a radical move after criticism from
former Federal Reserve
Chair Paul Volcker and
key Members of Congress.
28 Rubin played a
key role in obtaining
approval of legislation to
repeal Glass-Steagall, as
both Treasury Secretary
and in his subsequent
private sector role.
A handful of other
personalities were instrumental
in the effort. Senator Phil Gramm, RTexas,
the truest of true believers in deregulation,
was chair of the Senate Banking
Committee, and drove the repeal legislation.
He was assisted by Federal Reserve Chair
Alan Greenspan, an avid proponent of
deregulation who was also eager to support
provisions of the proposed Financial Services
Modernization Act that gave the Fed
enhanced jurisdictional authority at the
expense of other federal banking regulatory
agencies. Notes Jake Lewis, formerly a
professional staff member of the House
Banking Committee, “When the legislation
became snagged on controversial provisions,
28 Jake Lewis, “Monster Banks: The Political and
Economic Costs of Banking and Financial
Consolidation,” Multinational Monitor,
January/February 2005, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
005/012005/lewis.html>.
The Clinton administration
was winding down, and the
finance industries were
becoming increasingly
nervous that the legislation
to repeal Glass-Steagall
would not pass.
30 SOLD OUT
Greenspan would invariably draft a letter or
present testimony supporting Gramm’s
position on the volatile points. It was a
classic back-scratching deal
that satisfied both players
— Greenspan got the dominant
regulatory role and
Gramm used Greenspan’s
wise words of support to
mute opposition and to help
assure a friendly press
would grease passage.”29
Also playing a central role were the
CEOs of Citicorp and Travelers Group. In
1998, the two companies announced they
were merging. Such a combination of banking
and insurance companies was illegal
under the Bank Holding Company Act, but
was excused due to a loophole in the BHCA
which provided a two-year review period of
proposed mergers. Travelers CEO Sandy
Weill met with Greenspan prior to the
announcement of the merger, and said
Greenspan had a “positive response” to the
audacious proposal.30
Citigroup’s co-chairs Sandy Weill and
John Reed, along with lead lobbyist Roger
Levy, led a swarm of industry executives
29 Jake Lewis, “Monster Banks: The Political and
Economic Costs of Banking and Financial
Consolidation,” Multinational Monitor,
January/February 2005, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
005/012005/lewis.html>.
30 Peter Pae, “Bank, Insurance Giants Set
Merger: Citicorp, Travelers in $82 Billion
Deal,” Washington Post, April 7, 1988.
and lobbyists who badgered the administration
and pounded the halls of Congress until
the final details of a deal were hammered
out. Top Citigroup officials
vetted drafts of the
legislation before they
were formally introduced.
31
As the deal-making
on the bill moved into its
final phase in Fall 1999
— and with fears running
high that the entire exercise would collapse
— Robert Rubin stepped into the breach.
Having recently resigned as Treasury Secretary,
Rubin was at the time negotiating the
terms of his next job as an executive at
Citigroup. But this was not public knowledge
at the time. Deploying the credibility
built up as part of what the media had labeled
“The Committee to Save the World”
(Rubin, Greenspan and then-Deputy Treasury
Secretary Lawrence Summers, so named
for their interventions in addressing the
Asian financial crisis in 1997), Rubin helped
broker the final deal.
The Financial Services Modernization
Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act of 1999, formally repealed Glass-
Steagall. The new law authorized banks,
31 Russell Mokhiber, “The 10 Worst Corporations
of 1999,” Multinational Monitor, December
1999, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm1
999/mm9912.05.html>.
The Depression-era conflicts
and consequences that
Glass-Steagall was intended
to prevent re-emerged once
the Act was repealed.
SOLD OUT 31
securities firms and insurance companies to
combine under one corporate umbrella. A
new clause was inserted into the Bank
Holding Company Act allowing one entity
to own a separate financial holding company
that can conduct a variety of financial activities,
regardless of the parent corporation’s
main functions. In the congressional debate
over the Financial Services Modernization
Act, Senator Gramm declared, “Glass-
Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression,
thought government was the answer. In
this period of economic growth and prosperity,
we believe freedom is the answer.” The
chief economist of the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency supported the legislation
because of “the increasingly persuasive
evidence from academic studies of the pre-
Glass-Steagall era.”32
Impact of Repeal
The gradual evisceration of Glass-Steagall
over 30 years, culminating in its repeal in
1999, opened the door for banks to enter the
highly lucrative practice of packaging
multiple home mortgage loans into securities
for trade on Wall Street. Repeal of
Glass-Steagall created a climate and culture
32 James R. Barth, R. Dan Brumbaugh Jr. and
James A. Wilcox, “The Repeal of Glass-
Steagall and the Advent of Broad Banking,”
Economic and Policy Analysis Working
Paper 2000-5, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, April 2000, available at:
<http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/workpaper/w
p2000-5.pdf>.
where aggressive deal-making became the
norm.
The practice of “securitization” had virtually
disappeared after it contributed to the
1929 crash, but had made a comeback in the
1970s as Glass-Steagall was being dismantled.
Economic analyst Robert Kuttner
testified in 2007 that trading loans on Wall
Street “was the core technique that made
possible the dangerous practices of the
1920s. Banks would originate and repackage
highly speculative loans, market them as
securities through their retail networks,
using the prestigious brand name of the bank
— e.g. Morgan or Chase — as a proxy for
the soundness of the security. It was this
practice, and the ensuing collapse when so
much of the paper went bad, that led Congress
to enact the Glass-Steagall Act”33 that
separated banks and securities trading.
Whereas bank deposits had been a centerpiece
of the 1929 crash, mortgage loans
— and the securities connected to them —
are at the center of the present financial
crisis. There is mounting evidence that the
repeal of Glass-Steagall contributed to a
high-flying culture that led to disaster. The
banks suspended careful scrutiny of loans
they originated because they knew that the
loans would be rapidly packaged into mort-
33 Testimony of Robert Kuttner before the
Committee on Financial Services, U.S.
House of Representatives, October 2, 2007,
available at:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/hearing1
10/testimony_-_kuttner.pdf>.
32 SOLD OUT
gage-backed securities and sold off to third
parties. Since the banks weren’t going to
hold the mortgages in their own portfolios,
they had little incentive to review the borrowers’
qualifications carefully.34
But the banks did not in fact escape exposure
to the mortgage market. It appears
that, as they packaged mortgages into securities
and then sold them off into “tranches,”
the banks often kept portions of the least
desirable tranches in their own portfolios, or
those of off-balance-sheet affiliates. They
also seemed to have maintained liability in
some cases where securitized mortgages
went bad. As banks lost billions on mortgage-
backed securities in 2008, they stopped
making new loans in order to conserve their
assets. Instead of issuing new loans with
hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayerfooted
bailout money given for the purpose
of jump-starting frozen credit markets, the
banks used the money to offset losses on
their mortgage securities investments. Banks
and insurance companies were saddled with
billions more in losses from esoteric “credit
default swaps” created to insure against
34 See Liz Rappaport and Carrick Mollenkamp,
“Banks May Keep Skin in the Game,” Wall
Street Journal, February 9, 2009, available
at:
<http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB123422
980301065999.html>; “Before That, They
Made A Lot of Money: Steps to Financial
Collapse,” An Interview with Nomi Prins,
Multinational Monitor, November/
December 2008, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
008/112008/interview-prins.html>.
mortgage defaults and themselves traded on
Wall Street.
In short, the Depression-era conflicts
and consequences that Glass-Steagall was
intended to prevent re-emerged once the Act
was repealed. The once staid commercial
banking sector quickly evolved to emulate
the risk-taking attitude and practices of
investment banks, with disastrous results.
Notes economist Joseph Stiglitz, “The
most important consequence of the repeal of
Glass-Steagall was indirect — it lay in the
way repeal changed an entire culture. Commercial
banks are not supposed to be highrisk
ventures; they are supposed to manage
other people’s money very conservatively. It
is with this understanding that the government
agrees to pick up the tab should they
fail. Investment banks, on the other hand,
have traditionally managed rich people’s
money — people who can take bigger risks
in order to get bigger returns. When repeal
of Glass-Steagall brought investment and
commercial banks together, the investmentbank
culture came out on top. There was a
demand for the kind of high returns that
could be obtained only through high leverage
and big risk taking.”35
35 Joseph Stiglitz, “Capitalist Fools,” Vanity Fair,
January 2009, available at:
<http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/
01/stiglitz200901>.
SOLD OUT 33
HIDING LIABILITIES:
OFF-BALANCE SHEET
ACCOUNTING
A business’s balance sheet is supposed to
report honestly on a firm’s financial state by
listing its assets and liabilities. If a company
can move money-losing assets off of its
balance sheet, it will appear to be in greater
financial health. But if it is still incurring
losses from the asset taken off the balance
sheet, then the apparent improvement in
financial health is illusory.
Thanks to the exploitation of loopholes
in accounting rules, commercial banks were
able to undertake exactly this sort of
deceptive financial shuffling in recent years.
Even in good times, placing securitized
mortgage loans off balance sheet had
important advantages for banks, enabling
them to expand lending without setting aside
more reserve-loss capital (money set aside to
protect against loans that might not be
repaid).36 As they made and securitized
more loans shunted off into off-balance
sheet entities, the banks’ financial
vulnerability kept increasing — they had
increased lingering obligations related to
securitized loans, without commensurate
reserve-loss capital. Then, when bad times
hit, off-balance sheet accounting let banks
hide their losses from investors and
regulators. This allowed their condition to
grow still more acute, ultimately imposing
massive losses on investors and threatening
the viability of the financial system.
36 Wall Street recognized this immediately after
the adoption of the relevant accounting rule,
known as FASB 140 (see text below for
more explanation). “How the sponsors and
their lawyers and accountants address FASB
140 may have an impact on the continuing
viability of this market,” said Gail Sussman,
a managing director at Moody's. “If they
have to keep these bonds on their balance
sheet, they have to reserve against them. It
may eat into the profit of these products
[securitized loans].” Michael McDonald,
“Derivatives Hit the Wall - Sector Found
Wary Investors in 2001,” The Bond Buyer,
March 15, 2002.
2
IN THIS SECTION:
Holding assets off the balance sheet generally
allows companies to exclude “toxic” or
money-losing assets from financial disclosures
to investors in order to make the
company appear more valuable than it is.
Banks used off-balance sheet operations —
special purpose entities (SPEs), or special
purpose vehicles (SPVs) — to hold securitized
mortgages. Because the securitized
mortgages were held by an off-balance sheet
entity, however, the banks did not have to
hold capital reserves as against the risk of
default — thus leaving them so vulnerable.
Off-balance sheet operations are permitted
by Financial Accounting Standards Board
rules installed at the urging of big banks. The
Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association and the American Securitization
Forum are among the lobby interests now
blocking efforts to get this rule reformed.
34 SOLD OUT
The scale of banks’ off-balance sheet
assets is enormous — 15.9 times the amount
on the balance sheets in 2007. This ratio
represents a massive surge over the last
decade and half: “During the period 1992-
2007, on-balance sheet assets grew by 200
percent, while off-balance sheet asset grew
by a whopping 1,518 [percent].”37
One Wall Street executive described
off-balance sheet accounting “as a bit of a
magic trick”38 because losses disappear from
the balance sheet, making lenders appear
more financially stable than they really are.
A former SEC official called it “nothing
more than just a scam.”39
The Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has statutory authority
to establish financial accounting and
reporting standards, but it delegates this
37 Joseph Mason, “Off-balance Sheet Accounting
and Monetary Policy Ineffectiveness,” RGE
Monitor, December 17, 2008, available at:
<http://www.rgemonitor.com/financemarket
s-monitor/254797/offbalance_
sheet_accounting_and_monetary_p
olicy_ineffectiveness>.
38 Alan Katz and Ian Katz, “Greenspan Slept as
Off-Books Debt Escaped Scrutiny,”
Bloomberg.com, October 30, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid
=20601170&refer=home&sid=aYJZOB_gZi
0I> (quoting Pauline Wallace, partner at
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP and team
leader in London for financial instruments).
39 “Plunge: How Banks Aim to Obscure Their
Losses,” An Interview with Lynn Turner,
former SEC chief accountant, Multinational
Monitor, November/December 2008,
available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
008/112008/interview-turner.html>.
authority to the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB). The FASB is an
independent, private sector organization
whose purpose is to establish financial
accounting standards, including the
standards that govern the preparation of
financial reports. FASB’s Statement 140
establishes rules relevant to securitization of
loans (packaging large numbers of loans
resold to other parties) and how securitized
loans may be moved off a company’s
balance sheet.
Pursuant to Statement 140, a lender
may sell blocks of its mortgages to separate
trusts or companies known as Qualified
Special Purpose Entities (QSPEs), or
“special investment vehicles” (SIVs),
created by the lender. As long as the
mortgages are sold to the QSPE, the lender
is authorized not to report the mortgages on
its balance sheet. The theory is that the
lender no longer has control or responsibility
for the mortgages. The Statement 140 test of
whether a lender has severed responsibility
for mortgages is to ask whether a “true sale”
has taken place.
But whether a true sale of the
mortgages has occurred is often unclear
because of the complexities of mortgage
securitization. Lenders often retain some
control over the mortgages even after their
sale to a QSPE. So, while the sale results in
moving mortgages off the balance sheet, the
lender may still be liable for mortgage
SOLD OUT 35
defaults. This retained liability is concealed
from the public by virtue of moving the
assets off the balance sheet.
Under Statement
140, a “sale” of mortgages
to a QSPE occurs when
the mortgages are put
“beyond the reach of the
transferor [i.e. the lender]
and its creditors.” This is
a “true sale” because the lender relinquishes
control of the mortgages to the QSPE. But
the current financial crisis has revealed that
while lenders claimed to have relinquished
control, and thus moved the mortgages off
the balance sheet, they had actually retained
control in violation of Statement 140. A
considerable portion of the banks’
mortgage-related losses remain off the
books, however, contributing to the
continuing uncertainty about the scale of the
banks’ losses.
The problems with QSPEs became
clear in 2007 when homeowners defaulted in
record numbers and lenders were forced to
renegotiate or modify mortgages held in the
QSPEs. The defaults revealed that the
mortgages were not actually put “beyond the
reach” of the lender after the QSPE bought
them. As such, they should have been included
on the lender’s balance sheet pursuant
to Statement 140.
The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) was forced to clarify its rules on
the matter to allow lenders to renegotiate
loans without losing off-balance sheet status.
Former SEC Chair Christopher Cox announced
to Congress in
2007 that loan restructuring
or modification activities,
when default is reasonably
foreseeable, does not preclude
continued off-balance
sheet treatment under
Statement 140.40
The problems with off-balance sheet
accounting are a matter of common sense. If
there was any doubt, however, the
deleterious impact of off-balance sheet
accounting was vividly illustrated by the
notorious collapse of Enron in December
2001. Enron established off-balance sheet
partnerships whose purpose was to borrow
from banks to finance the company’s
growth. The partnerships, also known as
special purpose entities (SPEs), borrowed
heavily by using Enron stock as collateral.
The debt incurred by the SPEs was kept off
Enron’s balance sheet so that Wall Street
40 (Chairman Christopher Cox, in a letter to Rep.
Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial
Services, U.S. House of Representatives,
July 24, 2007, available at:
<http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/finan
cialsvcs_dem/sec_response072507.pdf>.)
The SEC's Office of the Chief Accountant
agreed with Chairman Cox in a staff letter to
industry in 2008. (SEC Office of the Chief
Accountant, in a staff letter to Arnold
Hanish, Financial Executives International,
January 8, 2008, available at:
<http://www.sec.gov/info/accountants/staffl
etters/hanish010808.pdf>).
A former SEC official called
off-balance sheet accounting
“nothing more than just a
scam.”
36 SOLD OUT
and regulators were unaware of it. Credit
rating firms consistently gave Enron high
debt ratings as they were unaware of the
enormous off-balance sheet liabilities.
Investors pushing Enron’s stock price to
sky-high levels were
oblivious to the enormous
amount of debt incurred to
finance the company’s
growth. The skyrocketing
stock price allowed Enron
to borrow even more funds
while using its own stock
as collateral. At the time of
bankruptcy, the company’s
on-balance sheet debt was
$13.15 billion, but the
company had a roughly equal amount of offbalance
sheet liabilities.
In the fallout of the Enron scandal, the
FASB adopted a policy to address offbalance
sheet arrangements. Under its FIN
46R guidance, a company must include any
SPE on the balance sheet if the company is
entitled to the majority of the SPE’s risks or
rewards, regardless of whether a true sale
occurred. But the guidance has one caveat:
QSPEs holding securitized assets may still
be excluded from the balance sheet. The
caveat, known as the “scope exception,”
means that many financial institutions are
not subject to the heightened requirements
provided under FIN 46R. The lessons of
Enron were thus ignored for financial
institutions, setting the stage for the current
financial crisis.
The Enron fiasco got the attention of
Congress, which soon began considering
systemic accounting reforms. The Sarbanes-
Oxley Act, passed in 2002,
attempted to shine more
light on the murky
underworld of off-balance
sheet assets, but the final
measure was a watereddown
compromise; more
far-reaching demands were
defeated by the financial
lobby.
Sarbanes-Oxley requires
that companies make some
disclosures about their QSPEs, even if they
are not required to include them on the
balance sheet. Specifically, it requires
disclosure of the existence of off-balancesheet
arrangements, including QSPEs, if
they are reasonably likely to have a
“material” impact on the company’s
financial condition. But lenders have sole
discretion to determine whether a QSPE will
have a “material” impact. Moreover,
disclosures have often been made in such a
general way as to be meaningless. “After
Enron, with Sarbanes-Oxley, we tried
legislatively to make it clear that there has to
be some transparency with regard to offbalance
sheet entities,” Senator Jack Reed of
Rhode Island, the chair of the Securities,
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
passed in 2002, attempted
to shine more light on the
murky underworld of offbalance
sheet assets, but
the final measure was a
watered-down compromise.
SOLD OUT 37
Insurance and Investment subcommittee of
the Senate Banking Committee, said in early
2008 as the financial crisis was unfolding.41
“We thought that was already corrected and
the rules were clear and we would not be
discovering new things every day,” he said.
The FASB has recognized for years
that Statement 140 is flawed, concluding in
2006 that the rule was “irretrievably
broken.”42 The merits of the “true sale”
theory of Statement 140 notwithstanding, its
detailed and complicated rules created
sufficient loopholes and exceptions to
enable financial institutions to circumvent
its purported logic as a matter of course.43
FASB Chairman Robert Herz likened
off-balance sheet accounting to “spiking the
punch bowl.” “Unfortunately,” he said, “it
seems that some folks used [QSPEs] like a
punch bowl to get off-balance sheet
treatment while spiking the punch. That has
led us to conclude that now it’s time to take
away the punch bowl. And so we are
proposing eliminating the concept of a
41 Floyd Norris, “Off-the-balance-sheet
mysteries,” International Herald Tribune,
February. 28, 2008, available at:
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/bu
siness/norris29.php>.
42 FASB and International Accounting Standards
Board, “Information for Observers,” April
21, 2008, available at:
<www.iasplus.com/resource/0804j03obs.pdf
>.
43 See Thomas Selling, “FAS 140: Let’s Call the
Whole Thing Off,” August 11, 2008,
available at:
<http://accountingonion.typepad.com/theacc
ountingonion/2008/08/fas-140-letsca.
html>.
QSPE from the U.S. accounting literature.”44
It is not, however, a certainty that the
FASB will succeed in its effort. The Board
has repeatedly tried to rein in off-balance
sheet accounting, but failed in the face of
financial industry pressure.45 The
commercial banking industry and Wall
Street are waging a major effort to water
down the rule and delay adoption and
implementation.46 Ironically, the banking
44 FASB Chairman Bob Herz, “Lessons Learned,
Relearned, and Relearned Again from the
Credit Crisis — Accounting and Beyond,”
September 18, 2008, available at:
<http://www.fasb.org/articles&reports/12-
08-08_herz_speech.pdf>.
45 “Plunge: How Banks Aim to Obscure Their
Losses,” An Interview with Lynn Turner,
former SEC chief accountant, Multinational
Monitor, November/December 2008,
available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
008/112008/interview-turner.html>.
46 See “FAS Amendments,” American
Securitization Forum, available at:
<http://www.americansecuritization.com/sto
ry.aspx?id=76>. (“Throughout this process
[consideration of revisions of Statement
140], representatives of the ASF have met
on numerous occasions with FASB board
members and staff, as well as accounting
staff of the SEC and the bank regulatory
agencies, to present industry views and
recommendations concerning these
proposed accounting standards and their
impact on securitization market activities.”);
George P. Miller, Executive Director,
American Securitization Forum, and Randy
Snook, Senior Managing Director, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association,
letter to Financial Accounting Standards
Board, July 16, 2008, available at:
<http://www.americansecuritization.com/sto
ry.aspx?id=2906>. (Arguing for delay of
new rules until 2010, and contending that “It
is also important to remember that too much
consolidation of SPEs can be just as
confusing to users of financial statements as
38 SOLD OUT
industry and Wall Street lobbyists argue that
disclosure of too much information will
confuse investors. These lobby efforts are
meeting with success,47 in part because of
the likelihood that forcing banks to
recognize their off-balance sheet losses will
reveal them to be insolvent.
too little.”); John A. Courson, Chief
Operating Officer, Mortgage Bankers
Association, letter to Financial Accounting
Standards Board, October 31, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.mbaa.org/files/Advocacy/Testi
monyandCommentLetters/MBACommentLe
tter-10-31-2008-
AmendmentstoFASBInterpretationNo.46R.p
df>. (“MBA believes the proposed
disclosures would result in providing readers
of financial statements with an unnecessary
volume of data that would obfuscate
important and meaningful information in the
financial statements.”)
47 Jody Shenn and Ian Katz, “FASB Postpones
Off-Balance-Sheet Rule for a Year,”
Bloomberg, July 30, 2008, available at:
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid
=20601009&sid=a4O4VjK.fX5Q&>. (“The
Financial Accounting Standards Board
postponed a measure, opposed by Citigroup
Inc. and the securities industry, forcing
banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets such
as mortgages and credit-card receivables
back onto their books. FASB, the Norwalk,
Connecticut-based panel that sets U.S.
accounting standards, voted 5-0 today to
delay the rule change until fiscal years
starting after
-
Woof, 5th Post;
SOLD OUT 39
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
REJECTS FINANCIAL
DERIVATIVE REGULATION
Over-the-counter financial derivatives are
unregulated. By all accounts, this has been a
disaster. As Warren Buffett warned in 2003,
financial derivatives represent “weapons of
mass financial destruction” because “[l]arge
amounts of risk, particularly credit risk, have
become concentrated in the hands of relatively
few derivatives dealers” so that “[t]he
troubles of one could quickly infect the
others” and “trigger serious systemic problems.”
48
A financial derivative is a financial instrument
whose value is determined by the
value of an underlying financial asset, such
as a mortgage contract, stock or bond, or by
financial conditions, such as interest rates or
currency values. The value of the contract is
determined by fluctuations in the price of
the underlying asset. Most derivatives are
characterized by high leverage, meaning
they are bought with enormous amounts of
borrowed money.
Derivatives are not a recent invention.
48 Warren Buffett, Chairman, Berkshire Hathaway,
Report to Shareholders, February 21,
2003. Wrote Buffet: “Another problem
about derivatives is that they can exacerbate
trouble that a corporation has run into for
completely unrelated reasons. This pile-on
effect occurs because many derivatives contracts
require that a company suffering a
credit downgrade immediately supply collateral
to counterparties. Imagine, then, that
a company is downgraded because of general
adversity and that its derivatives instantly
kick in with their requirement, imposing
an unexpected and enormous demand
for cash collateral on the company. The need
to meet this demand can then throw the
company into a liquidity crisis that may, in
some cases, trigger still more downgrades. It
all becomes a spiral that can lead to a corporate
meltdown.” Available at:
<http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/
2002pdf.pdf>.
3
IN THIS SECTION:
Financial derivatives are unregulated. By all
accounts this has been a disaster, as Warren
Buffet’s warning that they represent “weapons
of mass financial destruction” has
proven prescient. Financial derivatives have
amplified the financial crisis far beyond the
unavoidable troubles connected to the
popping of the housing bubble.
The Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) has jurisdiction over
futures, options and other derivatives connected
to commodities. During the Clinton
administration, the CFTC sought to exert
regulatory control over financial derivatives.
The agency was quashed by opposition from
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and, above
all, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. They challenged
the agency’s jurisdictional authority;
and insisted that CFTC regulation might
imperil existing financial activity that was
already at considerable scale (though
nowhere near present levels). Then-Deputy
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers told
Congress that CFTC proposals “cas[t] a
shadow of regulatory uncertainty over an
otherwise thriving market.”
40 SOLD OUT
Traditional, non-financial derivatives include
futures contracts traded on exchanges
such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
and regulated by the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission. A traditional futures
contract might include, for example, futures
on oranges, where buyers and sellers agree
to deliver or accept delivery of a specified
number of oranges at some point in the
future, at a price determined now, irrespective
of the price for oranges at that future
time. This kind of futures contract can help
farmers and others gain some price certainty
for commodities whose value fluctuates in
uncertain ways. Over-the-counter (OTC)
financial derivatives, by contrast, are negotiated
and traded privately (not on public
exchanges) and are not subjected to public
disclosure, government supervision or other
requirements applicable to those traded on
exchanges.
Derivatives and the current financial crisis
In the 1990s, the financial industry began to
develop increasingly esoteric types of derivatives.
One over-the-counter derivative
that has exacerbated the current financial
crisis is the credit default swap (CDS).
CDSs were invented by major banks in the
mid-1990s as a way to insure against possible
default by debtors (including mortgage
holders). Investment banks that hold mortgage
debt, including mortgage-backed
securities, can purchase a CDS from a seller,
such as an insurance company like AIG,
which agrees to become liable for all the
debt in the event of a default in the mortgage-
backed securities. Wall Street wunderkinds
with backgrounds in complex mathematics
and statistics developed algorithms
that they claimed allowed them to correctly
price the risk and the CDSs.49
Banks and hedge funds also began to
sell CDSs and even trade them on Wall
Street. Billions in these “insurance policies”
were traded every day, with traders essentially
betting on the likelihood of default on
mortgage-backed securities. CDS traders
with no financial interest in the underlying
mortgages received enormous profits from
buying and selling CDS contracts and thus
speculating on the likelihood of default.
The current financial crisis has exposed
how poorly the sellers and the buyers understood
the value of the derivatives they were
trading.
Once home values stopped rising in
2006 and mortgage default became more
commonplace, the value of the packages of
mortgages known as mortgage-backed
securities plunged. At that point, the CDS
agreements called for the sellers of the
CDSs to reimburse the purchasers for the
losses in the mortgage-backed securities.
49 Lewis Braham, “Credit Default Swaps: Is
Your Fund at Risk?” BusinessWeek, February
21, 2008, available at:
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/c
ontent/08_09/b4073074480603.htm>.
SOLD OUT 41
Firms that had sold CDS contracts, like
AIG, became responsible for posting billions
of dollars in collateral or paying the purchasers.
The global market
value of CDS contracts
(“notional value”) reached
over $60 trillion in 2007,
surpassing the gross
domestic product of every
country in the world
combined. The value of
the entire global derivatives
market reached $683 trillion by mid-
2008, more than 20 times the total value of
the U.S. stock market.50
The total dollars actively at risk from
CDSs is a staggering $3.1 trillion.51 The
amount at risk is far less than $60 trillion
because most investors were simultaneously
“on both sides” of the CDS trade. For example,
banks and hedge funds would buy CDS
protection on the one hand and then sell
CDS protection on the same security to
someone else at the same time.52 When a
mortgage-backed security defaulted, the
50 Bureau of International Settlements, Table 19:
Amounts Outstanding of Over-the-counter
Derivatives, available at:
<www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm>.
51 Bureau of International Settlements, Table 19:
Amounts Outstanding of Over-the-counter
Derivatives, available at:
<www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm>.
52 Adam Davidson, “How AIG fell apart,”
Reuters, September 18, 2008, available at:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/id
USMAR85972720080918>.
banks might have to pay some money out,
but they would also be getting money back
in. So, while the total value of each CDS
buy and sell order equaled
$60 trillion in 2007, the
actual value at risk was a
fraction of that — but still
large enough to rock the
financial markets.
The insurance giant
AIG, however, did not buy
CDS contracts — it only
sold them. AIG issued $440
billion53 worth of such contracts, making it
liable for loan defaults, including billions in
mortgage-backed securities that went bad
after the housing bubble burst. In addition,
the company’s debt rating was downgraded
by credit rating firms, a move that triggered
a clause in its CDS contracts that required
AIG to put up more collateral to guarantee
its ability to pay. Eventually, AIG was unable
to provide enough collateral or pay its obligations
from the CDS contracts. Its stock price
tumbled, making it impossible for the firm to
attract investors. Many banks throughout the
world were at risk because they had bought
CDS contracts from AIG. The financial spiral
downward ultimately required a taxpayerfinanced
bailout by the Federal Reserve,
which committed $152.5 billion to the com-
53 Adam Davidson, “How AIG fell apart,”
Reuters, September 18, 2008, available at:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/id
USMAR85972720080918>.
The value of the entire global
derivatives market reached
$683 trillion by mid-2008,
more than 20 times the total
value of the U.S. stock
market.
42 SOLD OUT
pany in 2008, in order to minimize “disruption
to the financial markets.”54
Federal Agencies Reject Regulation of
Financial Derivatives.
Some industry observers warned of the
dangers of over-the-counter derivatives. But
acceding to political pressure from the
powerful financial industry, the federal
agencies with the responsibility to safeguard
the integrity of the financial system refused
to permit regulation of financial derivatives,
55 especially the credit default swaps
that have exacerbated the current financial
meltdown.
In 1996, President Clinton appointed
Brooksley Born chair of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).56 The
CFTC is an independent federal agency with
the mandate to regulate commodity futures
and option markets in the United States.
Born was outspoken and adamant about
the need to regulate the quickly growing but
largely opaque area of financial derivatives.
She found fierce opposition in SEC Chair
54 Erik Holm, “AIG Sells Mortgage-Backed
Securities to Fed Vehicle,” Bloomberg.com,
December 15, 2008.
55 Exchange-traded and agricultural derivatives
are generally regulated by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Overthe-
counter financial derivatives — not
traded on an exchange — were and are not
subject to CFTC jurisdiction. This report
primarily uses the shorthand term “financial
derivative” to reference over-the-counter financial
derivatives.
56 <http://www.cftc.gov/anr/anrcomm98.htm>
Arthur Levitt, Treasury Secretary Robert
Rubin and Federal Reserve Chair Alan
Greenspan, all of whom felt that the financial
industry was capable of regulating itself.
An April 1998 meeting of the President’s
Working Group on Financial Markets,
which consisted of Levitt, Greenspan, Rubin
and Born, turned into a standoff between the
three men and Born. The men were determined
to derail her efforts to regulate derivatives,
but left the meeting without any
assurances.57
Pressing back against her critics, Born
published a CFTC concept paper in 1998
describing how the derivatives sector might
be regulated. Born framed the CFTC’s
interest in mild terms: “The substantial
changes in the OTC derivatives market over
the past few years require the Commission
to review its regulations,” said Born. “The
Commission is not entering into this process
with preconceived results in mind. We are
reaching out to learn the views of the public,
the industry and our fellow regulators on the
appropriate regulatory approach to today’s
OTC derivatives marketplace.”58
57 Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima and Jill
Drew, “The Crash: What Went Wrong,” The
Washington Post, October 15, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/story/2008/10/14/ST200810140
3344.html>.
58 CFTC Issues Concept Release Concerning
Over-the-Counter Derivatives Market, May
7, 1998, available at:
<http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opa4142-
98.htm>.
SOLD OUT 43
The publication described the growth of
derivatives trading (“Use of OTC derivatives
has grown at very substantial rates over
the past few years,” to a notional value of
more than $28 trillion) and raised questions
about financial derivatives rather than
proposed specific regulatory initiatives.
But the concept paper was clear that the
CFTC view was that the unrestrained growth
of financial derivatives trading posed serious
risks to the financial system, and its probing
questions suggested a range of meaningful
regulatory measures — measures which, if
they had been adopted, likely would have
reduced the severity of the present crisis.
“While OTC derivatives serve important
economic functions, these products, like
any complex financial instrument, can
present significant risks if misused or misunderstood
by market participants,” the
CFTC noted.59 “The explosive growth in the
OTC market in recent years has been accompanied
by an increase in the number and
size of losses even among large and sophisticated
users which purport to be trying to
hedge price risk in the underlying cash
markets.”60
59 Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
Concept Release: Over-the-Counter Derivatives,
May 7, 1998, available at:
<http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opamntn.
htm#issues_for_comment>.
60 Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
Concept Release: Over-the-Counter Derivatives,
May 7, 1998, available at:
<http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opamntn.
htm#issues_for_comment>.
Among the proposals floated in the concept
paper were the following measures:61
• Narrow or eliminate exemptions for
financial derivatives from the regulations
that applied to exchangetraded
derivatives (such as for agricultural
commodities);
• Require financial derivatives to be
traded over a regulated exchange;
• Require registration of person or entities
trading financial derivatives;
• Impose capital requirements on
those engaging in financial derivatives
trading (so that they would be
required to set aside capital against
the risk of loss, and to avoid excessive
use of borrowed money); and
• Require issuers of derivatives to
disclose the risks accompanying
those instruments.
The uproar from the financial industry
was immediate. During the next two months,
industry lobbyists met with CFTC commissioners
at least 13 times.62 Meanwhile, Born
faced off against Greenspan and others in
61 Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
Concept Release: Over-the-Counter Derivatives,
May 7, 1998, available at:
<http://www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opamntn.
htm#issues_for_comment>.
62 Sharona Coutts and Jake Bernstein, “Former
Clinton Official Says Democrats, Obama
Advisers Share Blame for Market Meltdown,”
ProPublica, October 9, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.propublica.org/feature/formerclinton-
official-says-democrats-obamaadvisers-
share-blame-for-marke/>.
44 SOLD OUT
numerous antagonistic congressional hearings.
Senator Richard Lugar, R-Indiana,
chair of the Senate Agricultural Committee,
stepped into the fray.
Lugar, who received
nearly $250,000 in campaign
contributions from
securities and investment
firms in 1998,63 extended
an ultimatum to Born:
cease the campaign or
Congress would pass a
Treasury-backed bill that
would put a moratorium
on any further CFTC action.64 The stalemate
continued.
The Treasury Department weighed in
with its view that derivatives should remain
unregulated. President Clinton’s then-Deputy
Treasury Secretary, Lawrence H. Summers
(now head of the Obama administration’s
National Economic Council), complained
that Born’s proposal “cast the shadow of
regulatory uncertainty over an otherwise
63 Center for Responsive Politics,
<http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/ind
ustries.php?cycle=1998&cid=N00001764>.
64 Senator Richard Lugar, “Regulation of Over
the Counter (OTC) Derivatives and Derivatives
Markets,” Hearing of the Senate Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry Committee,
July 30, 1998 (“t is essential that the government
not create legal uncertainty for
swaps. I hope it will not be necessary, but
there are circumstances that could compel
Congress to act preemptively in the near
term.”) For a full account of the dispute, see:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/story/2008/10/14/ST200810140
3344.html>.
thriving market “65
Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan
echoed the Treasury Department view, arguing
that regulation would be
both unnecessary and harmful.
“Regulation of derivatives
transactions that are
privately negotiated by
professionals is unnecessary.
Regulation that serves no
useful purpose hinders the
efficiency of markets to
enlarge standards of living.”
66
In September 1998, Long Term Capital
Management, a hedge fund heavily focused
on derivatives, informed the Fed it was on
the brink of collapse, and couldn’t cover $4
billion in losses.67 The New York Federal
Reserve quickly recruited 14 private banks
to bail out Long Term Capital by investing
$3.6 billion.68
65 Lawrence H. Summers, Testimony Before the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry, July 30, 1998, available at:
<http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/rr26
16.htm>.
66 Alan Greenspan, “Regulation of Over the
Counter (OTC) Derivatives and Derivatives
Markets,” Hearing of the Senate Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry Committee, July
30, 1998.
67 Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima and Jill
Drew, “The Crash: What Went Wrong,” The
Washington Post, October 15, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/story/2008/10/14/ST200810140
3344.html>.
68 Sharona Coutts and Jake Bernstein, “Former
Lawrence Summers complained
that a proposal to
regulate derivatives “cast a
shadow of regulatory uncertainty
over an otherwise
thriving market.”
SOLD OUT 45
“This episode should serve as a wake-up
call about the unknown risks that the overthe-
counter derivatives market may pose to
the U.S. economy and to financial stability
around the world,” Born told the House
Banking Committee two days later. “It has
highlighted an immediate and pressing need
to address whether there are unacceptable
regulatory gaps relating to hedge funds and
other large OTC derivatives market participants.”
69 But what should have been a
moment of vindication for Born was swept
aside by her adversaries, and Congress
enacted a six-month moratorium on any
CFTC action regarding derivatives or the
swaps market.70 (Permanent congressional
action would soon follow, as the next section
details.) In May 1999, Born resigned in
frustration.
Born’s replacement, William Rainer,
went along with Greenspan, Summers
Clinton Official Says Democrats, Obama
Advisers Share Blame for Market Meltdown,”
ProPublica, October 9, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.propublica.org/feature/formerclinton-
official-says-democrats-obamaadvisers-
share-blame-for-marke/>.
69 Brooksley Born, CFTC Chair, Testimony
Before the House Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, October 1, 1998,
available at:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/banking/
10198bor.pdf>.
70 Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima and Jill
Drew, “The Crash: What Went Wrong,” The
Washington Post, October 15, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/story/2008/10/14/ST200810140
3344.html>.
(whom Clinton had appointed Treasury
Secretary) and Levitt’s campaign to block
any CFTC regulation. In November 1999,
the inter-agency President’s Working Group
on Financial Markets released a new report
on derivatives recommending no regulation,
saying it would “perpetuate legal uncertainty
or impose unnecessary regulatory burdens
and constraints upon the development of
these markets in the United States.”71
Among other rationalizations for this nonregulatory
posture, the report argued, “the
sophisticated counterparties that use OTC
derivatives simply do not require the same
protections” as retail investors.72 The report
briefly touched upon, but did not take seriously,
the idea that financial derivatives
posed overall financial systemic risk. To the
extent that such risk exists, the report concluded,
it was well addressed by private
parties: “private counterparty discipline
currently is the primary mechanism relied
upon for achieving the public policy objective
of reducing systemic risk. Government
regulation should serve to supplement,
rather than substitute for, private market
71 The President’s Working Group on Financial
Markets, “Over-the-Counter Derivatives
Markets and the Commodity Exchange
Act,” November 1999, available at:
<http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports
/otcact.pdf>.
72 The President’s Working Group on Financial
Markets, “Over-the-Counter Derivatives
Markets and the Commodity Exchange
Act,” November 1999, available at:
<http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports
/otcact.pdf>.
46 SOLD OUT
discipline. In general, private counterparty
credit risk management has been employed
effectively by both regulated and unregulated
dealers of OTC derivatives, and the
tools required by federal regulators already
exist.”73
73 The President’s Working Group on Financial
Markets, “Over-the-Counter Derivatives
Markets and the Commodity Exchange
Act,” November 1999, available at:
<http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports
/otcact.pdf>.
SOLD OUT 47
CONGRESS BLOCKS
FINANCIAL DERIVATIVE
REGULATION
Long before financial derivatives became
the darlings of Wall Street, there were some
in Congress who believed that the federal
government should be given greater power
to regulate derivatives.
In 1994, Senator Donald Riegle, DMichigan,
and Representative Henry Gonzalez,
D-Texas, introduced separate bills
calling for derivatives regulation;74 both
went nowhere.75 Opposing regulation was a
74 The Derivatives Supervision Act of 1994, in
the Senate; the Derivatives Safety and
Soundness Supervision Act of 1994, in the
House.
75 Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima and Jill
Drew, “The Crash: What Went Wrong,” The
Washington Post, October 15, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/story/2008/10/14/ST200810140
3344.html>.
bipartisan affair and inaction ruled the day.76
In 2000, a year after the outspoken
Brooksley Born left the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC), Congress and
President Clinton codified regulatory inaction
with passage of the Commodity Futures
Modernization Act (CFMA).77 The legislation
included an “Enron loophole,” which
prohibited regulation of energy futures
contracts and thereby contributed to the
collapse of scandal-ridden Enron in 2001.
CFMA formally exempted financial derivatives,
including the now infamous credit
default swaps, from regulation and federal
government oversight. One Wall Street
analyst later noted that the CFMA “was
slipped into the [budget] bill in the dead of
night by our old friend Senator Phil Gramm
of Texas — now Vice Chairman of [Swiss
investment bank] UBS.”78 Gramm led the
congressional effort to block federal agencies
from regulating derivatives, complaining
that “anks are already heavily regulated
institutions.”79 Gramm predicted
76 The action that Congress did take — the sixmonth
moratorium on CFTC regulation described
in the previous section — cut against
the need for regulation.
77 Pub. L. No. 106-554, Appendix E, amending
the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1
et. seq.
78 Dirk van Dijk, “Credit Default Swaps Explained,”
Zacks Investment Research, September
24, 2008, available at:
<http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/14884/
Credit+Default+Swaps+Explained>.
79 Sen. Phil Gramm, 106th Congress, 2nd Session,
146 Cong. Rec. S. 11867, December
15, 2000, available at:
4
IN THIS SECTION:
The deregulation — or non-regulation — of
financial derivatives was sealed in 2000,
with the Commodities Futures Modernization
Act (CFMA), passage of which was engineered
by then-Senator Phil Gramm, RTexas.
The Commodities Futures Modernization
Act exempts financial derivatives,
including credit default swaps, from regulation
and helped create the current financial
crisis.
48 SOLD OUT
CFMA “will be noted as a major achievement”
and “as a watershed, where we turned
away from the outmoded, Depression-era
approach to financial regulation.”80 He said
the legislation “protects financial institutions
from over-regulation, and provides legal
certainty for the $60 trillion market in
swaps”81 — in other words, it offered a
guarantee that they would not be regulated.
By 2008, Gramm’s UBS was reeling
from the global financial crisis he had
helped create. The firm declared nearly $50
billion in credit losses and write-downs,
prompting a $60 billion bailout by the Swiss
government.82
Senator Gramm remains defiant today,
telling the New York Times, “There is this
idea afloat that if you had more regulation
you would have fewer mistakes. I don’t see
any evidence in our history or anybody
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S11867
&dbname=2000_record>.
80 Sen. Phil Gramm, 106th Congress, 2nd Session,
146 Cong. Rec. S. 11868, December
15, 2000, available at:
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S11868
&dbname=2000_record>.
81 106th Congress, 2nd Session, 146 Cong. Rec.
S. 11866, Dec. 15, 2000, available at:
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S11866
&dbname=2000_record>.
82 Eric Lipton and Stephen Labaton, “The
Reckoning: Deregulator Looks Back, Unswayed,”
New York Times, November 16,
2008, available at:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/busin
ess/economy/
17gramm.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&
em>.
else’s to substantiate it. … The markets have
worked better than you might have
thought.”83
Others have a more reality-based view.
Former SEC Commissioner Harvey J.
Goldschmid, conceded that “in hindsight,
there’s no question that we would have been
better off if we had been regulating derivatives.”
84
While credit default swaps are not the
underlying cause of the financial crisis, they
dramatically exacerbated it. As mortgages
and mortgage-backed securities plummeted
in value from declining real estate values,
big financial firms were unable to meet their
insurance obligations under their credit
default swaps.
Another action by Congress must be
mentioned here. In 1995, bowing to the
financial lobby after years of lobbying,
Congress passed the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.85 The measure
greatly restricted the rights of investors to
sue Wall Street trading, accounting and
investment firms for securities fraud. The
author of the legislation was Representative
83 Eric Lipton and Stephen Labaton, “Deregulator
Looks Back, Unswayed,” New York
Times, November 16, 2008, available at:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/busin
ess/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=al
l>
84 “The Crash: What Went Wrong?” Washington
Post website, Undated, available at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/
business/risk/index.html?hpid=topnews>
.
85 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4.
SOLD OUT 49
Christopher Cox, R-California, who President
Bush later appointed Chair of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In the debate over the bill in the House
of Representatives, Representative Ed
Markey, D-Massachusetts, proposed an
amendment that would have exempted
financial derivatives from the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.86 Markey
anticipated many of the problems that would
explode a decade later: “All of these products
have now been sent out into the American
marketplace, in many instances with the
promise that they are quite safe for a municipality
to purchase. … The objective of
the Markey amendment out here is to ensure
that investors are protected when they are
misled into products of this nature, which by
their very personality cannot possibly be
understood by ordinary, unsophisticated
investors. By that, I mean the town treasurers,
the country treasurers, the ordinary
individual that thinks that they are sophisticated,
but they are not so sophisticated that
they can understand an algorithm that
stretches out for half a mile and was constructed
only inside of the mind of this 26-
or 28-year-old summa cum laude in mathematics
from Cal Tech or from MIT who
constructed it. No one else in the firm un-
86 Rep. Edward Markey, 104th Congress 1st
Session, 141 Cong. Rec. H. 2826, March 8,
1995, available at:
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
getpage.cgi?dbname=1995_record&pag
e=H2826&position=all>.
derstands it. The lesson that we are learning
is that the heads of these firms turn a blind
eye, because the profits are so great from
these products that, in fact, the CEOs of the
companies do not even want to know how it
happens until the crash.”
Representative Cox led the opposition
to the Markey amendment. He was able to
cite the opposition of Alan Greenspan, chair
of the Federal Reserve, and President Clinton’s
SEC Chair Arthur Levitt. He quoted
Greenspan saying that “singling out derivative
instruments for special regulatory
treatment” would be a “serious mistake.” He
also quoted Levitt, who warned, “It would
be a grave error to demonize derivatives.”87
The amendment was rejected. The
specter of litigation is a powerful deterrent
to wrongdoing. The Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act weakened that deterrent
— including for derivatives — and
today makes it more difficult for defrauded
investors to seek compensation for their
losses.
87 Rep. Christopher Cox, 104th Congress 1st
Session, 141 Cong. Rec. H. 2828, March 8,
1995, available at:
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H2828
&dbname=1995_record>.
50 SOLD OUT
THE SEC’S VOLUNTARY
REGULATION REGIME FOR
INVESTMENT BANKS
Until the current financial crisis, investment
banks regularly borrowed funds to purchase
securities and debt instruments. A “highly
leveraged” financial institution is one that
owns financial assets that it acquired with
substantial amounts of borrowed money.
The Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) prohibited broker-dealers (i.e. stock
brokers and investment banks) from exceeding
established limits on the amount of
borrowed money used for buying securities.
Investment banks that accrued more than 12
dollars in debt for every dollar in bank
capital (their “net capital ratio”) were prohibited
from trading in the stock market.88
As a result, the five major Wall Street
investment banks maintained net capital
ratios far below the 12 to 1 limit. The rule
also required broker-dealers to maintain a
designated amount of set-aside capital based
on the riskiness of their investments; the
riskier the investment, the more they would
need to set aside. This limitation on accruing
debt was designed to protect the assets of
customers with funds held or managed by
the stock broker or investment bank, and to
ensure that the broker or investment bank
could meet its contractual obligations to
other firms.89 The rule was adopted by the
88 17 C.F.R. § 240, 15c3-1.
89 “Toxic Waste Build Up: How Regulatory
Changes Let Wall Street Make Bigger Risky
Bets,” An Interview with Lee Pickard, Multinational
Monitor, November/December
2008, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
5
IN THIS SECTION:
In 1975, the SEC’s trading and markets
division promulgated a rule requiring
investment banks to maintain a debt-to-netcapital
ratio of less than 12 to 1. It forbid
trading in securities if the ratio reached or
exceeded 12 to 1, so most companies maintained
a ratio far below it. In 2004, however,
the SEC succumbed to a push from the big
investment banks — led by Goldman Sachs,
and its then-chair, Henry Paulson — and
authorized investment banks to develop their
own net capital requirements in accordance
with standards published by the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision. This
essentially involved complicated mathematical
formulas that imposed no real limits, and
was voluntarily administered. With this new
freedom, investment banks pushed borrowing
ratios to as high as 40 to 1, as in the case of
Merrill Lynch. This super-leverage not only
made the investment banks more vulnerable
when the housing bubble popped, it enabled
the banks to create a more tangled mess of
derivative investments — so that their
individual failures, or the potential of failure,
became systemic crises. Former SEC Chair
Chris Cox has acknowledged that the voluntary
regulation was a complete failure.
SOLD OUT 51
SEC under the general regulatory authority
granted by Congress when it established the
SEC to regulate the financial industry in
1934 as a key reform in
the aftermath of the 1929
crash.
In 2004, the SEC
abolished its 19-year old
“debt-to-net-capital rule”
in favor of a voluntary
system that allowed
investment banks to
formulate their own
“rule.”90 Under this new
scheme, large investment
banks would assess their
level of risk based on
their own risk management computer models.
The SEC acted at the urging of the big
investment banks led by Goldman Sachs,
which was then headed by Henry M. Paulson
Jr., who would become Treasury secretary
two years later, and was the architect of
the Bush administration’s response to the
current financial debacle: the unprecedented
taxpayer bailout of banks, investment firms,
insurers and others. After a 55-minute
discussion, the SEC voted unanimously to
abolish the rule.91
008/112008/interview-pickard.html>.
90 Final Rule: Alternative Net Capital Requirements
for Broker-Dealers that are Part of
Consolidated Entities, 17 C.F.R. §§ 200 and
240 (2004). Available at:
<www.sec.gov/rules/final/34.49830.htm>.
91 Stephen Labaton, “Agency’s ’04 Rule Let
The SEC’s new policy, foreseeably, enabled
investment banks to make much
greater use of borrowed funds. The top five
investment banks participated
in the SEC’s voluntary
program: Bear Steams,
Goldman Sachs, Morgan
Stanley, Merrill Lynch and
Lehman Brothers. By 2008,
these firms had borrowed
20, 30 and 40 dollars for
each dollar in capital, far
exceeding the standard 12 to
1 ratio. Much of the borrowed
funds were used to
purchase billions of dollars
in subprime-related and
other mortgage-backed securities (MBSs)
and their associated derivatives, including
credit default swaps. The securities were
purchased at a time when real estate values
were skyrocketing and few predicted an end
to the financial party. As late as the March
2008 collapse of Bear Stearns, SEC Chair
Christopher Cox continued to support the
voluntary program: “We have a good deal of
comfort about the capital cushions at these
firms at the moment,” he said.92
Banks Pile Up New Debt,” New York
Times, October 2, 2008, available at:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/busin
ess/03sec.html?_r=1>.
92 Stephen Labaton, “Agency’s ’04 Rule Let
Banks Pile Up New Debt,” New York
Times, October 2, 2008, available at:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/busin
The SEC’s Inspector General
concluded that “it is undisputable”
that the SEC “failed
to carry out its mission in
its oversight of Bear
Stearns,” which collapsed in
2008 under massive
mortgage-backed securities
losses.
52 SOLD OUT
The SEC had abolished the net capital
rule with the caveat that it would continue
monitoring the banks for financial or operational
weaknesses. But a 2008 investigation
by the SEC’s Inspector General (IG) found
that the agency had neglected its oversight
responsibilities. The IG concluded that “it is
undisputable” that the SEC “failed to carry
out its mission in its oversight of Bear
Stearns,” which collapsed in 2008 under
massive mortgage-backed securities losses,
leading the Federal Reserve to intervene
with taxpayer dollars “to prevent significant
harm to the broader financial system.” The
IG said the SEC “became aware of numerous
potential red flags prior to Bear Stearns’
collapse,” including its concentration of
mortgage securities and high leverage, “but
did not take actions to limit these risk factors.”
Moreover, concluded the IG, the SEC
“was aware ... that Bear Stearns’ concentration
of mortgage securities was increasing
for several years and was beyond its internal
limits.” Nevertheless, it “did not make any
efforts to limit Bear Stearns’ mortgage
securities concentration.” The IG said the
SEC was “aware that Bear Stearns’ leverage
was high;” but made no effort to require the
firm to reduce leverage “despite some
authoritative sources describing a linkage
between leverage and liquidity risk.” Furthermore,
the SEC “became aware that risk
management of mortgages at Bear Stearns
ess/03sec.html?_r=1>.
had numerous shortcomings, including lack
of expertise by risk managers in mortgagebacked
securities” and “persistent understaffing;
a proximity of risk managers to
traders suggesting a lack of independence;
turnover of key personnel during times of
crisis; and the inability or unwillingness to
update models to reflect changing circumstances.”
Notwithstanding this knowledge,
the SEC “missed opportunities to push Bear
Steams aggressively to address these identified
concerns.”
The much-lauded computer models and
risk management software that investment
banks used in recent years to calculate risk
and net capital ratios under the SEC’s voluntary
program had been overwhelmed by
human error, overly optimistic assumptions,
including that the housing bubble would not
burst, and a failure to contemplate systemwide
asset deflation. Similar computer
models failed to prevent the demise of
Long-Term Capital Management, a heavily
leveraged hedge fund that collapsed in 1998,
and the stock market crash of October
1987.93 The editors at Scientific American
magazine lambasted the SEC and the investment
banks for their “
financial software crafted by physics and
93 Stephen Labaton, “Agency’s ’04 Rule Let
Banks Pile Up New Debt,” New York
Times, October 2, 2008 (citing Leonard D.
Bole, software consultant), available at:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/busin
ess/03sec.html?_r=1>.
SOLD OUT 53
math Ph.D.s.”94
By the fall of 2008, the number of major
investment banks on Wall Street dropped
from five to zero. All five securities grants
either disappeared or became bank holding
companies in order to avail themselves of
taxpayer bailout money. JP Morgan bought
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers filed for
bankruptcy protection, Bank of America
announced its rescue of Merrill Lynch by
purchasing it, while Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley became bank holding
companies with the Federal Reserve as their
new principal regulator.
On September 26, 2008, as the crisis
became a financial meltdown of epic proportions,
SEC Chair Cox, who spent his entire
public career as a deregulator, conceded “the
last six months have made it abundantly
clear that voluntary regulation does not
work.”95
94 The Editors, “After the Crash: How Software
Models Doomed the Markets,” Scientific
American, November 2008, available at:
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=after
-the-crash>.
95 Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima and Jill
Drew, “The Crash: What Went Wrong,” The
Washington Post, October 15, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/story/2008/10/14/ST200810140
3344.html>.
54 SOLD OUT
BANK SELF-REGULATION
GOES GLOBAL: PREPARING TO
REPEAT THE MELTDOWN?
Banks are inherently highly leveraged
institutions, meaning they hold large
amounts of debt compared to their net worth
(or equity). As a result, their debt-to-equity
(or debt-to-capital) ratios are generally
higher than for other types of corporations.
Regulators have therefore required banks to
maintain an adequate cushion of capital to
protect against unexpected losses, especially
losses generated on highly leveraged investments.
Generally, banks are required to
keep higher capital amounts in reserve in
order to hold assets with higher risks and,
inversely, lower capital for lower risk assets.
In other words, banks with riskier credit
exposures are required to retain more capital
to back the bank’s obligations.
In 1988, national bank regulators from
the largest industrial countries adopted a set
of international banking guidelines known
as the Basel Accords. The Basel Accords
determine how much capital a bank must
hold as a cushion. Ultimately, the purpose of
the Basel Accords is to prevent banks from
creating a “systemic risk,” or a risk to the
financial health of the entire banking system.
The idea of an international agreement
was to level the playing field for capital
regulation as among banks based in different
countries.
The first Basel Accords, known as
Basel I, did not well distinguish between
loans involving different levels of risk. This
gave rise to two sets of problems. Banks had
an incentive to make riskier (and potentially
higher return) loans, because the riskier
loans within a given category did not require
more set-aside capital. For example, Basel I
categorized all commercial loans into the 8
percent capital category — meaning 8
percent of a bank’s capital must be set aside
to hold commercial loans — even though
not all commercial loans are equivalently
risky. The Basel I rules also gave banks an
6
IN THIS SECTION:
In 1988, global bank regulators adopted a
set of rules known as Basel I, to impose a
minimum global standard of capital adequacy
for banks. Complicated financial
maneuvering made it hard to determine
compliance, however, which led to negotiations
over a new set of regulations. Basel II,
heavily influenced by the banks themselves,
establishes varying capital reserve requirements,
based on subjective factors of agency
ratings and the banks’ own internal riskassessment
models. The SEC experience with
Basel II principles illustrates their fatal
flaws. Commercial banks in the United States
are supposed to be compliant with aspects of
Basel II as of April 2008, but complications
and intra-industry disputes have slowed
implementation.
SOLD OUT 55
incentive to engage in “regulatory capital
arbitrage,” whereby a bank maneuvers the
accounting classification of a loan so that it
is classified under Basel I rules as requiring
less set-aside capital — even though the
bank’s overall risk has not diminished.
Securitization is the main method used by
banks to engage in regulatory capital arbitrage.
Securitized loans are listed on a
bank’s “trading account,” which requires
less set-aside capital than the “banking
book,” where loans are maintained.96
To address these problems, the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision agreed
in 2004 to an updated bank capital accord
(Basel II), formally known as the “International
Convergence of Capital Measurement
and Capital Standards: a Revised Framework.”
The Committee’s members come
from Belgium, Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United
Kingdom and the United States; the United
States Federal Reserve serves as a participating
member.
Rather than dealing directly with the issue
of differentiated levels of risk within
categories and the problem of regulatory
96 David Jones and John Mingo, “Industry
Practices in Credit Risk Modeling and Internal
Capital Allocations: Implications for a
Models-Based Regulatory Capital Standard,”
4 FRBNY Econ. Pol’y Rev. 3, 53
(1998), available at:
<http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/9
8v04n3/9810jone.pdf>.
arbitrage by establishing updated and more
granular capital standards, Basel II authorized
banks to use their own internal models
for assessing “risk.” Critics say that under
this system, banks will be able to employ
their internal risk models to transform highrisk
assets into “low risk.”
For example, where Basel I categorized
all commercial loans into the 8 percent
capital category, internal bank models would
have allowed for capital allocations on
commercial loans that vary from 1 percent
to 30 percent, depending on the loan’s
estimated risk. The revised framework under
Basel II gives banks the leeway to lump
commercial loans into these differing capital
adequacy requirements, depending on risk as
estimated by banks, not the regulators. Basel
II rules appear set to reduce the overall
capital requirements for banks.97
U.S. federal financial regulatory agencies
— the Federal Reserve, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the
Office of Thrift Supervision — have struggled
to find an operationally satisfactory
means to implement Basel II. It now appears
U.S. application will be limited to large
commercial banks only, with some Basel II
97 Testimony of Daniel K. Tarullo, “Hearing on
the Development of the New Basel Capital
Accords,” Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs, United States Senate,
November, 10 2005, available at:
<http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/taru
llo.pdf>.
56 SOLD OUT
requirements coming into effect via regulation
as of April 2008.98 The Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) imposed
parallel requirements on Wall Street investment
banks in 2004. According
to the Federal
Reserve, Basel II is supposed
to “improve the
consistency of capital
regulations internationally,
make regulatory capital
more risk sensitive, and
promote enhanced riskmanagement
practices among large, internationally
active banking organizations.”99
But the SEC’s experience with the
Basel II approach reveals a fundamental
flaw in allowing banks to make their own
risk assessments. Investment bank Bear
Stearns collapsed in 2008 even though its
own risk analysis showed it to be a sound
institution. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox
said “the rapid collapse of Bear Stearns ...
challenged the fundamental assumptions
behind the Basel standards and the other
program metrics. At the time of its nearfailure,
Bear Stearns had a capital cushion
98 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
“Basel II Advanced Approaches and Basel II
Standardized Approach,” undated, available
at:
<http://www.occ.treas.gov/law/basel.htm>.
99 Basel II Capital Accord, Basel I Initiatives,
and Other Basel-Related Matters, Federal
Reserve Board, August 28, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/GeneralInfo
/basel2/>.
well above what is required to meet supervisory
standards calculated using the Basel
framework and the Federal Reserve’s ‘wellcapitalized’
standard for bank holding
companies.”100 In other
words, Bear Stearns had
been complying with the
relaxed Basel II framework
and it still failed.
Proponents of Basel II
argue that internal risk
assessments will not be
cause for abuse because
regulators will be heavily involved via
added oversight and disclosure. Five years
before the 2008 financial crisis, John D.
Hawke, Jr., then U.S. Comptroller of the
Currency, lauded the Basel II standards,
arguing that “some have viewed the new
Basel II approach as leaving it up to the
banks to determine their own minimum
capital — putting the fox in charge of the
chicken coop. This is categorically not the
case. While a bank’s internal models and
risk assessment systems will be the starting
point for the calculation of capital, bank
supervisors will be heavily involved at every
stage of the process.”101
100 Chairman Christopher Cox, Before the
Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October
23, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1023100525.pdf>.
101 John D. Hawke, Jr., Comptroller of the
Currency, Before the Committee on Bank-
The SEC’s experience with
the Basel II approach reveals
a fundamental flaw in allowing
banks to make their own
risk assessments.
SOLD OUT 57
But the Comptroller’s claim is not supported
by the SEC’s experience. The SEC’s
Inspector General (IG) found that regulators
were anything but “heavily involved” in
oversight of Bear Stearns in the years before
its collapse. As noted above (Part I.5), the
IG concluded that “it is undisputable” that
the SEC “failed to carry out its mission in its
oversight of Bear Stearns.”
The banks’ internal risk models performed
horribly in the housing bubble and
subsequent meltdown. It’s hard to see the
logic of a system that would embed those
models into regulatory requirements for setaside
capital.102
ing, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United
States Senate, June 18, 2003, available at:
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearing
s&docid=f:94514.pdf>.
102 Steven Sloan, “Another Reason to Disagree
Over Basel,” American Banker, January 6,
2009, available at:
<http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/ICAA
P_WG/Sloan_AB_090106.pdf>. (“‘I am
most concerned that any institution that
tends to underestimate its risk exposure —
as many recently have — will be just as
likely to underestimate its capital needs if allowed
to operate a risk-based capital standard,
such as Basel II,’ Mr. Hoenig [the
president and chief executive of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City] said. ‘Riskbased
capital standards may also encourage
institutions to lower their capital, instead of
build it up, in the prosperous times that typically
precede a crisis.’”)s
-
Woof 6th Post
58 SOLD OUT
FAILURE TO PREVENT
PREDATORY LENDING
Subprime loans are those made to persons
who ostensibly have a poor credit history.
Predatory loans are, to a significant extent, a
subset of subprime loans.103 A bank is
engaged in predatory lending when it
gtak[es] advantage of a borrowerfs lack of
sophistication to give them a loan whose
rates and terms may not be beneficial to the
borrower.h104 Common predatory terms
103 Non-prime mortgages known as Alt-A .
with riskier borrower profiles than prime
mortgages but less so than subprime . also
often contain predatory terms.
104 gThe Foreclosure Epidemic: The Costs to
Families and Communities of the Predictable
Mortgage Meltdown,h An interview
include high fees and charges associated
with the loan; low teaser interest rates,
which skyrocket after an initial grace period;
and negative amortization loans, which
require, for a time, monthly payments less
than the interest due. These are, typically,
unaffordable loans.
The real-world examples of predatory
lending are shocking. In one lawsuit, Albert
Zacholl, a 74-year-old man living in Southern
California, alleges that Countrywide and
a pair of mortgage brokers gcold-called and
aggressively baitedh him. They promised
him $30,000 cash, a mortgage that would
replace his previous mortgage (which was
leaving him owing more each month) and a
monthly payment that would not exceed
$1,700. Zacholl told the brokers that his
income consisted of a pension of $350 a
month and Social Security payments of
$958, and that with help from his son, he
could afford a mortgage up to $1,700.
According to the lawsuit, the broker falsified
his loan application by putting down an
income of $7,000 a month, and then arranged
for a high-interest mortgage that
required him to pay more than $3,000 a
month (and failed to deliver the $30,000
cash payment). The motivation for the scam,
according to the lawsuit, was to collect
with Allen Fishbein, Consumer Federation
of America, Multinational Monitor,
May/June 2007, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
007/052007/interview-fishbein.html>.
7
IN THIS SECTION:
Even in a deregulated environment, the
banking regulators retained authority to
crack down on predatory lending abuses.
Such enforcement activity would have
protected homeowners, and lessened though
not prevented the current financial crisis. But
the regulators sat on their hands. The Federal
Reserve took three formal actions
against subprime lenders from 2002 to 2007.
The Office of Comptroller of the Currency,
which has authority over almost 1,800 banks,
took three consumer-protection enforcement
actions from 2004 to 2006.
SOLD OUT 59
$13,000 in fees. In court papers, the Center
for Responsible Lending reports, Countrywide
responded that Zacholl gconsented to
the terms of the transactionh and that any
problems were the result of his own gnegligence
and carelessness.h105
Preventing predatory lending practices
would not have prevented the housing
bubble and the subsequent financial meltdown,
but it would have taken some air out
of the bubble and softened the economic
crisis . and it would have saved millions of
families and communities across the country
from economic ruin.
Unlike the housing bubble itself, predatory
lending was easily avoidable through
sound regulation.
But federal regulators were asleep at
the switch, lulled into somnolence by cozy
relationships with banks and Wall Street and
a haze-inducing deregulatory ideology.
Regulators were warned at the outset of
the housing bubble about the growth in
predatory lending, and public interest advocates
pleaded with them to take action. They
declined, refusing either to issue appropriate
regulatory rules or to take enforcement
actions against predatory lenders. (Congress
similarly failed to act in response to the
105 Center for Responsible Lending, gUnfair and
Unsafe: How Countrywidefs irresponsible
practices have harmed borrowers and shareholders,h
February 2008, available at:
<http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/
mortgage/countrywide-watch/unfair-andunsafe.
html>.
alarm bells sounded by public interest
advocates.)
Reviewing the record of the past seven
years shows that:
1. Federal regulators . and Members
of Congress . were warned at the
outset of the housing bubble about
the growth in predatory lending, and
public interest advocates pleaded
with them to take action.
2. Federal regulators . and Congress
. refused to issue appropriate regulatory
rules to stem predatory lending.
3. Action at the state level showed that
predatory lending rules could limit
abusive loans.
4. Federal regulators failed to take enforcement
actions against predatory
lenders.
5. After the housing bubble had
popped, and the subprime lending
industry collapsed, federal regulators
in 2008 issued new rules to
limit predatory practices. While
highly imperfect, the new rules evidence
what might have been done in
2001 to prevent abuses.
Early Warnings on Predatory Lending
Yield No Regulatory Action
There are only limited federal substantive
statutory requirements regarding predatory
lending. These are established in the Home
60 SOLD OUT
Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), which was adopted in 1994.
HOEPA effectively put an end to certain
predatory practices, but
only for loans containing
upfront fees or charges of
more than 8 percent of the
loan amount, or interest
rates above a varying, but
very high threshold. Predatory
lenders easily devised
ways to work around these
limitations.
In 2000 and 2001, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal
Reserve and the Office of Thrift Supervision,
among other federal agencies, adopted
or considered rules to further restrict predatory
lending. The adopted binding rules,
issued by the Federal Reserve pursuant to
HOEPA, however, focused very narrowly
on certain egregious practices.106 More
expansive statements on predatory lending
were issued only as non-binding guidelines.
The reliance on non-binding guidelines
continued through the decade.
As regulators were issuing non-binding
guidelines, public interest advocates were
praising their recognition of the problem .
but urging that more forceful action be
106 12 C.F.R. 226 (Regulation Z; Docket No. R-
1090), 66 Fed. Reg. 245, 65604-65622
(2001) (adjusting the price trigger for coverage
under HOEPA and prohibiting certain
acts).
taken.
gClearly, the FDIC recognizes that
there is a grave problem throughout the
U.S., particularly affecting
low income and minority
households and neighborhoods,h
wrote the National
Consumer Law Center and
the Consumer Federation
of America in January
2001 comments submitted
to the FDIC. gWhile many
regulators recognize the
gravity of the predatory lending problem,
the appropriate . and politically feasible .
method of addressing the problem still
appears elusive.h107
What was needed, the consumer groups
argued, was binding regulation. gAll agencies
should adopt a bold, comprehensive and
specific series of regulations to change the
mortgage marketplace,h the groups wrote, so
that gpredatory mortgage practices are either
specifically prohibited, or are so costly to
the mortgage lender that they are not economically
feasibleh while ensuring that
gnecessary credit is made available with
appropriate rates and terms to all Ameri-
107 National Consumer Law Center and the
Consumer Federation of America, gHow to
Avoid Purchasing or Investing in Predatory
Mortgage Loans,h January 31, 2001, available
at:
<http://www.nclc.org/issues/predatory_mort
gage/fdic.shtml>.
Unlike the housing bubble
itself, predatory lending
was easily avoidable
through sound regulation.
But federal regulators were
asleep at the switch.
SOLD OUT 61
cans.h108
Public interest groups would repeat this
advice again and again over the subsequent
years, pointing to growing abuses and
proposing specific remedies.
But federal agencies, operating under
the prevailing laissez-faire ideology of the
Bush Administration, declined to issue any
binding regulations in response to mushrooming
predatory lending. They did issue
additional guidance statements, but these
were non-binding and consistently behind
the curve of evolving lender abuses. Not
surprisingly, they failed to curtail predatory
lending practices.
A Failure to Enforce
Federal regulators also failed to enforce the
rules that were on the books.
From 2003 through the start of 2007,
the Federal Reserve, which has jurisdiction
over the entire banking industry, took a mere
three formal enforcement actions109 to stop
108 National Consumer Law Center and the
Consumer Federation of America, gHow to
Avoid Purchasing or Investing in Predatory
Mortgage Loans,h January 31, 2001, available
at:
<http://www.nclc.org/issues/predatory_mort
gage/fdic.shtml>.
109 gGenerally, the Federal Reserve takes formal
enforcement actions against [banks] for violations
of laws, rules, or regulations, unsafe
or unsound practices, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and violations of final orders. Formal
enforcement actions include cease and desist
orders, written agreements, removal and
prohibition orders, and orders assessing civil
money penalties.h The Federal Reserve
Board, gEnforcement Actions,h available at:
predatory lending.110 The Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which
has regulatory authority over roughly 1,800
nationally chartered banks, similarly took
three public enforcement actions from 2004
to 2006.111 These numbers reflect a startling
regulatory failure during the peak period of
abusive subprime lending. Subprime loans
made up between one-in-six and one-in-five
home mortgage loans in 2004, 2005 and
2006.112
Although Federal Reserve officials now
acknowledge that they should have done
more, the OCC says it took appropriate
action. Both agencies insist that they also
addressed abuses on an informal, bank-bybank
basis, ordering improved practices in
connection with the agencyfs routine examinations
of individual banks. The informal
and non-public nature of this approach
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/e
nforcement>.
110 James Tyson, Craig Torres and Alison Vekshin,
gFed Says It Could Have Acted Sooner
on Subprime Rout,h Bloomberg, March 22,
2007, available at:
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid
=20601087&sid=a1.KbcMbvIiA&refer=ho
me>.
111 Craig Torres and Alison Vekshin, gFed, OCC
Publicly Chastised Few Lenders During
Boom,h Bloomberg, March 14, 2007, available
at:
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid
=20601103&sid=a6WTZifUUH7g&refer=u
s>.
112 Chris Mayer and Karen Pence, gSubprime
Mortgages: What, Where and to Whom,h
Figure 1B, Federal Reserve, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2
008/200829/200829pap.pdf>.
62 SOLD OUT
means that Fed and OCCfs claims cannot be
easily verified.
Even if there were extensive private enforcement
actions or
conversations, such
moves fail to perform
important public functions.
They do not signal
appropriate behavior and
clear rules to other lenders;
and they do not
provide information to
victimized borrowers,
thereby depriving them of
an opportunity to initiate follow-on litigation
to recover for harms perpetrated against
them.
State Action Shows What Could Have Been
Done
While federal regulators sat on their hands,
some states adopted meaningful antipredatory
lending laws and brought enforcement
actions against abusive lenders.
This report does not explore state regulatory
successes and failures, but the ability of
states to regulate and address abusive lender
behavior demonstrates what federal regulators
might have done.
A comprehensive review of subprime
loans conducted by the Center for Responsible
Lending found that aggressive state
regulatory action greatly reduced the number
of predatory loans, without affecting
borrowers access to subprime credit. gStates
with anti-predatory lending laws reduced the
proportion of loans with targeted [predatory]
terms by 30 percentage
points,h the study determined.
Even this number
masked the superior performance
of those with the
toughest laws. gStates with
the strongest laws . Massachusetts,
New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, and West
Virginia . are generally
associated with the largest declines in targeted
terms relative to states without significant
protections,h the study found.113
The Center for Responsible Lending
study also concluded that lending continued
at a constant rate in states with antipredatory
lending laws, and that gstate laws
have not increased interest rates and, in
some cases, borrowers actually paid lower
rates for subprime mortgages after their state
laws became effective compared to borrowers
in states without significant protections.h
In other words, eliminating abusive fees did
not translate into higher interest rates.114
113 Wei Li and Keith S. Ernst, gThe Best Value
in the Subprime Market: State Predatory
Lending Reforms,h Center for Responsible
Lending, February, 23, 2006, available at:
<http://www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/rr0
10-State_Effects-0206.pdf>.
114 Wei Li and Keith S. Ernst, gThe Best Value
in the Subprime Market: State Predatory
Federal agencies, operating
under the prevailing laissezfaire
ideology of the Bush
Administration, declined to
issue any binding regulations
in response to mushrooming
predatory lending.
SOLD OUT 63
Partially Closing the Barn Door (after the
horses left and a foreclosure sign is posted)
After years of inaction, and confronted with
signs of the economic meltdown to come,
the Federal Reserve in January 2008 finally
proposed binding regulations that would
apply to all lenders, not just nationally
chartered banks.
The Federal Reserve proposal noted the
growth of subprime mortgages, claimed the
expansion of subprime credit meaningfully
contributed to increases in home ownership
rates (a gain quickly unraveling due to the
subprime-related foreclosure epidemic) and
modestly suggested that g[r]ecently, however,
some of this benefit has eroded. In the
last two years, delinquencies and foreclosure
starts have increased dramatically and
reached exceptionally high levels as house
price growth has slowed or prices have
declined in some areas.h115
With slight modification, the Fed
adopted these rules in July.116 The new
regulations establish a new category of
ghigher-priced mortgagesh intended to
include virtually all subprime loans. The
regulations prohibit a number of abusive
practices in connection with these newly
Lending Reforms,h Center for Responsible
Lending, February, 23, 2006, available at:
<http://www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/rr0
10-State_Effects-0206.pdf>.
115 Federal Reserve System, Truth In Lending, 73
Fed. Reg. 6, 1673-74 (2008).
116 Federal Reserve System, 12 C.F.R. ˜ 226,
[Regulation Z; Docket No. R-1305], 73 Fed.
Reg. 147, 44521-614 (2008).
defined ghigher-priced mortgages.h117 They
also apply some measures . such as specified
deceptive advertising practices . for
all loans, regardless of whether they are
subprime.118
117 Key elements of these regulations:
. Prohibit a lender from engaging in a
pattern or practice of making loans
without considering the borrowersf ability
to repay the loans from sources other
than the homefs value.
. Prohibit a lender from making a loan by
relying on income or assets that it does
not verify.
. Restrict prepayment penalties only to
loans that meet certain conditions, including
the condition that the penalty
expire at least sixty days before any
possible increase in the loan payment.
. Require that the lender establish an escrow
account for the payment of property
taxes and homeownersf insurance.
The lender may only offer the borrower
the opportunity to opt out of the escrow
account after one year.
118 These regulatory provisions, applying to all
mortgages, regardless of whether they are
subprime:
. Prohibit certain servicing practices,
such as failing to credit a payment to a
consumerfs account when the servicer
receives it, failing to provide a payoff
statement within a reasonable period of
time, and gpyramidingh late fees.
. Prohibit a creditor or broker from coercing
or encouraging an appraiser to misrepresent
the value of a home.
. Prohibit seven misleading or deceptive
advertising practices for closed-end
loans; for example, using the term
gfixedh to describe a rate that is not
truly fixed. It would also require that all
applicable rates or payments be disclosed
in advertisements with equal
prominence as advertised introductory
or gteaserh rates.
. Require truth-in-lending disclosures to
borrowers early enough to use while
shopping for a mortgage. Lenders could
not charge fees until after the consumer
receives the disclosures, except a fee to
64 SOLD OUT
These measures are not inconsequential.
They show the kind of action the Federal
Reserve could have taken at the start of
this decade . moves that could have dramatically
altered the subsequent course of
events.
But the 2008 regulations remain inadequate,
as a coalition of consumer and housing
groups has specified in great detail,119
because they fail to break with longstanding
deregulatory nostrums. The Fed continues to
emphasize the importance of enabling
lenders to make credit available to minority
and lower-income communities . historically,
a deep-rooted concern . while failing
to acknowledge that the overriding problem
has become lenders willing to make credit
available, but on abusive terms.
gThe proposed regulations continue to
be most protective of the flawed concept
that access to credit should be the guiding
principle for credit regulation. These regulations
need to be significantly strengthened in
order for consumers to be adequately proobtain
a credit report.
119 National Consumer Law Center, Consumer
Action, Consumer Federation of America,
Consumers Union, Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights, National Association of
Consumer Advocates, National Fair Housing
Alliance, and the Empire Justice Center
(gNational Consumer Law Center et. al.h),
gComments to the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System Regarding Proposed
Regulations Relating to Unfair Trade
Practices In Connection with Mortgage
Lending,h April 2008, available at:
<http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/HOEPA
_comments_NCLC_final.pdf>.
tected,h argue the consumer and housing
groups. They provide an extensive list of
needed revisions to the proposed regulations,
including that the regulations:
. Cover all loans, including prime
loans;
. Require an gability to repayh analysis
for each loan;
. Ban prepayment penalties;
. Address lender and originator incentives
for appraisal fraud; and
. Provide effective private litigation
remedies for victimized borrowers.
120
120 National Consumer Law Center, et. al.,
gComments to the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System Regarding Proposed
Regulations Relating to Unfair Trade
Practices In Connection with Mortgage
Lending,h April 2008, available at:
<http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/HOEPA
_comments_NCLC_final.pdf>.
SOLD OUT 65
ORIGINS OF THE HOUSING BUBBLE
The housing bubble can be traced to
a series of inter-related developments in
the macro-economy, themselves due in
significant part to political choices.
First, the Federal Reserve lowered
interest rates to historically low levels in
response to the economic downturn that
followed the collapse of the stock market
bubble of the 1990s and the additional
economic slowdown after 9/11. Low
interest rates had beneficial effects in
spurring economic activity, but they also
created the conditions for the housing
bubble, as cheap credit made mortgage
financing an attractive proposition for
home buyers.
Cheap credit was not a result only of
Fed interest rate decisions. A second
contributing factor to the housing bubble
was the massive influx of capital into the
United States from China. Chinafs capital
surplus was the mirror image of the
U.S. trade deficit . U.S. corporations
were sending dollars to China in exchange
for goods sold to U.S. consumers.
China then reinvested much of that
surplus in the U.S. bond market, with the
effect of keeping U.S. interest rates low.
Cheap credit did not automatically
mean there would be a housing bubble.
Crucially, government officials failed to
intervene to pop the housing bubble. As
economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot
of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research insisted at the time,
simply by identifying the bubble . and
adjusting public perception of the future
of the housing market . Federal Reserve
Chair Alan Greenspan could have
prevented or at least contained the bubble.
He declined, and even denied the
existence of a bubble.
There were reasons why Greenspan
and other top officials did not act to pop
the bubble. They advanced expanded
home ownership as an ideological goal.
While this objective is broadly shared
across the political spectrum, the Bush
administration and Greenspanfs ideological
commitment to the goal biased
them to embrace growing home buying
uncritically . without regard to whether
new buyers could afford the homes they
were buying, or the loans they were
getting. Perhaps more importantly, the
housing bubble was the engine of an
66 SOLD OUT
economy that otherwise was stalled.
Rising home prices contributed to the
huge growth of the construction industry;
Wall Street grew rich on mortgagerelated
securities and exotic financial
instruments; and people borrowed en
masse against the rising value of their
homes to spend more and keep the economy
functioning.
The toxic stew of financial deregulation
and the housing bubble created the
circumstances in which aggressive
lenders were nearly certain to abuse
vulnerable borrowers through predatory
lending terms. The terms of your loan
donft matter, they effectively purred to
borrowers, so long as the value of your
house is going up. They duped borrowers
into conditions they could not possibly
satisfy, making the current rash of
defaults and foreclosures on subprime
loans inevitable. Effective regulation of
lending practices could have prevented
the abusive loans.
SOLD OUT 67
FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF
STATE CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS
In 2003, the Comptroller of the Currency,
John D. Hawke, Jr., announced that he was
preempting state predatory lending laws.
This ruling meant that nationally chartered
banks . which include the largest U.S.
banks . would be subject to federal banking
standards, but not the more stringent
consumer protection rules adopted by many
states.
The Comptrollerfs decision was a direct
response to a request from the nationfs
biggest banks. It was prompted by a petition
from Cleveland-based National City Bank,
which challenged the application of the
Georgia Fair Lending Act to its operations
in Georgia.
The Comptroller agreed with National
Cityfs contention that the federal banking
laws, the history of federal regulation of
national banks and relevant legislative
history all supported the conclusion that
federal regulatory authority should supersede
and override any state regulation
regarding predatory lending.121
In its petition, National City argued that
the effect of the Georgia law gis to limit
National Cityfs ability to originate and to
establish the terms of credit on residential
real estate loans and lines of credit, including
loans or lines of credit submitted by a
third party mortgage broker. GFLA [the
Georgia Fair Lending Act] has significantly
impaired National Cityfs ability to originate
residential real estate loans in Georgia.h
It is instructive to identify the provisions
of the Georgia law, a path breaking
anti-predatory lending initiative, to which
National City objected. The Georgia law
included a wide range of consumer protections
that consumer groups applauded but
which National City complained would
interfere with its freedom to operate:
GFLA establishes specific and burdensome
limitations on mortgage.secured
loans and lines of credit that significantly
interfere with National Cityfs ability to
121 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
[Docket No. 03-17] Preemption Determination
and Order, august 5, 2003, Federal Register,
Vol. 688. No. 150, 46264.)
8
IN THIS SECTION:
When the states sought to fill the vacuum
created by federal nonenforcement of consumer
protection laws against predatory
lenders, the feds jumped to stop them. gIn
2003,h as Eliot Spitzer recounted, gduring
the height of the predatory lending crisis, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
invoked a clause from the 1863 National
Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting
all state predatory lending laws, thereby
rendering them inoperative. The OCC also
promulgated new rules that prevented states
from enforcing any of their own consumer
protection laws against national banks.h
68 SOLD OUT
make these loans. All Home Loans are
subject to restrictions on the terms of
credit and certain loan related fees, including
the prohibition of financing of credit
insurance, debt cancellation and suspension
coverage, and limiting late charges
and prohibiting payoff and release fees. If
the loan or line of credit is a Covered
Home Loan which refinances a Home
Loan which was closed within the previous
five years, National City is restricted
from originating it unless the refinanced
transaction meets standards established by
GFLA. If the loan or line of credit is a
High Cost Home Loan, GFLA does not
permit National City to originate it unless
the borrower has received advance counseling
with respect to the advisability of
the transaction from a third party nonprofit
organization. GFLA regulates National
Cityfs ability to determine the borrowerfs
ability to repay the High Cost
Home Loan. GFLA restricts, and in some
cases prohibits, the imposition by National
City of certain credit terms or servicing
fees on High Cost Home Loans, including:
prepayment penalties, balloon
payments, advance loan payments, acceleration
in the lenderfs discretion, negative
amortization, post-default interest and fees
to modify, renew, amend or extend the
loan or defer a payment. Any High Cost
Home Loan must contain a specific disclosure
that it is subject to special rules,
including purchaser and assignee liability,
under GFLA. Finally, GFLA imposes preforeclosure
requirements. GFLA currently
creates strict assignee liability for all subsequent
holders of a home loan. GFLA
provides a private right of action for borrowers
against lenders, mortgage brokers,
assignees and servicers for injunctive and
declaratory relief as well as actual damages,
including incidental and consequential
damages, statutory damages equal to
forfeiture of all interest or twice the interest
paid, punitive damages, attorneysf fees
and costs. In addition, the Georgia Attorney
General, district attorneys, the Commissioner
of Banking and Finance and,
with respect to the insurance provisions,
the Commissioner of Insurance has the jurisdiction
to enforce GFLA through their
general state regulatory powers and civil
process. Criminal penalties are also available.
122
The Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC) 2003 preemption decision
was the latest in a long series of actions by
the agency to preempt state laws. Following
passage of the Garn-St. Germain Depository
Institutions Act of 1982, the OCC had by
regulation specifically preempted a number
of state law consumer protections, including
the minimum requirements for down
payments, loan repayment schedules and
minimum periods of time for loans. These
state rules afforded consumers greater
protection than federal statutes. The 2003
decision concluded that Georgiafs rules
transgressed some of these longstanding
regulatory preemptions, but then went
further and preempted the Georgia rules
entirely, as they applied to national banks.
In conjunction with the OCCfs announcement
on the Georgia case, it launched
a rulemaking on the general issue of federal
preemption of all state regulation of national
banks. In January 2004, it issued rules
preempting all state regulation of national
banks.123 The OCC also announced rules
122 Letter from Thomas Plant to Julie Williams
(National Cityfs Request for OCC preemption
of the Georgia Fair Lending Act), February
11, 2003, appendix to Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Docket No.
03-04, Notice of Request for preemption
Determination and Order.
123 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 12
CFR Parts 7 and 34, [Docket No. 04-xx],
RIN 1557-AC73.
SOLD OUT 69
prohibiting state regulators from exercising
gvisitorial powersh . meaning inspection,
supervision and oversight . of national
banks.124
The stated rationale
for these preemptive
moves was that differing
state standards subjected
national banks to extra
costs and reduced the
availability of credit.
gToday,h said Hawke in
announcing the new rules,
gas a result of technology
and our mobile society,
many aspects of the
financial services business
are unrelated to geography
or jurisdictional
boundaries, and efforts to
apply restrictions and
directives that differ based
on a geographic source
increase the costs of
offering products or result in a reduction in
their availability, or both. In this environment,
the ability of national banks to operate
under consistent, uniform national standards
administered by the OCC will be a crucial
factor in their business future.h125 Hawke
124 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 12
CFR Part 7, [Docket No. 04-xx], RIN 1557-
AC78.
125 Statement of Comptroller of the Currency
John Hawke, Jr., Regarding the Issuance of
argued that national banks were not engaged
in predatory lending on any scale of consequence;
that federal regulation was sufficient;
and that federal guidance on predatory
lending . issued in conjunction
with the preemptive
moves . provided
additional and satisfactory
guarantees for consumers.
Former New York
State Attorney General (and
former Governor) Eliot
Spitzer put these actions in
perspective in a February
2008 opinion column in the
Washington Post.126
gPredatory lending was
widely understood [earlier
in the decade] to present a
looming national crisis,h
Spitzer wrote. gThis threat
was so clear that as New
York attorney general, I
joined with colleagues in
the other 49 states in attempting to fill the
void left by the federal government. Indi-
Regulations Concerning Preemption and
Visitorial Powers, January 7, 2004, available
at: <http://occ.gov/newrules.htm>.
126 Eliot Spitzer, gPredatory Lendersf Partner in
Crime How the Bush Administration
Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help
Consumers,h Washington Post, February 14,
2008, available at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2008/02/13/AR20080213
02783.html>.
Referring to the OCCfs preemptive
measures, Spitzer
wrote, gNot only did the
Bush administration do
nothing to protect consumers,
it embarked on an
aggressive and unprecedented
campaign to prevent
states from protecting their
residents from the very
problems to which the federal
government was turning
a blind eye.h
70 SOLD OUT
vidually, and together, state attorneys general
of both parties brought litigation or
entered into settlements with many subprime
lenders that were engaged in predatory
lending practices. Several state legislatures,
including New Yorkfs, enacted laws aimed
at curbing such practices.h
Referring to the OCCfs preemptive
measures, Spitzer wrote, gNot only did the
Bush administration do nothing to protect
consumers, it embarked on an aggressive
and unprecedented campaign to prevent
states from protecting their residents from
the very problems to which the federal
government was turning a blind eye. c The
federal governmentfs actions were so egregious
and so unprecedented that all 50 state
attorneys general, and all 50 state banking
superintendents, actively fought the new
rules.h
gBut the unanimous opposition of the
50 states did not deter, or even slow, the
Bush administration in its goal of protecting
the banks,h Spitzer noted.
When state law enforcement agencies
tried to crack down on predatory lending in
their midst, the OCC intervened to stop
them. Wrote Spitzer, gIn fact, when my
office opened an investigation of possible
discrimination in mortgage lending by a
number of banks, the OCC filed a federal
lawsuit to stop the investigation.h
John Hawkefs successor as Comptroller
John Dugan, denies Spitzerfs assertions.
gThe OCC established strong protections
against predatory lending practices years
ago, and has applied those standards through
examinations of every national bank,h he
said. gAs a result, predatory mortgage
lenders have avoided national banks like the
plague. The abuses consumers have complained
about most . such as loan flipping
and equity stripping . are not tolerated in
the national banking system. And the looser
lending practices of the subprime market
simply have not gravitated to national banks:
They originated just 10 percent of subprime
loans in 2006, when underwriting standards
were weakest, and delinquency rates on
those loans are well below the national
average.h127
Even if it is true that federal banks
originated fewer abusive loans, they clearly
financed predatory subprime loans through
bank intermediaries, securitized predatory
subprime loans and held them in great
quantities. In any case, the scale of federal
bank financing of predatory loans was still
substantial. Alys Cohen of the National
Consumer Law Center notes that Wachovia
was a national bank that collapsed in significant
part because of the unaffordable mortgage
loans it originated.
127 John Dugan, gComptroller Dugan Responds
to Governor Spitzer,h news release, February
14, 2008, available at:
<http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-
16.htm>.
SOLD OUT 71
Cohen of the National Consumer Law
Center notes as well that the OCCfs preemptive
actions protected federal banks from
three distinct set of consumer
protections. First,
they were immunized
from state banking laws
that offered consumers
greater protection than the
OCCfs standards. Second,
the national banks were
protected from private
lawsuits brought under
state law to enforce
consumer rights. As noted
above, federal voluntary
standards made it difficult
for victimized borrowers to file suit. Third,
the OCC preempted the application of
general state consumer protection law (as
distinct from banking-specific rules) to
national banks. This includes even basic
contract and tort law.
Finally, Cohen emphasizes that the
OCC preemptive measures applied not just
to the national banks themselves, but to their
non-supervised affiliates and agents.
Meanwhile, the federal agency responsible
for regulating federally chartered
savings and loans, the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS), adopted parallel preemptive
actions.
In 2003, OTS announced its determination
that New York and Georgiafs antipredatory
lending laws did not apply to
federal thrifts. Like OCC, OTS took an
aggressive posture, arguing that it goccupied
the fieldh for regulation of
federally chartered institutions.
OTS was explicit that
it wanted to preserve
gmaximum flexibilityh for
thrifts to design loans. The
agency said its objective
was to genable federal
savings associations to
conduct their operations in
accordance with best practices
by efficiently delivering
low-cost credit to the
public free from undue regulatory duplication
and burden.h128
gFederal law authorizes OTS to provide
federal savings associations with a uniform
national regulatory environment for their
lending operations,h said OTS Director
James E. Gilleran in announcing the preemptive
decision. gThis enables and encourages
federal thrifts to provide low-cost credit
safely and soundly on a nationwide basis.
By requiring federal thrifts to treat custom-
128 Letter from Carolyn J. Buck, Chief Counsel,
Office of Thrift Supervision, January 30,
2003, available at:
<http://www.ots.gov/index.cfm?p=PressRel
eases&ContentRecord_id=f8613720-2c1d-
42f4-8608-
f6362c04b6e2&ContentType_id=4c12f337-
b5b6-4c87-b45c-
838958422bf3&YearDisplay=2003>.
Even if it is true that federal
banks originated fewer
abusive loans, they clearly
financed predatory subprime
loans through bank
intermediaries, securitized
predatory subprime loans
and held them in great
quantities.
72 SOLD OUT
ers in New York differently, the New York
law would impose increased costs and an
undue regulatory burden.h129
The federal governmentfs regulatory
approach ultimately boomeranged on the
regulated institutions. With the popping of
the housing bubble, predatory loans proved
a disaster not just for borrowers but for
lenders or those banks that purchased subprime
mortgage contracts. IndyMac and
Washington Mutual are two federal thrifts
that collapsed as a result of the bad subprime
mortgage loans that they administered.
129 gOTS Says New York Law Doesnft Apply To
Federal Thrifts,h news release, January 30,
2003, available at:
<http://www.ots.gov/index.cfm?p=PressRel
eases&ContentRecord_id=f8613720-2c1d-
42f4-8608-
f6362c04b6e2&ContentType_id=4c12f337-
b5b6-4c87-b45c-
838958422bf3&YearDisplay=2003>.
SOLD OUT 73
ESCAPING ACCOUNTABILITY:
ASSIGNEE LIABILITY
gAssignee liabilityh is the principle that
legal responsibility for wrongdoing in
issuing a loan extends to a third party that
acquires a loan. Thus, if a mortgage bank
issues a predatory loan and then sells the
loan to another bank, assignee liability
would hold the second bank liable for any
legal claims that the borrower might be able
to bring against the original lender.
Competing in the law with assignee liability
is the gholder-in-due-courseh doctrine,
which establishes that a third party
purchasing a debt instrument is not liable for
problems with the debt instrument, so long
as those problems are not apparent on the
face of the instrument. Under the holder-indue-
course-doctrine, a second bank acquiring
a predatory loan is not liable for claims
that may be brought by the borrower against
the original lender, so long as those potential
claims are not obvious.
The Home Ownership and Equity Protection
Act (HOEPA),130 the key federal
protection against predatory loans, attempted
to reconcile these conflicting principles.
Passed in 1994, HOEPA does establish
assignee liability, but it only applies to a
limited category of very high-cost loans
(i.e., loans with very high interest rates
and/or fees). For those loans, a borrower
may sue an assignee of a mortgage that
violates HOEPAfs anti-predatory lending
terms, seeking either damages or rescission
(meaning all fees and interest payments will
be applied to pay down the principle of the
loan, after which the borrower could refinance
with a non-predatory loan). For all
130 The Home Ownership and Equity Protection
Act of 1994 amended the Truth-in-Lending
Act by adding Section 129 of the Act, 15
U.S.C. ˜ 1639. It is implemented by Sections
226.31 and 226.32 of Regulation Z, 12
C.F.R. ˜˜ 226.31 and 226.32.
9
IN THIS SECTION:
Under existing federal law, only the original
mortgage lender is liable for any predatory
and illegal features of a mortgage . even if
the mortgage is transferred to another party.
This arrangement effectively immunized
acquirers of the mortgage (gassigneesh) for
any problems with the initial loan, and
relieved them of any duty to investigate the
terms of the loan. Wall Street interests could
purchase, bundle and securitize subprime
loans . including many with pernicious,
predatory terms . without fear of liability
for illegal loan terms. The arrangement left
victimized borrowers with no cause of action
against any but the original lender, and
typically with no defenses against being
foreclosed upon. Representative Bob Ney, ROhio
. a close friend of Wall Street who
subsequently went to prison in connection
with the Abramoff scandal . was the leading
opponent of a fair assignee liability regime.
74 SOLD OUT
other mortgage loans, federal law applies the
holder in due course doctrine.131
The rapid and extensive transfer of
subprime loans, including abusive predatory
loans, among varying parties was central to
the rapid proliferation of subprime lending.
Commonly, mortgage brokers worked out
deals with borrowers, who then obtained a
mortgage from an initial mortgage lender
(often a non-bank lender, such as Countrywide,
with which the broker worked). The
mortgage lender would then sell the loan to
a larger bank with which it maintained
relations. Ultimately, such mortgages were
pooled with others into a mortgage-backed
security, sold by a large commercial bank or
investment bank.
Under existing federal law, none but
the original mortgage lender is liable for any
predatory and illegal features of the mortgage
(so long as it is not a high-cost loan
covered by HOEPA). This arrangement
relieved acquirers of the mortgage of any
duty to investigate the terms of the loan and
effectively immunized them from liability
for the initial loan.132 It also left the borrow-
131 Lisa Keyfetz, gThe Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act of 1994: Extending
Liability for Predatory Subprime Loans to
Secondary Mortgage Market Participants,h
18 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 2, 151 (2005).
132 See Eric Nalder, gPoliticians, lobbyists
shielded financiers: Lack of liability laws
fueled firms' avarice,h Seattle Post-
Intelligencer, October 10, 2008, available at:
<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/382
707_mortgagecrisis09.html>. (gA principle
known as assignee liability would have alers
with no cause of action against any but
the original lender. In many cases, this
lender no longer exists as a legal entity.
And, even where the initial lender still
exists, while it can pay damages, it no longer
has the ability to cure problems with the
mortgage itself; only the current holder of
the mortgage can modify it. Thus, a borrower
could not exercise a potential rescission
remedy, or take other action during the
course of litigation to prevent the holder of
his or her mortgage from foreclosing upon
him or her or demanding unfair payments. A
hypothetical recovery of damages from the
original lender long after the home is foreclosed
upon is of little solace to the homeowner.
The severe consequences of not applying
assignee liability in the mortgage context
have long been recognized. Consumer
advocates highlighted the problem early in
the 2000fs boom in predatory lending.
Margot Saunders of the National Consumer
Law Center explained the problem in
testimony to the House of Representativesf
Financial Services Committee in 2003.
lowed borrowers to sue anyone holding paper
on their loan, from the originators who
sold it to them to the Wall Street investment
bankers who ultimately funded it. Without
the measure in place, Wall Street increased
by eightfold its financing of subprime and
nontraditional loans between 2001 and 2006,
including mortgages in which borrowers
with no proof of income, jobs or assets were
encouraged by brokers to take out loans, according
to statistics provided by mortgage
trackers.h)
SOLD OUT 75
gTake, for example, the situation where
homeowners sign a loan and mortgage for
home improvements secured by their home.
The documents do not
include the required FTC
Notice of Preservation of
Claims and Defenses, and
the contact information
provided by the home
improvement contractor is
useless. The home improvement
work turns out
to be shoddy and useless,
but the assignee of the
loan claims to have no
knowledge of the status of
the work, instead claiming
it is an innocent third
party assignee that merely wants its monthly
payments. When the homeowners refuse to
pay, the assignee claims the rights of a
holder in due course and begins foreclosure
proceedings.h
The absence of assignee liability enabled
Wall Street interests to bundle subprime
loans . including many with pernicious,
predatory terms . and securitize
them, without fear of facing liability for
unconscionable terms in the loans. Had a
regime of assignee liability been in place,
securitizers and others up the lending chain
would have been impelled to impose better
systems of control on brokers and initial
mortgage lenders, because otherwise they
would have faced liability themselves.
For community development and consumer
advocates, the case for expanded
assignee liability has long
been clear. Argued Saunders
in her 2003 testimony,
gMost importantly consider
the question of who should
bear the risk in a faulty
transaction. Assume 1) an
innocent consumer (victim
of an illegal loan), 2) an
originator guilty of violating
the law and profiting from
the making of an illegal
loan, and 3) an innocent
holder of the illegal note.
As between the two innocent
parties . the consumer and the holder
. who is best able to protect against the
risk of loss associated with the making of an
illegal loan? It is clear that the innocent
party who is best able to protect itself from
loss resulting from the illegality of another
is not the consumer, but the corporate assignee.h
133
133 Margot Saunders, Testimony Before the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity & Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit of the Financial
Services Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, gProtecting Homeowners:
Preventing Abusive Lending While Preserving
Access to Credit,h November 5, 2003,
available at:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/media/p
df/110503ms.pdf>.
Had a regime of assignee
liability been in place, securitizers
and others up the
lending chain would have
been impelled to impose
better systems of control
on brokers and initial mortgage
lenders, because otherwise
they would have
faced liability themselves.
76 SOLD OUT
Making the case even more clear, players
in the secondary market . the acquirers
of mortgages . were not innocent parties.
They were often directly involved in enabling
predatory lending by mortgage brokers,
and were well aware of the widespread
abuses in the subprime market. Explain
reporters Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla,
authors of Chain of Blame: How Wall Street
Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis,
gBrokers wouldnft even exist without
wholesalers, and wholesalers wouldnft be
able to fund loans unless Wall Street was
buying. It wasnft the loan brokersf job to
approve the customerfs application and
check all the financial information; that was
the wholesalerfs job, or at least it was supposed
to be. Brokers didnft design the loans,
either. The wholesalers and Wall Street did
that. If Wall Street wouldnft buy, then there
would be no loan to fund.h134
The securitizers had a counterargument
against calls for assignee liability.
They claimed that assignee liability would
impose unrealistic monitoring duties on
purchasers of mortgage loans, and would
therefore freeze up markets for securitized
loans. The result, they said, would be less
credit for homebuyers, especially those with
imperfect credit histories.
Lenders and securitizers opposed pro-
134 Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla, Chain of
Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage
and Credit Crisis, New York: Wiley,
2008. 295.
posals to require subsequent purchasers of
mortgage debt to bear legal responsibility.
gLegislators must be extremely cautious in
making changes that upset secondary market
dynamics,h warned Steve Nadon, chair of
the industry group the Coalition for Fair and
Affordable Lending (CFAL) and Chief
Operating Officer of Option One Mortgage,
an H&R Block subsidiary, in 2003 congressional
testimony, gbecause unfettered access
to the capital markets is largely responsible
for having dramatically increased nonprime
credit availability and for lowering costs for
millions of Americans. Lenders and secondary
market purchasers believe that it is very
unfair to impose liability when there is no
reasonable way that the loan or securities
holder could have known of the violation. In
any case, we feel that liability generally
should apply only if the assignee by reasonable
due diligence knew or should have
known of a violation of the law based on
what is evident on the face of the loan
documents.h135
gPredatory lending is harmful and
135 Testimony of Steve Nadon, chair of the
Coalition for Fair and Affordable Lending
(CFAL) and chief operating officer of Option
One Mortgage on gProtecting Homeowners:
Preventing Abusive Lending While
Preserving Access to Credith before the
Subcommittees on Housing and Community
Opportunity & Financial Institutions and
Consumer Credit of the Financial Services
Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
November 5, 2003, available at:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/media/p
df/110503sn.pdf>.
SOLD OUT 77
needs to be stopped. Imposing open-ended
liability on secondary market participants
for the actions of lenders, however, will
ultimately have the effect of limiting credit
for those who need it most,h
echoed Micah Green, president
of The Bond Market
Association, two years
later.136 (Proponents of
assignee liability emphasize
they have sought not openended
liability, but the kind
of measurable liability that
applies under HOEPA.)
Securitizers not only defended the default
federal application of the holder in due
course doctrine for non-HOEPA loans, they
supported legislation introduced by Representative
Bob Ney, R-Ohio . who subsequently
went to prison in connection with
the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal137 .
that would have preempted state rules
applying assignee liability.138 gUsing any-
136 gThe Bond Market Association and the
American Securitization Forum Applaud
Responsible Lending Act,h news release,
March 15, 2005, available at:
<http://www.americansecuritization.com/sto
ry.aspx?id=264>.
137 Philip Shenon, gNey Is Sentenced to 2 1.2
Years in Abramoff Case,h New York Times,
January 20, 2007, available at:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/washi
ngton/20ney.html?_r=>.
138 Diana B. Henriques with Jonathan Fuerbringer,
gBankers Opposing New State
Curbs on Unfair Loans,h New York Times,
February 14, 2003, available at:
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html
?res=9405E2D7153AF937A25751C0A9659
thing but a single set of objective and readily
detectable standards to determine whether
an assignee has liability is a regulatory
approach that threatens to undermine many
of the benefits of the
secondary market,h Green
testified before the House
Financial Services Committee
in 2005. gFaced
with this type of environment,
secondary
market participants may
find it less attractive to
purchase and repackage
subprime loans.h139
In a 2004 statement submitted to the
House Financial Services Committee, the
Housing Policy Council, made up of 17 of
the largest U.S. mortgage finance companies,
argued that diverse state standards
relating to assignee liability were unfairly
impinging on lenders and undermining
access to credit among poor communities.
gIn the absence of a national law, lenders
face growing problems: (1) a number of
states, and even cities and counties, pass
C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>.
139 Testimony of Micah Green, president, The
Bond Market Association, on gLegislative
Solution to Abusive Market Lending Practices,h
before the Financial Services Committee,
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity and Subcommittee
on Financial Institutions and Consumer
Credit, U.S. House of Representatives, May
24, 2005, available at:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/media/p
df/052405msg.pdf>.
Securitizers continue to
defend their position on
assignee liability, even
though it encourages the
practices that helped fuel
the subprime mess.
78 SOLD OUT
widely different legislation that causes a
variety of administrative and legal problems.
What is permitted in some locales is not in
others, sometimes even within the same
state; (2) states and subdivisions begin
competing to devise new restrictions; (3)
because of the lack of uniformity and great
variety of differences between jurisdictions
the chances of honest mistakes are compounded
and the possibility of litigation is
magnified; (4) litigation adversely impacts
the reputations of lenders, and (5) lenders
decide that making loans in states and
municipalities with broad and vague statutes
is no longer worth the risk to their reputations,
and assignees decide that buying or
lending against these loans is also not worth
the risk for them. The end result is actually
less credit for borrowers.h140
Further, the Housing Policy Council asserted,
under a national standard, assignee
liability should only apply where an assignee
had actual knowledge that a loan was
flawed, or intentionally failed to use due
diligence (itself a weak standard). 141
140 Statement of the Housing Policy Council of
the Financial Services Roundtable, before
the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
and Consumer Credit and the Subcommittee
on Housing and Community Opportunity,
gPromoting Homeownership by Ensuring
Liquidity in the Subprime Mortgage Market,h
June 23, 2004, available at:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/media/p
df/062304hpc.pdf>.
141 Statement of the Housing Policy Council of
the Financial Services Roundtable, Before
the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
Neyfs preemptive legislation regarding
assignee liability never became law, but it
helped frame the debate so that the mortgage
lenders, banks and Wall Street were on the
offensive . demanding even reduced
standards of assignee liability, rather than a
legal standard that would place responsibility
on securitizers (the banks and investment
banks that bundled loans into mortgagebacked
securities) for predatory loans and
give predatory loan victims a timely opportunity
in court to prevent foreclosure.
Securitizers continue to defend their
position on assignee liability, even though it
encourages the practices that helped fuel the
subprime mess.
In a June 2007 paper, the American Securitization
Forum (ASF) argued that, gIn
addition to being largely unnecessary, any
federal legislation that would expose secondary
market participants to assignee liability
that is very high or unquantifiable would
have severe repercussions.h The ASF repeats
the arguments of yesterday: that
securitization has increased capital available
and Consumer Credit and the Subcommittee
on Housing and Community Opportunity,
gPromoting Homeownership by Ensuring
Liquidity in the Subprime Mortgage Market,h
June 23, 2004, available at:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/media/p
df/062304hpc.pdf>. gActions and defenses,h
asserted the Housing Policy Council, gmust
be limited to those that are based on actual
knowledge of the assignee of the existence
of the violations in the loans assigned to
them, or intentional failure to use appropriate
due diligence in reviewing the loans assigned.h
SOLD OUT 79
to subprime markets and helped expand
homeownership; that assignees have an
economic incentive to ensure acquired loans
that are unlikely to default; that it is unreasonable
to ask assignees to investigate all
securitized loans; and that assignee liability
would dry up the secondary loan market
with dire consequences.142
Asserted the ASF, gThe imposition of
overly burdensome and potentially unquantifiable
liability on the secondary market .
for abusive origination practices of which
assignees have no knowledge and which
were committed by parties over whom they
have no control . would therefore severely
affect the willingness of investors and other
entities to extend the capital necessary to
fund subprime mortgage lending. As a
result, at precisely the time when increased
liquidity is essential to ensuring the financial
health of the housing market, schemes
imposing overly burdensome assignee
liability threaten to cause a contraction and
deleterious repricing of mortgage credit.h143
142 American Securitization Forum, gAssignee
Liability in the Secondary Mortgage Market:
Position Paper of the American Securitization
Forum,h June 2007, available at:
<http://www.americansecuritization.com/upl
oaded-
Files/Assignee%20Liability%20Final%20V
ersion_060507.pdf>.
143 American Securitization Forum, gAssignee
Liability in the Secondary Mortgage Market:
Position Paper of the American Securitization
Forum,h June 2007, available at:
<http://www.americansecuritization.com/upl
oaded-
Files/Assignee%20Liability%20Final%20V
That these arguments are overblown
and misplaced was clear at the start of the
subprime boom. They are now utterly implausible.
As a fairness matter, assignees
will often be the only party able to offer
relief to victims of predatory loans, and
victims often need to be able to bring claims
against assignees in order to prevent unjust
foreclosures; the hypothetical incentives for
assignees to avoid loans that could not be
paid off proved illusory; assignees have
ample capacity to police the loans they
acquire, including by hiring third-party
investigators or by contractual arrangement
with mortgage originators; and the overarching
problem for lower-income families and
communities since 2001 has not been too
little credit, but too much poor quality
credit.
ersion_060507.pdf>.
-
Woof, 7th Post;
80 SOLD OUT
FANNIE AND FREDDIE
ENTER THE SUBPRIME
MARKET
The Federal National Mortgage Association
was created in 1938, during Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s administration, as a federal
government agency to address the lack of a
consistent supply of mortgage funds. Fannie
Mae, as it is popularly known, became a
private, shareholder-owned corporation in
1968.144 As a “government sponsored enterprise”
(GSE) chartered by Congress, Fannie
Mae’s purpose is to purchase mortgages
from private bankers and other lenders so
that they have additional funds to continue
originating new mortgages. Fannie Mae
does not issue or originate new loans, but
private lenders seek to sell their loans to
Fannie, which maintains specific dollar
value ceilings for the repurchasing of single
and multi-family loans and does not purchase
high-end loans (i.e., loans for expensive
homes). Because many private lenders
hope to sell their mortgages to Fannie, its
loan purchasing criteria have a substantial
influence on the prudence of the mortgages
that lenders issue.
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, or Freddie Mac,145 was established
by Congress in 1970 as a private
shareholder-owned corporation to take on
the same role as Fannie Mae and prevent
Fannie from exercising a monopoly. As with
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac does not issue or
originate new loans. Instead, Freddie buys
loans from private lenders in order to provide
added liquidity to fund America’s
housing needs.146
144 12 U.S.C. § 1716b et seq. (1968).
145 Emergency Home Finance Act, 12 U.S.C. §
1401 (1970).
146 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
10
IN THIS SECTION:
At the peak of the housing boom, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac were dominant purchasers
in the subprime secondary market. The
Government-Sponsored Enterprises were
followers, not leaders, but they did end up
taking on substantial subprime assets — at
least $57 billion. The purchase of subprime
assets was a break from prior practice,
justified by theories of expanded access to
homeownership for low-income families and
rationalized by mathematical models allegedly
able to identify and assess risk to newer
levels of precision. In fact, the motivation
was the for-profit nature of the institutions
and their particular executive incentive
schemes. Massive lobbying — including
especially but not only of Democratic friends
of the institutions — enabled them to divert
from their traditional exclusive focus on
prime loans.
Fannie and Freddie are not responsible
for the financial crisis. They are responsible
for their own demise, and the resultant
massive taxpayer liability.
SOLD OUT 81
Fannie Mae began converting mortgages
it acquired into mortgage-backed
securities (MBSs) in 1970.147 An MBS is
created by pooling thousands of purchased
mortgages into a single security for trade on
Wall Street. By selling MBSs to investors,
Fannie obtains additional funds to buy
increasing numbers of mortgages from
private lenders who, in turn, use the added
liquidity (cash) to originate new home loans.
By purchasing mortgages from private
lenders, however, Fannie Mae incurs all the
risk of default by borrowers, providing an
incentive for lenders to make risky loans,148
and making it vital that Fannie exercise care
in determining which loans it acquires.
Traditionally, Fannie only purchased high
quality loans that conform to relatively
stringent standards, including that the borrower
provided a 20 percent down payment.
Even after it sells MBSs, Fannie guarantees
payment to buyers of the MBSs — effectively
providing insurance on the securities.
The laws establishing Fannie Mae and
website, “Frequently Asked Questions
About Freddie Mac,” undated, available at:
<http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate/com
pany_profile/faqs/index.html>.
147 Federal National Mortgage Association
website, “About Fannie Mae,” October 7,
2008, available at:
<http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.
jhtml;jsessionid=XUMTTVZMCQYSHJ2F
QSISFGA?p=About+Fannie+Mae>.
148 Ivo Welch, “Corporate Finance: An
Introduction,” Prentice-Hall, 2008, available
at:
<http://welch.econ.brown.edu/oped/finsyste
m.html>.
Freddie Mac provide no explicit guarantee
of their debt obligations. Nonetheless,
investors throughout the world assumed that
because the entities are so intertwined with
the U.S. government and so central to U.S.
housing policy, the federal government
would never to allow Fannie or Freddie to
default on its debt. Because they were
considered quasi-governmental, Fannie and
Freddie enjoyed the highest-graded rating
(Triple-A) from independent ratings firms,
despite holding little capital in reserve as
against the scale of their outstanding
loans.149
In 1992, Congress passed and President
George H.W. Bush signed into law the
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act. This law established
“risk-based and minimum capital
standards”150 for the two GSEs and also
established the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) to oversee
and regulate the activities of Fannie and
Freddie. OFHEO, however, had limited
authority. The legislation also required
Fannie and Freddie to devote a minimum
percentage of their lending to support affordable
housing.
149 Ivo Welch, “Corporate Finance: An
Introduction,” Prentice-Hall, 2008, available
at:
<http://welch.econ.brown.edu/oped/finsyste
m.html>.
150 “About Fannie Mae: Our Charter,” Fannie
Mae website, October 29, 2008, available at:
<http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/charte
r.jhtml>.
82 SOLD OUT
In 1999, Fannie Mae softened the standards
it required of loans that it purchased.
The move came in response to pressure from
the banking and thrift
industries, which wanted to
extend subprime lending
(and wanted Fannie Mae to
agree to purchase subprime
loans), and from federal
officials who wanted Fannie
and Freddie to buy more
private industry mortgages
made to low and moderateincome
families.151
As the housing bubble
inflated starting in 2001,
banks and especially non-bank lenders made
an increasing number of subprime loans,
peaking in the years 2004-2006. Fannie and
Freddie were major players in the “secondary
market,” buying up bundles of subprime
loans that were traded on Wall Street.
They purchased 44 percent of subprime
securities on the secondary market in 2004,
33 percent in 2005 and 20 percent in
2006.152
151 Steven A. Holmes, “Fannie Mae Eases Credit
to Aid Mortgage Lending,” New York
Times, September 30, 1999, available at:
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html
?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f95826
0&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>.
152 Carol D. Leonnig, “How HUD Mortgage
Policy Fed the Crisis,” Washington Post,
June 10, 2008, available at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2008/06/09/AR20080609
02626_pf.html>.
But Fannie and Freddie were not buying
subprime mortgages directly in significant
quantities, in part because the most
predatory subprime loans
did not meet their lending
standards. The two firms
purchased just 3 percent
of all subprime loans
issued from 2004 through
2007, most of that in 2007
alone.153 Subprime loans
represented 2 percent of
Fannie Mae’s singlefamily
mortgage credit
book of business at the
end of 2006, and 3 percent
at the end of 2005.154
Fannie and Freddie’s large-scale purchases
of subprime mortgage-back securities
on the secondary market may have facilitated
greater subprime lending than otherwise
would have occurred, but to a considerable
extent the companies were victims
rather than perpetrators of the subprime
crisis. That is, they were not driving the
market, so much as getting stuck with bad
products already placed on the market.
153 Ronald Campbell, “Most Subprime Lenders
Weren’t Subject to Federal Lending Law,”
Orange County Register, November 16,
2008, available at:
<http://www.ocregister.com/articles/loanssubprime-
banks-2228728-law-lenders>.
154 Fannie Mae form 10-K, for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2006, pF-78.
Fannie and Freddie’s largescale
purchases of subprime
mortgage-back securities on
the secondary market may
have facilitated greater
subprime lending than
otherwise would have
occurred.
SOLD OUT 83
The two companies also trailed the
market, entering into the subprime arena
because they felt at a competitive disadvantage
as against other
housing market players.
Internal Fannie memos
obtained by the House
Oversight Committee
show the company was
very concerned that it was
rapidly losing market
share to Wall Street
securitizers. “Our pricing
is uncompetitive. According
to our models, market
participants today are not
pricing legitimately for
risks,” noted a top-level memo.155 The same
memo noted the risks of pursuing more
aggressive strategies — noting that Fannie
had a “lack of knowledge of the credit
risks”156 — and urged that the company
“stay the course.” Numerous other internal
sources echoed this recommendation.157 Yet
155 “Single Family Guaranty Business: Facing
Strategic Crossroads,” June 27, 2005, p. 18,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1209103003.pdf>.
156 “Single Family Guaranty Business: Facing
Strategic Crossroads,” June 27, 2205, p. 9,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1209103003.pdf>.
157 See Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A.
Waxman, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, “The Role of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac in the Financial Crisis,”
December 9, 2008, available at:
Fannie increased its direct investment in
riskier loans despite these cautionary warnings
— and even as the housing bubble was
coming to an end.
Today, Freddie and
Fannie own or guarantee
more than $5 trillion in
mortgages158 and regularly
issue MBSs. Fannie itself is
the largest issuer and guarantor
of MBSs. Both agencies
were purchasing risky
subprime loans on the
secondary market from
2004 to 2007, but they were
not required to report mortgage
losses on the balance
sheet. As a result, both investors and regulators
were unaware of the extent of their
growing mortgage problems. The companies’
significant investments in the riskiest
elements of the market would bring their
demise in Fall 2008, when the federal government
placed them in conservatorship to
prevent them from collapsing altogether.159
The federal government has infused
<http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=22
52>.
158 “Freddie Mac lobbied against regulation bill,”
Associated Press, October 19, 2008, available
at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
159 See statement by Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson, September 7, 2008, and related materials,
available at:
<http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp11
29.htm>.
Perceived as quasigovernmental
agencies,
Fannie and Freddie were in
fact subjected to government
regulation — but the
regulators’ hands were tied
by a Congress heavily
lobbied by Fannie and
Freddie.
84 SOLD OUT
$200 billion into Fannie and Freddie, and
more will follow. Even if Fannie and
Freddie did not create the financial crisis,
their reckless decisions are now forcing a
mammoth drain of taxpayer resources.
Perceived as quasi-governmental agencies,
Fannie and Freddie were in fact subjected
to government regulation — but the
regulators’ hands were tied by a Congress
lobbied by Fannie and Freddie. The companies
lobbied heavily to avoid requirements
for larger capital reserves, stronger government
oversight, or to limit their acquisition
of packages of risky loans. In general,
Democrats were far more protective of
Fannie and Freddie than Republicans, many
of whom were hostile to the GSEs’ government
ties. Many Democrats sought to protect
Fannie and Freddie from stringent
regulatory oversight and capital reserve
requirements, but Republicans were heavily
lobbied as well.
In 2005, for example, Freddie Mac paid
$2 million to Republican lobbying firm DCI
Inc. to defeat legislation sponsored by
Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, that
would have imposed tougher regulations on
Freddie’s loan repurchase activities.160 The
legislation languished in the Senate Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
160 “Freddie Mac Lobbied Against Regulation
Bill,” Associated Press, October 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
with all Republican committee members
supporting it and all Democratic members
opposed. Hagel and 25 other Republican
senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, to
allow a vote on the bill.
“If effective regulatory reform legislation
... is not enacted this year, American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the
enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac pose to the housing market, the overall
financial system and the economy as a
whole,” the senators wrote in a letter.161
The Associated Press reported, “In the
end, there was not enough Republican
support for Hagel’s bill to warrant bringing
it up for a vote because Democrats also
opposed it and the votes of some would be
needed for passage.”162 The former chair of
the House Financial Services Committee,
Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, complained that
efforts to regulate Fannie and Freddie were
blocked by the Bush administration, the
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.
“What did we get from the White
House? We got a one-finger salute,” Oxley
161 “Freddie Mac Lobbied Against Regulation
Bill,” Associated Press, October 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
162 “Freddie Mac Lobbied Against Regulation
Bill,” Associated Press, October 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/
>.
SOLD OUT 85
would recall in 2008.163
Democrats believed in Fannie and
Freddie as ways to expand credit to low- and
middle-income communities, but they were
also responsive to massive lobbying efforts.
From 1998 to 2008, Fannie Mae spent
$80.53 million on federally registered
lobbyists. During the same period, Freddie
Mac spent $96.16 million on lobbyists.164
163 Greg Farrell, “Oxley Hits Back at Ideologues,”
Financial Times, September 9,
2008.
<http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/barney
-frank-mccain-reform/>.
164 Totals compiled from annual data available
from the Center for Responsive Politics,
<www.opensecrets.org>.
86 SOLD OUT
Community Reinvestment Act: Not Guilty
Congress passed and President Jimmy
Carter signed the Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) into law in 1977. The purpose of
this law was to encourage banks to increase
their very limited lending in low- and moderate-
income and minority neighborhoods
and more generally to low- and moderateincome
and minority borrowers.165
Congress passed this law in large part because
too many lenders were discriminating
against minority and low- and moderateincome
neighborhoods. “Redlining” was the
name given to the practice by banks of literally
drawing a red line around minority areas and
then proceeding to deny loans to people within
the red border even if they were otherwise
qualified. The CRA has been in place for 30
years, but some corporate-backed and libertarian
think tanks and policy groups, as well as
some Republican members of Congress, now
claim CRA is responsible for the current
financial disaster. Nothing in the CRA requires
banks to make risky loans.166
Leading regulators agree that CRA was
not responsible for predatory lending, let
165 Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council website, “Community Reinvestment
Act: Background & Purpose,” Undated,
available at:
<http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/history.htm>.
166 Federal Reserve Board website, “Community
Reinvestment Act,” Undated, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/>.
alone the broader financial crisis.
John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency
said, “CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime
mortgage lending abuses, or the broader
credit quality issues in the marketplace.”167
Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall
S. Kroszner said he has not seen any evidence
that “CRA has contributed to the erosion of
safe and sound lending practices.”168
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said, “I
think we can agree that a complex interplay
of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers,
and investors led to the current financial
storm. To be sure, there’s plenty of blame to
go around. However, I want to give you my
verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.”169
Most predatory loans were issued by
non-bank lenders that were not subject to
CRA requirements.
167 Reuters, “U.S. financial system in better
shape-OCC’s Dugan,” November 19, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/regulatoryN
ewsFinancialServicesAndRealEstate/
idUSN1946588420081119>.
168 Remarks of Randall S. Kroszner, Governor of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, “Confronting Concentrated
Poverty Policy Forum,” December 3, 2008,
available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/s
peech/kroszner20081203a.htm>.
169 Remarks by Sheila Bair, Chairperson of the
FDIC, Before the New America Foundation,
December 17, 2008, available at:
<http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/ar
chives/2008/chairman/spdec1708.html>.
SOLD OUT 87
MERGER MANIA
Merger mania in the financial industry has
been all the rage for more than 25 years.
“Bigger is indeed better,” proclaimed the
CEO of Bank of America in announcing its
merger with NationsBank in 1998.170
In the United States, about 11,500 bank
mergers took place from 1980 through 2005,
170 Dean Foust, “BofA: A Megabank in the
Making,” BusinessWeek, September 13,
1999, available at:
<http://www.businessweek.com/archives/19
99/b3646163.arc.htm>.
an average of about 440 mergers per year.171
The size of the mergers has increased to
phenomenal levels in recent years: In 2003,
Bank of America became a $1.4 trillion
financial behemoth after it bought FleetBoston,
making it the second-largest U.S. bank
holding company in terms of assets.172 In
2004, JPMorgan Chase agreed to buy Bank
One, creating a $1.1 trillion bank holding
company.173
From 1975 to 1985, the number of
commercial banks was relatively stable at
about 14,000. By 2005 that number stood at
7,500, a nearly 50 percent decline.174
171 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Economic
Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
172 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Economic
Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
173 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Economic
Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
174 Loretta J. Mester, Senior Vice President and
Director of Research at the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, “Some Thoughts on
the Evolution of the Banking System and the
Process of Financial Intermediation,” Eco-
11
IN THIS SECTION:
The effective abandonment of antitrust and
related regulatory principles over the last
two decades has enabled a remarkable
concentration in the banking sector, even in
advance of recent moves to combine firms as
a means to preserve the functioning of the
financial system. The megabanks achieved
too-big-to-fail status. While this should have
meant they be treated as public utilities
requiring heightened regulation and risk
control, other deregulatory maneuvers
(including repeal of Glass-Steagall) enabled
these gigantic institutions to benefit from
explicit and implicit federal guarantees, even
as they pursued reckless high-risk investments.
88 SOLD OUT
By mid-2008 — before a rash of mergers
consummated amidst the financial crash
— the top 5 banks held more than half the
assets controlled by the top 150.175
Regulators rarely challenged bank
mergers and acquisitions as stock prices
skyrocketed and the financial party on Wall
Street drowned out the critics. But many
argued that “bigger is not better” because it
raised the specter that any one individual
bank could become “too big to fail” (TBTF)
or at least “too big to discipline adequately”
by regulators. The current financial crisis
has confirmed these fears.
In the modern era, “TBTF” reared its
head in 1984, when the federal government
contributed $1 billion to save Continental
Illinois Bank from default. As the seventh
largest bank in the United States, Continental
held large amounts of deposits from
hundreds of smaller banks throughout the
Midwest. The failure of such a large institution
could have forced many smaller banks
into default. As a result, the U.S. Comptroller
of the Currency orchestrated an unprecedented
rescue of the bank, including its
shareholders. During congressional hearings
on the matter, Representative Stewart B.
McKinney, R-Connecticut, pointedly observed,
“We have a new kind of bank. It is
nomic Review, First & Second Quarters,
2007, available at:
<http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er
q107_Mester.pdf >.
175 Based on data from American Banker.
called too big to fail, TBTF, and it is a
wonderful bank.”176 The Comptroller of the
Currency agreed that the eleven largest U.S.
banks were “too big to fail,” implying they
would be rescued regardless of how much
risk they took on.
Seven years later, U.S. banking law
recognized TBTF with passage of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement
Act of 1991 (FDICIA). The Act
authorizes federal regulators to rescue
uninsured depositors in large failing banks if
such action is needed to prevent “serious
adverse effects on economic conditions or
financial stability.” FDICIA effectively
implies that any bank whose failure poses a
serious risk to the stability of the U.S.
banking system (i.e. “systemic risk”) is
exempt from going bankrupt and thus qualifies
for a taxpayer-financed rescue. It constitutes
a significant exception to the FDICIA’s
general rule prohibiting the rescue of uninsured
depositors.
The FDICIA also acts as an implicit insurance
program for large financial institutions
and an incentive for banks to gain
TBTF status by growing larger through
merger and acquisition. In 1999, economists
within the Federal Reserve System warned
that “some institutions may try to increase
the value of their access to the government’s
financial safety net (including deposit insur-
176 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions, 1984.
SOLD OUT 89
ance, discount window access, payments
system guarantees) through consolidation. If
financial market participants perceive very
large organizations to be ‘too big to fail’ —
i.e., that explicit or implicit government
guarantees will protect debtholders or shareholders
of these organizations — there may
be incentives to increase size through consolidation....”
177
International comparisons over a 100-
year period show that changes in the structure
and strength of safety net guarantees
may incentivize additional financial institution
risk-taking, and by extension, the
motive to consolidate to increase the value
of access to the safety net.178
Studies have shown that compared to
smaller banks, large banks take on greater
risk in the form of lower capital ratios (i.e.
177 Allen N. Berger, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and Rebecca S.
Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, “The Consolidation
of the Financial Services Industry:
Causes, Consequences, and Implications for
the Future,” J. Banking & Finance, Vol. 23,
1999, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1
998/199846/199846pap.pdf>.
178 Allen N. Berger, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and Rebecca S.
Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, “The Consolidation
of the Financial Services Industry:
Causes, Consequences, and Implications for
the Future,” J. Banking & Finance, Vol. 23,
1999, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1
998/199846/199846pap.pdf> (citing A.
Saunders and B.K. Wilson, “Bank capital
and bank structure: A comparative analysis
of the U.S., U.K., and Canada,” J. Banking
& Finance, 1999).
increased leverage),179 more investments in
derivatives,180 higher percentages of uninsured
deposits, lower levels of core deposits,
181 higher percentages of loans,182 and
lower levels of cash and marketable securities.
TBTF policy effectively operates as a
government subsidy — and worse, an incentive
— for this kind of risk-taking, thereby
increasing the vulnerability of the entire
banking system and the likelihood of massive
taxpayer-funded bailouts. Federal
Reserve economists found that the banking
crisis of the late 1980s occurred because
“large banks adopted a riskier stance, be-
179 Rebecca S. Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Research
Paper 9506, April 1995, available at:
<http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_
reports/research_papers/9506.pdf>. See also
Arnold Danielson, “Getting Ready for the
21st Century: A Look at Recent Banking
Trends,” Banking Pol'y Rep., March 15,
1999. (Banks larger than $50 billion had an
average capital ratio of seven percent while
banks between $100 million to $2 billion in
size had an average capital ratio of just over
nine percent).
180 Rebecca S. Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan,
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Research
Paper 9506, April 1995, available at:
<http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_
reports/research_papers/9506.pdf>.
181 Ron J. Feldman and Jason Schmidt, Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Increased
use of uninsured deposits: Implications for
market discipline,” March 2001. Available
at:
<http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publication
s_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2178>.
182 Ron J. Feldman and Jason Schmidt, Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Increased
use of uninsured deposits: Implications for
market discipline,” March 2001. Available
at:
<http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publication
s_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2178>.
90 SOLD OUT
yond what could sensibly be explained by
scale economies.”183
Supporters of bank consolidation argue
that bigger banks create greater efficiencies
because of their larger economies of scale.
But several studies have shown that large
bank mergers during the 1980s and 1990s
failed to improve overall efficiency or
profitability.184 Indeed, most studies found
that post-merger cost increases and revenue
losses offset any savings that the resulting
banks accrued from cutting staff or closing
branches.185
183 John H. Boyd and Mark Gertler, “The Role of
Large Banks in the Recent U.S. Banking
Crisis,” 18 Fed. Res. Bank of Minneapolis
Q. Rev. 1, Winter 1994, available at:
<http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/Q
R/QR1811.pdf>.
184 Allen N. Berger and David B. Humphrey,
“The Dominance of Inefficiencies Over
Scale and Product Mix Economies in Banking,”
J. Monetary Econ., 117-48, August 28,
1991; Allen N. Berger & David B. Humphrey,
“Megamergers in Banking and the
Use of Cost Efficiency as an Antitrust Defense,”
37 Antitrust Bull. 541, 554-65
(1992); Simon Kwan & Robert A. Eisenbeis,
“Mergers of Publicly Traded Banking Organizations
Revisited,” Fed. Res. Bank of
Atlanta, Econ. Rev., 4th Qtr. 1999; Jane C.
Linder & Dwight B. Crane, “Bank Mergers:
Integration and Profitability,” 7 J. Fin.
Servs. Res. 35, 40-52 (1992); Stavros Peristiani,
“Do Mergers Improve the XEfficiency
and Scale Efficiency of U.S.
Banks? Evidence from the 1980s,” 29 J.
Money, Credit & Banking 326, 329-33, 336-
37 (1997); Steven J. Pilloff, “Performance
Changes and Shareholder Wealth Creation
Associated with Mergers of Publicly Traded
Banking Institutions,” 28 J. Money, Credit
& Banking 294, 297-98, 301, 308-09 (1996).
185 Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., “The Transformation
of the U.S. Financial Services Industry,
1975-2000: Competition, Consolidation and
Evidence indicates executive compensation
plays a central role in the quest for
larger banks. This “empire-building,” as
Federal Reserve economists put it, occurs
because compensation tends to increase with
firm size, “so managers may hope to achieve
personal financial gains by engaging in
[mergers and acquisitions].”186 George
Washington University banking law professor
Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. agrees. “Not
surprisingly,” he said, “studies have shown
that managerial self-interest plays a major
role in determining the frequency of mergers
among both corporations and banks.”187
In words that appear prescient today,
Professor Wilmarth aptly observed in 2002
that “the quest by big banks for TBTF status
— like their pursuit of market power —
should be viewed as a dangerous flight from
discipline that will likely produce inefficient
growth and greater risk.” Reliance on finan-
Increased Risks” 2002 U. Ill. L. Rev. 2 215
(2002), available at:
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs
tract_id=315345>.
186 Allen N. Berger, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and Rebecca S.
Demsetz and Philip E. Strahan of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, “The Consolidation
of the Financial Services Industry:
Causes, Consequences, and Implications for
the Future,” Journal of Banking and Finance,
Vol. 23, 1999, available at:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1
998/199846/199846pap.pdf>.
187 Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., “The Transformation
of the U.S. Financial Services Industry,
1975-2000: Competition, Consolidation and
Increased Risks” 2002 U. Ill. L. Rev. 2 215
(2002), available at:
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs
tract_id=315345>.
SOLD OUT 91
cial derivatives, for example, is extremely
concentrated among the largest commercial
banks (the five largest commercial banks
own 97 percent of the
total amount of notional
derivatives), and limited
almost entirely to the
biggest 25.188 All of these
banks are of a size — and
most the product of
mergers — that regulators
and antitrust enforcers
would not have tolerated a
quarter century ago.
Taxpayers are now
footing the bill for the
financial industry’s investment
in risky, overleveraged
and poorly understood financial
schemes. By the end of 2008, the federal
government pledged $8.5 trillion in economic
assistance for financial institutions,189
primarily large commercial banks, that the
federal government says were TBTF. 190
188 Comptroller of the Currency, “OCC's Quarterly
Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives
Activities, Second Quarter 2008,”
available at:
<http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-
115a.pdf>.
189 Kathleen Pender, “Government bailout hits
$8.5 trillion,” San Francisco Chronicle, November
26, 2008, available at:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/
article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN1
4C8QR.DTL>.
190 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Troubled
Asset Relief Program Transaction Report,
December 9, 2008, available at:
Although the early consolidation of
banks, including related to the authorization
of interstate banking, had some support
among public interest
advocates as a means to
create competition in very
localized markets,191 the
intensive consolidation of
the last 25 years goes far
beyond whatever might
have been needed to enhance
competition. Yet
regulators averted their eyes
from the well-known risks
of banking consolidation.192
As banking regulators
fell under the spell of
industry lobbyists and
propagandists who alleged that bigger banks
would be more efficient, so too did antitrust
enforcement agencies fail to act to slow
banking consolidation.
As with the erosion of effective banking
regulation, the corrosion of antitrust
enforcement traces back more than three
<http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/eesa/tra
nsactions.shtml>.
191 See “The Centralization of Financial Power:
Unintended Consequences of Government-
Assisted Bank Mergers, “An Interview with
Bert Foer,” Multinational Monitor, November/
December 2008, available at:
<www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2008/1
12008/interview-foer.html>.
192 Jake Lewis, “The Making of the Banking
Behemoths,” Multinational Monitor, June
1996, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hype
r/mm0696.04.html>.
As banking regulators fell
under the spell of industry
lobbyists and propagandists
who alleged that bigger
banks would be more
efficient, so too did antitrust
enforcement agencies
fail to act to slow banking
consolidation.
92 SOLD OUT
decades, the victim of industry lobbies and
laissez-faire ideology. In the case of antitrust,
a conservative, corporate-backed
campaign began in the 1970s to overturn
many common-sense insights on the costs of
mergers. The “law-and-economics” movement
came to dominate law schools, scholarly
writing and, eventually, the thinking of
the federal judiciary. Its principles became
the guiding doctrine for the Reagan-Bush
Justice Department and Federal Trade
Commission, the two U.S. agencies charged
with enforcing the nation's antitrust laws.
Based on a theoretical understanding of
market efficiency, law-and-economics holds
that many outlawed or undesirable anticompetitive
practices are irrational, and therefore
should never occur, or are possible only in
extreme and unlikely situations.
Antitrust enforcers operating under
these premises confined themselves to
addressing extreme abuses, like overt pricefixing
and hard-core cartels. Although the
Clinton administration moved away from a
hard-line law-and-economics approach, it
watched over a period of industry consolidation
that had seen no parallel since the
merger wave at the start of the 20th century.
193
The great banking mergers of the last
193 See Walter Adams and James Brock, “The
Bigness Complex: Industry, Labor, and
Government in the American Economy,”
Palo Alto: Stanford Economics and Finance,
2004.
quarter century were generally permitted
with little quarrel from the Department of
Justice, which typically mandated only the
sell-off of a few overlapping banking
branches.194
194 See James Brock, “Merger Mania and Its
Discontents: The Price of Corporate Consolidation,”
Multinational Monitor,
July/August 2005, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
005/072005/brock.html>. (In a brief review
of mergers through 2005, Brock writes,
“Banking and finance has witnessed the
same scene of cumulative consolidation:
Through two decades of ever-larger acquisitions,
NationsBank became one of the country’s
largest commercial banking concerns,
absorbing C&S/Sovran (itself a merged entity),
Boatmen’s Bancshares ($9.7 billion
deal), BankSouth and Barnett Bank ($14.8
billion acquisition). Then, in 1998, Nations-
Bank struck a spectacular $60 billion merger
with the huge Bank of America, which itself
had been busily acquiring other major
banks. The merger between NationsBank
and B of A created a financial colossus controlling
nearly $600 billion in assets, with
5,000 branch offices and nearly 15,000
ATMs. Bank of America then proceeded to
acquire Fleet Boston — which had just
completed its own multi-billion dollar acquisitions
of Bank Boston, Bay Bank, Fleet
Financial, Shawmut, Summit Bancorp and
NatWest. Giants Banc One and First Chicago
NBD — their size the product of numerous
serial acquisitions — merged, and
the combined entity was subsequently absorbed
by J.P. Morgan which, in turn, had
just acquired Chase, after the latter had
merged with Manufacturers Hanover and
Chemical Bank in the financial business of
underwriting stocks and bonds. Other megamergers
include the $73 billion combination
of Citicorp and Travelers Group in 1998, as
well as the acquisition of leading brokerage
firms by big banks, including Morgan
Stanley’s ill-fated acquisition of Dean Witter.”)
SOLD OUT 93
RAMPANT CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST: CREDIT
RATINGS FIRMS’ FAILURE
The stability and safety of mortgage-related
assets are ostensibly monitored by private
credit rating companies — overwhelmingly
the three top firms, Moody’s Investors
Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings
Ltd.195 Each is supposed to issue independent,
objective analysis on the financial
soundness of mortgages and other debt
traded on Wall Street. Millions of investors
rely on the analyses in deciding whether to
buy debt instruments like mortgage-backed
securities (MBSs). As home prices skyrocketed
from 2004 to 2007, each agency issued
the highest quality ratings on billions of
dollars in what is now unambiguously
recognized as low-quality debt, including
subprime-related mortgage-backed securities.
196 As a result, millions of investors lost
billions of dollars after purchasing (directly
or through investment funds) highly rated
MBSs that were, in reality, low quality, high
risk and prone to default.
The phenomenal losses had many wondering
how the credit rating firms could
have gotten it so wrong. The answer lies in
the cozy relationship between the rating
companies and the financial institutions
whose mortgage assets they rate. Specifi-
195 Often labeled “credit ratings agencies,” these
are private, for-profit corporations.
196 Edmund L. Andrews, “U.S. Treasury Secretary
Calls for Stronger Regulation on Housing
Finance,” International Herald Tribune,
March 13, 2008, available at:
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/13/bu
siness/credit.php>.
12
IN THIS SECTION:
Credit ratings are a key link in the financial
crisis story. With Wall Street combining
mortgage loans into pools of securitized
assets and then slicing them up into tranches,
the resultant financial instruments were
attractive to many buyers because they
promised high returns. But pension funds
and other investors could only enter the
game if the securities were highly rated.
The credit rating firms enabled these
investors to enter the game, by attaching
high ratings to securities that actually were
high risk — as subsequent events have
revealed. The credit ratings firms have a bias
to offering favorable ratings to new instruments
because of their complex relationships
with issuers, and their desire to maintain and
obtain other business dealings with issuers.
This institutional failure and conflict of
interest might and should have been forestalled
by the SEC, but the Credit Rating
Agencies Reform Act of 2006 gave the SEC
insufficient oversight authority. In fact, the
SEC must give an approval rating to credit
ratings agencies if they are adhering to their
own standards — even if the SEC knows
those standards to be flawed.
94 SOLD OUT
cally, financial institutions that issue mortgage
and other debt had been paying the
three firms for credit ratings. In effect, the
“referees” were being paid by the “players.”
One rating analyst observed, “This egregious
conflict of interest may be the single
greatest cause of the present global economic
crisis ... . With enormous fees at
stake, it is not hard to see how these [credit
rating] companies may have been induced,
at the very least, to gloss over the possibilities
of default or, at the worst, knowingly
provide inflated ratings.”197 A Moody’s
employee stated in a private company e-mail
that “we had blinders on and never questioned
the information we were given [by
the institutions Moody was rating].”
The CEO of Moody’s reported in a
confidential presentation that his company is
“continually ‘pitched’ by bankers” for the
purpose of receiving high credit ratings and
that sometimes “we ‘drink the kool-aid.’”198
A former managing director of credit policy
at Moody’s testified before Congress that,
197 Testimony of Sean J. Eagan, before the
Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, October
22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102906.pdf>.
198 Opening Statement of Rep. Henry Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102221.pdf> (quoting a confidential
presentation made by Moody’s CEO Ray
McDaniel to the board of directors in October
2007).
“Originators of structured securities [e.g.
banks] typically chose the agency with the
lowest standards,”199 allowing banks to
engage in “rating shopping” until a desired
credit rating was achieved. The agencies
made millions on MBS ratings and, as one
Member of Congress said, “sold their independence
to the highest bidder.”200 Banks
paid large sums to the ratings companies for
advice on how to achieve the maximum,
highest quality rating. “Let’s hope we are all
wealthy and retired by the time this house of
cards falters,” a Standard & Poor’s employee
candidly revealed in an internal email
obtained by congressional investigators.
201
Other evidence shows that the firms adjusted
ratings out of fear of losing customers.
For example, an internal e-mail between
senior business managers at one of the three
ratings companies calls for a “meeting” to
199Testimony of Jerome S. Fons, Former Managing
Director of Credit Policy, Moody’s, Before
the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102726.pdf>.
200 Rep. Christopher Shays, Before the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform,
U.S. House of Representatives, October 22,
2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1023162631.pdf>.
201 Opening Statement of Rep. Henry Waxman,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102221.pdf> (quoting a confidential email
from an S&P employee).
SOLD OUT 95
“discuss adjusting criteria for rating CDOs
[collateralized debt obligations] of real
estate assets this week because of the ongoing
threat of losing
deals.”202 In another e-mail,
following a discussion of a
competitor’s share of the
ratings market, an employee
of the same firm states that
aspects of the firm’s ratings
methodology would have to
be revisited in order to
recapture market share from
the competing firm.203
The credit rating business
was spectacularly
profitable, as the firms
increasingly focused in the
first part of this decade on structured finance
and new complex debt products, particularly
credit derivatives (complicated instruments
providing a kind of insurance on mortgages
and other loans). Moody’s had the highest
profit margin of any company in the S&P
500 for five years in a row.204 Its ratings on
202 “Summary Report of Issues Identified in the
Commission Staff’s Examinations of Select
Credit Rating Agencies,” Securities and Exchange
Commission, July 2008, available at:
<http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2008/cra
examination070808.pdf>.
203 “Summary Report of Issues Identified in the
Commission Staff’s Examinations of Select
Credit Rating Agencies,” Securities and Exchange
Commission, July 2008, available at:
<http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2008/cra
examination070808.pdf>.
204Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Wax-
MBSs and CDOs — heavily weighted with
toxic subprime mortgages — contributed to
more than half of the company’s ratings
revenue by 2006.205
Although the ratings
firms are for-profit companies,
they perform a
quasi-public function.
Their failure alone could
be considered a regulatory
failure. But the credit
rating failure has a much
more direct public connection.
Government
agencies explicitly relied
on private credit rating
firms to regulate all kinds
of public and private
activities. And, following the failure of the
credit ratings firms in the Enron and related
scandals, Congress passed legislation giving
the SEC regulatory power, of a sort, over the
firms. However, the 2006 legislation prohibited
the SEC from actually regulating the
credit ratings process.
The Securities and Exchange Commission
was the first government agency to
man, Before the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, October 22, 2008,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102221.pdf>.
205 Rep. Jackie Speier, Before the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, U.S.
House of Representatives, October 22, 2008,
available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1023162631.pdf>.
“With enormous fees at
stake, it is not hard to see
how these [credit rating]
companies may have been
induced, at the very least, to
gloss over the possibilities
of default or, at the worst,
knowingly provide inflated
ratings.”
96 SOLD OUT
incorporate credit rating requirements
directly into its regulations. In response to
the credit crisis of the early 1970s, the SEC
promulgated Rule 15c3-1 (the net capital
rule) which formally approved the use of
credit rating firms as National Recognized
Statistical Ratings Organizations
(NRSROs).206 Rule 15c3-1 requires investment
banks to set aside certain amounts of
capital whenever they purchase a bond from
a corporation or government. By requiring
“capital set asides,” a financial “cushion” is
created on which investment banks can fall
in the event of bond default. The amount of
capital required to be set aside depends on
the risk assessment of each bond by the
credit rating firms. Purchasing bonds that
have a high risk of default, as determined by
one of the credit rating companies, requires
a larger capital set asides than bonds that are
assessed to present a low risk of default. The
“risk” or probability of default is determined
for each bond by a credit rating company
hired by the issuer of the bond.
Since the SEC’s adoption of the net
capital rule, credit ratings have been incorporated
into hundreds of government regulations
in areas including securities, pensions,
banking, real estate, and insurance.
For example, Moody’s Investor Service
206 Arthur R. Pinto, “Section III: Commercial and
Labor Law: Control and Responsibility of
Credit Rating Agencies in the United
States,” American Journal of Comparative
Law, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 341, Supplement,
Fall 2006.
gives a rank of “C” for the lowest rated (i.e.
high risk) bonds and a rank of “Aaa” —
“triple A” — for bonds that are low risk and
earn its highest rating. Examples of highly
rated bonds include those issued by wellcapitalized
corporations, while bonds issued
by corporations with a history of financial
problems earn a low rating.
If a bank begins experiencing financial
problems, Moody’s may downgrade the
bank’s bonds. It might downgrade from a
high grade of “Aaa” to a medium grade of
“Baa” or even the dreaded “C,” depending
on the severity of the bank’s financial problems.
Downgrading bonds can trigger a
requirement imposed by regulations or
private contracts that require the corporation
to immediately raise capital to protect its
business. Banks might be forced to raise
capital by selling securities or even the real
estate it owns.
Evidence of falling home values began
emerging in late 2006, but there were no
downgrades of subprime mortgage-related
securities by credit rating agencies until June
2007.207 Indeed, the credit ratings firms had
207 Testimony of Jerome S. Fons, Former Managing
Director of Credit Policy, Moody's, Before
the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,
October 22, 2008, available at:
<http://oversight.house.gov/documents/2008
1022102726.pdf> (citing Gary Gorton,
2008, “The Panic of 2007,” NBER working
paper #14358); but see Gretchen Moregenson,
“Investors in mortgage-backed securities
fail to react to market plunge,” International
Herald Tribune, February 18,
SOLD OUT 97
failed to recognize the housing bubble, and
the inevitability that when the enormous
bubble burst, it would lead to massive
mortgage defaults and the severe depreciation
in value of mortgage-backed securities.
The firms also failed to consider that many
mortgage-backed securities were based on
dubious subprime and exploitative predatory
loans that could not conceivably be repaid.
The current financial crisis is not the
first time credit rating companies dropped
the ball. During the dot-com bubble of the
late 1990s, they were the “last ones to react,
in every case” and “downgraded companies
only after all the bad news was in, frequently
just days before a bankruptcy filing.”
208 In addition, the firms were criticized
in 2003 for failing to alert investors to the
impending collapse of Enron and World-
Com. As a result, Congress passed the
Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of
2006209 which requires disclosure to the
SEC of a general description of each firm’s
procedures and methodologies for determining
credit ratings, including historical downgrade
and default rates within each of its
credit rating categories. It also grants the
2007, available at:
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/yo
urmoney/morgenson.php>. (Moody’s
“downgraded only 277 subprime home equity
loan tranches [in 2006], just 2 percent
of the home equity securities rated by the
agency.”)
208 Frank Partnoy, Infectious Greed: How Deceit
and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets
352, New York: Times Books (2003).
209 15 U.S.C. § 78o-7.
SEC broad authority to examine all books
and records of the companies. However,
intense lobbying by the rating firms blocked
further reforms, and the law expressly states
that the SEC has no authority to regulate the
“substance of the credit ratings or the procedures
and methodologies” by which any
firm determines credit ratings. In 2007, SEC
Chair Christopher Cox said, “it is not our
role to second-guess the quality of the rating
agencies’ ratings.”210
In the highly deregulated financial
markets of the last few decades, the credit
rating firms were supposed to be the independent
watchdogs that carefully scrutinized
corporations and the financial products that
they offered to investors. Like the federal
agencies and Congress, the credit rating
companies failed to protect the public.
210 Testimony of SEC Chairman Christopher
Cox, Before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, September
26, 2007, available at:
<http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2007/t
s092607cc.htm>.³
-
Woof, 8th Post
98 SOLD OUT
Part II:
Wall Street’s
Washington Investment
SOLD OUT 99
Wall Street’s Campaign
Contributions and
Lobbyist Expenditures
The financial sector invested more than $5
billion in political influence purchasing in
the United States over the last decade.
The entire financial sector (finance, insurance,
real estate) drowned political
candidates in campaign contributions,
spending more than $1.738 billion in federal
elections from 1998-2008. Primarily reflecting
the balance of power over the decade,
about 55 percent went to Republicans and
45 percent to Democrats. Democrats took
just more than half of the financial sector’s
2008 election cycle contributions.
The industry spent even more — topping
$3.3 billion — on officially registered
lobbyists during the same period. This total
certainly underestimates by a considerable
amount what the industry spent to influence
policymaking. U.S. reporting rules require
that lobby firms and individual lobbyists
disclose how much they have been paid for
lobbying activity, but lobbying activity is
defined to include direct contacts with key
government officials, or work in preparation
for meeting with key government officials.
Public relations efforts and various kinds of
indirect lobbying are not covered by the
reporting rules.
During the decade-long period:
• Commercial banks spent more than
$154 million on campaign contributions,
while investing $383 million
in officially registered lobbying;
• Accounting firms spent $81 million
on campaign contributions and $122
million on lobbying;
• Insurance companies donated more
than $220 million and spent more
than $1.1 billion on lobbying; and
• Securities firms invested more than
$512 million in campaign contributions,
and an additional nearly $600
million in lobbying. Hedge funds, a
subcategory of the securities industry,
spent $34 million on campaign
contributions (about half in the 2008
election cycle); and $20 million on
lobbying. Private equity firms, a
subcategory of the securities industry,
contributed $58 million to federal
candidates and spent $43 million
on lobbying.
Individual firms spent tens of millions
of dollars each. During the decade-long
period:
• Goldman Sachs spent more than $46
million on political influence buying;
• Merrill Lynch spent more than $68
million;
100 SOLD OUT
• Citigroup spent more than $108 million;
• Bank of America devoted more than
$39 million;
• JPMorgan Chase invested more than
$65 million; and
• Accounting giants Deloitte &
Touche, Ernst & Young, KPMG and
Pricewaterhouse spent, respectively,
$32 million, $37 million, $27 million
and $55 million.
The number of people working to advance
the financial sector’s political objectives
is startling. In 2007,211 the financial
sector employed a staggering 2,996 separate
lobbyists to influence federal policy making,
more than five for each Member of Congress.
This figure only counts officially
registered lobbyists. That means it does not
count those who offered “strategic advice”
or helped mount policy-related PR campaigns
for financial sector companies. The
figure counts those lobbying at the federal
level; it does not take into account lobbyists
at state houses across the country. To be
clear, the 2,996 figure represents the number
of separate individuals employed by the
financial sector as lobbyists in 2007. We do
not double count individuals who lobby for
more than one company; the total number of
financial sector lobby hires in 2007 was a
211 We chose 2007 as the most recent year for
which full data was available at the time we
conducted our research.
whopping 6,738.
Within the financial sector, industry
groups deployed legions of lobbyists. In
2007:212
• Accounting firms employed 178
lobbyists;
• Insurance companies had 1,219 lobbyists
working for them;
• Real estate interests hired 1,142
lobbyists;
• Finance and credit companies employed
415 lobbyists;
• Credit unions maintained 96 lobbyists;
• Commercial banks employed 421
lobbyists;
• Securities and investment firms
maintained 1,023 lobbyists; and
• Miscellaneous other financial companies
employed 134 lobbyists.
A great many of those lobbyists entered
and exited through the revolving door
connecting the lobbying world with government.
Surveying only 20 leading firms in
the financial sector (none from the insurance
industry or real estate), we found that 142
212 These figures do not double count within the
industry group, but total more than the figure
for the entire financial sector because we
did not eliminate overlaps between industry
sectors. Thus, for these totals, if John Smith
works as a lobbyist for two accounting
firms, he counts as only one lobbyist for the
accounting industry. If he works as a lobbyist
for an accounting firm and an insurance
company, he counts as one for the accounting
industry and one for the insurance industry.
SOLD OUT 101
industry lobbyists during the period 1998-
2008 had formerly worked as “covered
officials” in the government. “Covered
officials” are top officials in the executive
branch (most political appointees, from
members of the cabinet to directors of
bureaus embedded in agencies), Members of
Congress, and congressional staff.
Nothing evidences the revolving door —
or Wall Street’s direct influence over policymaking
— more than the stream of Goldman
Sachs expatriates who left the Wall
Street goliath, spun through the revolving
door, and emerged to hold top regulatory
positions. Topping the list, of course, are
former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin
and Henry Paulson, both of whom had
served as chair of Goldman Sachs before
entering government.
In the charts that follow in this part, we
detail campaign contributions and lobby
expenditures from 1998-2008 for the overall
financial sector and for the industry components
of the sector. We also provide aggregated
information on number of industry
lobbyists and number of industry lobbyists
circling through the revolving door. In the
appendix to this report, we provide extensive
information on the campaign contributions
and lobbyists of 20 leading companies
in the financial sector — five each from
commercial banking, securities, accounting
and hedge fund industries. For each profiled
company, we identify the top 20 recipients
of their campaign contributions for each
election cycle over the last decade; the lobby
firms they employed each year, and the
amount paid to those firms; and covered
official lobbyists they employed (i.e., lobbyists
formerly employed as top officials in the
executive branch, or as former Members of
Congress or congressional staff).
Methodological Note
Our information on campaign contributions
and lobby expenditures comes from mandated
public filings, and the enormously
helpful data provided by the Center for
Responsive Politics.
Our figures on total and annual sector,
industry and firm campaign contributions
and lobby expenditures are drawn from the
Center for Responsive Politics.
Our campaign contribution data is organized
by biannual Congressional election
cycles. Thus the total for 1998 also includes
contributions made in 1997.
Our data on total number of official
lobbyists is compiled from data prepared by
the Center for Responsive Politics. The
Center for Responsive Politics lobbyist
database lists all individual lobbyists reporting
to the Senate Office of Public Records.
We tallied up totals from that database.
Our data on number of covered official
102 SOLD OUT
lobbyists is drawn from the original disclosure
statements filed with the Senate Office
of Public Records.
Our listing of the top 20 biannual recipients
of campaign contributions from our
20 profiled firms uses data compiled from
the Center for Responsive Politics where
possible. In four cases where the Center had
not compiled the data, we compiled the
information using the Center’s raw data on
individual campaign contributors and information
on the company’s political action
committee (PAC) contributions. That is, we
tracked donations from every person with,
for example, Lehman Brothers as an employer,
213 compiled them into a database;
added in the Lehman Brothers PAC contributions;
and then list the top 20 recipients.
We compiled donations for Lehman Brothers,
Wachovia, Wells Fargo and KPMG.
213 Our compilation is based only on the top
1,000 largest contributors affiliated with
each company.
SOLD OUT 103
Financial Sector
Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
$5,178,835,253
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $1,738,284,032
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $3,440,551,221
Campaign Contributions
2008 $442,535,157
2006 $259,023,355
2004 $339,840,847
2002 $233,156,722
2000 $308,638,091
1998 $155,089,860
Lobbying Expenditures
2008 $454,879,133
2007 $417,401,740
2006 $374,698,174
2005 $371,576,173
2004 $338,173,874
2003 $324,865,802
2002 $268,886,799
2001 $235,129,868
2000 $231,218,026
1999 $213,921,725
1998 $209,799,907
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
104 SOLD OUT
Financial Sector
Official Lobbyists
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
2007 total official lobbyists for financial sector: 2,996
Covered official lobbyists for 20 profiled firms,
Decade-long total (1998-2008): 142
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
SOLD OUT 105
Securities Firms
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$512,816,632
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$599,955,649
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Bear Stearns $6,355,737
Goldman Sachs $25,445,983
Lehman Brothers $6,704,574
Merrill Lynch $9,977,724
Morgan Stanley $14,367,857
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Bear Stearns $9,550,000
Goldman Sachs $21,637,530
Lehman Brothers $8,660,000
Merrill Lynch $59,076,760
Morgan Stanley $20,835,000
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
106 SOLD OUT
Commercial Banks
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$154,868,392
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$382,943,342
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Bank of America $11,629,260
Citigroup $19,778,382
JP Morgan Chase & Co $15,714,953
Wachovia Corp. $3,946,727
Wells Fargo $5,330,022
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Bank of America $28,635,440
Citigroup $88,460,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co $49,372,915
Wachovia Corp. $11,996,752
Wells Fargo $16,637,740
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
SOLD OUT 107
Hedge Funds*
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$33,742,815
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$20,252,000
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Bridgewater Associates $274,650
DE Shaw Group $3,100,255
Farallon Capital Management $1,058,953
Och-Ziff Capital Management $338,552
Renaissance Technologies $1,560,895
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Bridgewater Associates $855,000
DE Shaw Group $680,000
Farallon Capital Management $1,005,000
Och-Ziff Capital Management $200,000
Renaissance Technologies $740,000
* Hedge fund contributions are included in the overall securities campaign contributions and lobbying
expenditure totals.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
108 SOLD OUT
Accounting Firms
Decade-long campaign contribution industry total (1998-2008):
$81,469,000
Decade-long lobbying expenditure industry total (1998-2008):
$121,658,156
Campaign Contributions for 5 Leading Firms
Arthur Andersen $3,324,175
Deloitte & Touche $12,120,340
Ernst & Young $12,482,407
KPMG LLP $8,486,392
Pricewaterhouse $10,800,772
Lobbying Expenditures for 5 Leading Firms
Arthur Andersen $1,900,000
Deloitte & Touche $19,606,455
Ernst & Young $25,108,536
KPMG LLP $19,103,000
Pricewaterhouse $44,291,084
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, <www.opensecrets.org>.
SOLD OUT 109
Conclusion and
Recommendations:
Principles for a New
Financial Regulatory
Architecture
For more than 25 years, regulatory control
over the financial sector has steadily eroded.
This deregulatory trend accelerated in the
last decade: In 1999, Congress, with the
support of the Clinton White House passed
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999,
removing the firewalls between commercial
banking on the one hand and investment
banking and insurance on the other; federal
agencies declined to regulate financial
derivatives and Congress then enshrined this
head-in-the-sand policy as law; federal
regulators rationalized the subprime lending
boom as good housing policy rather than the
ticking time bomb that it self-evidently was;
and federal officials collaborated with Wall
Street to permit extraordinary increases in
the amount of money firms could lend or
borrow for every dollar of their own capital.
All of these deregulatory moves created
the conditions for the current financial
implosion.
The dangers inherent in these policies
were evident to any careful observer. Consumer
groups, some investor advocates,
independent economists and analysts, and
some regulators all sounded the alarm as
each of the actions chronicled in this report
were first proposed.
Those warnings were ignored, however.
They were drowned out by the cacophony
of well-paid lobbyists and the
jingle of cash registers opening and closing
as Wall Street handed out hundreds of
millions in political contributions.
Now, after the trillions of dollars in
taxpayer money has been spent, there is
widespread agreement that deregulation
went too far, and that new regulatory initiatives
are required. But as with each of the
twelve steps on the road to financial ruin,
the financial industry is resisting meaningful
reforms.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall and the
bank mergers already authorized cannot
easily be undone, but both those issues
require very careful scrutiny. The leading
independent investment banks have all
merged into commercial banks or converted
themselves into bank holding companies;
the very severe risk is that the investment
bank culture will again influence traditional
banking operations, and encourage dangerous
and unsustainable risk-taking. The bank
merger trend is actually escalating as a
consequence of the financial crisis, as fed110
SOLD OUT
eral regulators bless shot-gun marriages in
order to avoid committing still more taxpayer
money to making depositors whole.
But much more care should taken in authorizing
additional mergers. Also, as Bert Foer
of the American Antitrust Institute points
out, many of the recently consummated
mergers are almost certain to fail. Policymakers
need to take a comprehensive assessment
of banking concentration; for if the
existing high levels of concentration are to
be permitted, regulatory review must be
much more intensive, and controls on big
bank activity much more extensive.
Beyond undoing the deregulatory maneuvers
documented in this report, an affirmative
regulatory agenda must establish a
new framework for financial sector regulation.
It should aim to reduce the size of the
financial sector, reduce reliance on overly
complicated financial instruments, and
provide robust and multi-faceted protections
for consumers. We, and many others, will be
proposing specific regulatory reforms over
the course of the next year. Here, we concluded
with overarching premises that
should guide the new financial regulatory
architecture.
1. The financial sector should serve and
be subordinate to the real economy.
From 2004-2007, financial sector profits
amounted to more than a third of overall
corporate profits. This is — and should have
been treated as — conclusive evidence of a
financial system out of control, one that was
beginning to devour rather than serve the
real economy. There should be no deference
shown to Wall Street interests complaining
that a new regulatory regime will hurt their
profitability. The Wall Street operators have
destroyed their own institutions, and their
earlier profits are now revealed to be only
the froth from a bubble economy and financial
sleight-of-hand. In any case, the American
economy cannot be based on finance
and the trading of paper. Looking back, we
see that the financial economy did not
increase America’s true wealth, but just the
opposite: Wall Street siphoned profits from
the real economy, and from the checking
accounts of consumers, workers and investors,
until the system collapsed, and consumer,
workers and investors were asked to
foot the bill.
2. Hedge funds and financial derivatives
must be regulated.
What is a hedge fund? As a legal matter, the
term references investment funds that escape
Securities and Exchange Commission
regulatory authority on the grounds that they
serve sophisticated investors. But the evidence
is once again overwhelming that
sophisticated investors cannot be trusted to
protect their own interests (see Bernard
Madoff). But more important, these nonregulated
entities pose systemic risks to the
SOLD OUT 111
financial sector, not just to the wealthy.
Cities, states, colleges, non-profit organizations,
and every American turned out to be
at risk from the machinations of the socalled
sophisticated financial sector. All
investment vehicles must be subjected to the
same regulatory requirements — and those
standards must be elevated dramatically.
Finally, not all financial derivatives should
be permitted to continue to trade. But those
for which a legitimate purpose can be shown
must be brought into the regulatory system,
with guarantees of transparency, restrictions
on leverage and requirements for “skin in
the game.”
3. Enhanced standards of transparency.
Hedge funds, investment banks, insurance
companies and commercial banks have
engaged in such complicated and intertwined
transactions that no one could track
who owes what, to whom. AIG apparently
didn't even know who it had insured, and on
what terms, through the credit default swaps
it participated in. Moreover, the packaging
and re-packaging of mortgages into various
esoteric securities undermined the ability of
the financial markets to correctly value these
financial instruments. Baseline transparency
requirements must include an end to off-thebooks
transactions, detailed reporting of
holdings by all investment funds, and selling
and trading of all permitted financial derivatives
on regulated and public exchanges.
Other mechanisms will enhance transparency
and simplify some overly complicated
financial instruments: these include “skin in
the game” requirements and prohibitions on
certain practices (for example, tranching of
securities214) that add complexity and confusion,
but no social value.
4. Prohibit certain financial instruments.
Wall Street has proved Warren Buffett right
in labeling financial derivatives “weapons of
financial destruction.” Synthetic collateralized
debt obligations — a kind of credit
default swap215 — are among the worst
abuses of the current system, enabling
legalized, large-scale betting by entities not
party to the underlying transaction. Whatever
hypothetical benefit such instruments
have for establishing a market price for
credit default swaps is vastly outweighed by
the actual and demonstrable damage they
have done to the real economy. They should
214 For further discussion of the case for
prohibiting tranching, see Robert Kuttner,
“Financial Regulation: After the Fall,”
Demos, January 2009, available at:
<http://www.demos.org/publication.cfm?cur
rentpublicationID=B8B65B84%2D3FF4%2
D6C82%2D5F3F750B53E44E1B>.
215 See also this helpful discussion explaining
synthetic CDOs from Portfolio’s Felix
Salmon, available at:
<http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mar
ket-movers/2008/11/28/understandingsynthetics>.
Essential, synthetic CDOs
involve the creation of insurance on a bond
(someone pays for the insurance, and
someone agrees to insure against failure of
the bond), with one important condition:
neither party actually holds the bond.
112 SOLD OUT
be prohibited.
5. Adopt the precautionary principle216
for exotic financial instruments.
The burden should be placed on those
urging the creation or trade of exotic financial
instruments — existing and those yet to
be invented — to show why they should be
permitted. They should be required to show
the affirmative, social benefit of the new
instrument, and prove why these benefits
outweigh risks. They should be specifically
required to explain why the instrument does
not worsen financial systemic risk, taking
into account recent experience where purported
diversification of risk led to its spread
and exponential increase. Regulators should
maintain a strong bias against complicated
new instruments, recognizing that complexity
both introduces inherent uncertainty and
is often used to obscure dangers, risks and
bad investments.217
216 The precautionary principle is a term most
frequently used in the environmental
context. It suggests that, for example, before
a chemical can be introduced on the market,
it must be shown to be safe. This approach
stands against the notion that a new
chemical is presumed safe and permitted on
the market, until regulators can prove that it
is not.
217 See “Plunge: How Banks Aim to Obscure
Their Losses,” An Interview with Lynn
Turner, Multinational Monitor,
November/December 2008, available at:
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2
008/112008/interview-turner.html> (“Wall
Street typically designs these things so that
they hide something from the public or their
investors. So when you have the CDOs
6. Limit leverage.
High flyers like leveraged investments
because they offer the possibility of very
high returns. But, as we have seen, they also
enable extremely risky investments that can
vastly exceed an investor's actual assets.
This degree of leverage turns the financial
system into a game of musical chairs —
those left standing when the music stops are
wiped out. The entire financial system is
presently at risk because the amount of
leverage far exceeded the assets needed to
back it up once investors sought to convert
their holdings to cash. There should be
stringent restrictions on the use of leverage
by all players in the financial system. These
include enhanced capital requirements for
banks and investment banks (and especially
the build-up of capital in good times); and
increased margin requirements, so that
parties buying securities, futures or options
must put up more collateral.
7. Impose a financial transactions tax.
A small tax on each financial transaction218
[collateralized debt obligations] built on top
of the other CDOs, they hide what the
underlying assets are really like, or what the
underlying mortgages are really like. In
some of the off-balance sheet special
purpose entities, like with Enron, it was to
hide their financing.”)
218 Pollin, Baker and Schaberg suggest a .5
percent tax on stock trades, and comparable
burdens on other transactions (for example,
this works out to .01 percent for each
remaining year of maturity on a bond.) See
Robert Pollin, Dean Baker, and Marc
SOLD OUT 113
would discourage speculation, curb the
turbulence in the markets, and, generally,
slow things down. It would give realeconomy
businesses more space to operate
without worrying about how today's decisions
will affect their stock price tomorrow,
or the next hour. And it would be a steeply
progressive tax that could raise substantial
sums for useful public purposes.
8. Crack down on excessive pay and the
Wall Street bonus culture.
Wall Street salaries and bonuses are out of
control. The first and most simple demand is
to ensure no bonus payments for firms
receiving governmental bailout funds. If
they had to be bailed out, why does anyone
in the firm deserve a bonus? Even more
importantly, bonus payments with taxpayer
money is an outrageous misuse of public
funds.
Beyond the bailouts, however, there is
a need to address the Wall Street bonus
culture. Paid on a yearly basis, Wall Street
bonuses can be 10 or 20 times base salary,
and commonly represent as much as four
fifths of employees' pay. In this context, it
makes sense to take huge risks. The payoffs
from benefiting from risky investments or a
bubble are dramatic, and there’s no reward
Schaberg, “Financial Transactions Taxes for
the U.S. Economy,” 2002, Political
Economy Research Institute, available at:
<http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/aef97
d8d65/publication/172>.
for staying out. Wall Street compensation
should be lowered overall, but most important
is imposing legal requirements that
compensation be tied to long-term performance.
If employees had to live with the longterm
consequences of their investment
decisions, they would employ very different
strategies.
9. Adopt a financial consumer protection
agenda.
Commercial banks and Wall Street backers
have, to a considerable extent, built their
business model around abusive lending
practices. Predatory mortgage lenders, credit
card companies, student loan corporations
— all pushed unsustainable levels of credit,
on onerous terms frequently indecipherable
to borrowers, and with outrageous hidden
fees and charges. A new financial consumer
protection agency should be established;
interest rates, fees and charges should all be
capped (especially now that Americans who
are in effect borrowing their own money
from banks and credit card companies who
received bailout funds). Impediments to
legal accountability for fraud and other
unlawful conduct, such as the holder in due
course rule, preemption of state laws, and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
should be withdrawn or repealed.
114 SOLD OUT
10. Give consumers the tools to organize
themselves.
Federal law should empower consumers to
organize into independent financial consumers
associations. Lenders should be required
to facilitate such organization by their
borrowers (through mailings to borrowers,
on behalf of independent consumer organizations),
as should corporations to their
shareholders. With independent organizations
funded by small voluntary fees, consumers
could hire their own independent
representatives to review financial players’
activities, scour their books, and advocate
for appropriate public policies.
Is this agenda politically feasible? It has the
advantage of being necessary: Recent years'
experience shows beyond any reasonable
argument that a deregulated and unrestrained
financial sector will destroy itself
— and threaten the U.S. and global economies
in the process.
The deregulatory decisions profiled in
this report were not made on their merits. At
almost every step, public interest advocates
and independent-minded regulators and
Members of Congress cautioned about the
hazards that lay ahead — and they were
proven wrong only in underestimating how
severe would be the consequences of deregulation.
Good arguments could not
compete with the combination of political
influence and a reckless and fanatical zeal
for deregulation. $5 billion buys a lot of
friends. In one sense, this report can be
considered a case study in the need for the
elimination of special interest money from
American politics, but Congress will address
financial re-regulation this year, and reform
of our political process does not appear on
the horizon. The emergent consensus on the
imperative to re-regulate the financial sector
demonstrates that, in the wake of the financial
meltdown, the prevailing regulatory
paradigm has shifted. Whether the forces
that brought America’s economy to the
precipice can be forced to accede to that
shift — whether the public interest will
prevail — remains to be seen.
Appendix 115
Appendix: Leading Financial Firm Profiles of Campaign
Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures
Securities Firms .……………………………………………………. 115
1. Bear Stearns ………………………………………………...…...………….. 115
2. Goldman Sachs ……………………………………………………………… 121
3. Lehman Brothers …......................................................................................... 129
4. Merrill Lynch ….............................................................................................. 135
5. Morgan Stanley …………………………………………………...……….... 142
Commercial Banks …………………………………………………. 148
1. Bank of America ...…….…………………………………...…...…………... 148
2. Citigroup ........………….…………………………………………………… 155
3. JP Morgan Chase & Co................................................................................... 164
4. Wachovia Corp. .............................................................................................. 171
5. Wells Fargo .....…………………………………………………...……….... 177
Hedge Funds …………………………………………….......……… 183
1. Bridgewater Associates ..…………………………………...…...…………... 183
2. DE Shaw Group ..…………………………………………………………… 185
3. Farallon Capital Management ......................................................................... 189
4. Och-Ziff Capital Management ........................................................................ 193
5. Renaissance Technologies ...……………………………………...……….... 196
Accounting Firms …………………………………………………… 199
1. Arthur Andersen .…………………………………………...…...…………... 199
2. Deloitte & Touche ...……………………………………………………….... 203
3. Ernst & Young ...…......................................................................................... 210
4. KPMG LLG ..….............................................................................................. 217
5. Pricewaterhouse ……...…………………………………………...……….... 224
-
Woof, 9th Post;
116
Investment Banks: Bear Stearns
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $6,355,737
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $9,550,000
Bear Stearns Campaign Contributions:219
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,241,290
1. Rudy Giuliani (R) $130,091
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $127,460
3. John McCain $98,200
4. Barack Obama (D) $60,503
5. Christopher Dodd (D) $48,700
6. Mitt Romney (R) $31,550
7. Nita Lowey (D) $12,200
8. Frank Lautenberg (D) $11,600
9. Paul Kanjorski (D) $7,500
9. Elizabeth Dole (R) $7,500
11. Charles Rangel (D) $7,300
12. John Edwards (D) $6,850
13. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) $6,600
14. Dick Durbin (D) $6,400
15. Steny Hoyer (D) $6,000
16. Bill Richardson (D) $5,250
17. Tim Johnson (D) $5,000
17. Spencer Bachus (R) $5,000
17. Barney Frank (D) $5,000
20.
Christopher Shays
(R) $4,800
219 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $938,619
1. Chris Dodd (D) $67,850
2. Joe Lieberman (I) $49,610
3. Martha Rainville (R) $14,800
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $13,575
5. Deborah Pryce (R) $13,000
6. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
7. Rick Santorum (R) $8,700
8. Richard Baker (R) $7,500
8. Jim McCrery (R) $7,500
10. Paul Kanjorski (D) $6,500
11. Rudy Giuliani (R) $6,300
12.
Christopher Shays
(R) $6,165
13. Barney Frank (D) $5,500
13. Pete Sessions (R) $5,500
15. Evan Bayh (D) $5,000
15. Mike Crapo (RD) $5,000
15. Michael Oxley (R) $5,000
15. Bill Thomas (R) $5,000
15. Patrick Tiberi (R) $5,000
20. Mike Ferguson (R) $4,600
Appendix 117
2004 Top Recipients220
TOTAL: $1,458,005
1. George W Bush (R) $198,200
2. John Kerry (D) $65,400
3. Wesley Clark (D) $41,000
4. Rick Santorum (R) $20,500
5. Charles Schumer (D) $18,000
6. Richard Gephardt (D) $13,500
7. John Peterson (R) $12,000
8.
Charles Wieder Dent
(R) $11,080
9. Pete Sessions (R) $10,580
10. Lowey, Nita M (D) $10,000
11. Erskine Bowles (D) $8,080
12. Tom Daschle (D) $8,000
12. James DeMint (R) $8,000
12. John Thun, (R) $8,000
12. David Vitter (R) $8,000
16. Rahm Emanuel (D) $7,000
16. Luis Fortuno (3) $7,000
18. John Edwards (D) $6,250
19.
Charles Boustany Jr
(R) $6,080
20. Timothy Bishop (D) $5,500
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $661,838
1. Charles Schumer (D) $94,900
2. Christopher Dodd (D) $92,900
3. Chuck Grassley (R) $16,000
4. Jack reed (R) $13,000
5. Nita Lowey (D) $11,250
6. Jack Conway (D) $7,750
220 Based on highest 1,000 contributions and
PAC money.
7. John Kerry (D) $7,000
8. Ron Kirk (D) $6,990
9. Tim Johnson (D) $6,000
9. Pete Domenici (R) $6,000
9. Michael Oxley (R) $6,000
9. Charles Rangel (D) $6,000
13. Artur Davis (D) $5,400
14. Denise Majette (D) $5,250
15. Paul Kanjorski (D) $5,000
16. Max Baucus (D) $4,500
16. Pat Toomey (R) $4,000
16. Bill Thomas (R) $4,000
19. Deborah Pryce (R) $3,500
20. Joe Biden (D) $3,250
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,243,379
1. Rick Lazio (R) $40,000
2. Jon Corzine (D) $23,250
3. Spencer Abraham (R) $18,500
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $15,500
5. Vito Fossella (R) $11,000
6. Al Gore (D) $10,000
7. Charles Schumer (D) $9,500
8. George W Bush $7,000
9. Charles Rangel (D) $5,811
10. Orrin Hatch (R) $5,500
10.
David Lawther Johnson
(D) $5,500
12. Edolphus Towns (D) $5,000
13. Tom Harkin (D) $3,000
13. Marge Roukema (R) $3,000
13. Howard Berman (D) $3,000
13. George Allen (R) $3,000
17. Richard Neal (D) $2,500
Appendix
118
18. Steve Forbes (R) $2,250
18. John McCain (R) $2,250
20. William Roth (R) $2,000
20. Trent Lott (R) $2,000
20. Rod Grams (R) $2,000
20. Robert Torricelli (D) $2,000
20. Richard Lugar (R) $2,000
20. Phil Gramm (R) $2,000
20. Phil Crane (R) $2,000
20. Paul Sarbanes (D) $2,000
20. Kent Conrad (D) $2,000
20. John Kerry (D) $2,000
20. Jim Maloney (D) $2,000
20. E Clay Shaw (R) $2,000
20. Deborah Pryce (R) $2,000
20. Dan Quayle (R) $2,000
20. Christopher Dodd (D) $2,000
20. Bill McCollum (R) $2,000
20. Amo Houghton (R) $2,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $812,606
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $38,950
2. Charles Rangel (D) $7,050
3.
Blanche Lambert
Lincoln (D) $7,000
3. John Edwards (D) $7,000
5. Tom Daschle (D) $6,250
6. Scotty Baesler (D) $6,000
7. Rick Lazio (R) $5,800
8. Evan Bayh (D) $5,000
9. John Breaux (D) $4,000
10.
Carol Moseley-Braun
(D) $3,000
10. John Kerry (D) $3,000
10. Newt Gingrich (R) $3,000
13. Rick White (R) $2,550
14. Jerry Weller (R) $2,500
15. Billy Tauzin (R) $2,050
15. Thomas Manton (D) $2,050
17. Amo Houghton (R) $2,000
17. Bob Graham (D) $2,000
17. Charles Grassley (R) $2,000
17. Christopher Bond (R) $2,000
17. Fritz Hollings (D) $2,000
17. Jerry Kleczka (D) $2,000
17. John Ensign (R) $2,000
17. John LaFalce (D) $2,000
17. Robert Bennett (R) $2,000
Appendix 119
Bear Stearns Lobbying Expenditures221:
2008
TOTAL: $460,000
Bear Stearns $420,000
Steptoe & Johnson $40,000
Venable LLP > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $1,120,000
Bear Stearns $900,000
Steptoe & Johnson $200,000
Venable LLP $20,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,200,000
Bear Stearns $780,000
Venable LLP $220,000
Steptoe & Johnson $160,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $820,000
Bear Stearns $540,000
Steptoe & Johnson $180,000
Venable LLP $60,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
221 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2004
TOTAL: $900,000
Bear Stearns $680,000
Steptoe & Johnson $220,000
Venable LLP > $10,000*
2003
TOTAL: $920,000
Bear Stearns $620,000
Steptoe & Johnson $240,000
Venable LLP $60,000
2002
TOTAL: $800,000
Bear Stearns $520,000
Steptoe & Johnson $200,000
Venable LLP $80,000
2001
TOTAL: $960,000
Bear Stearns $640,000
Steptoe & Johnson $200,000
Venable LLP $80,000
O'Connor & Hannan $40,000
2000
TOTAL: $750,000
Bear Stearns $440,000
Steptoe & Johnson $190,000
O'Connor & Hannan $120,000
Appendix
120
1999
TOTAL: $760,000
Bear Stearns $500,000
Steptoe & Johnson $140,000
O'Connor & Hannan $120,000
1998
TOTAL: $860,000
Bear Stearns $560,000
Steptoe & Johnson $160,000
O'Connor & Hannan $140,000
Appendix 121
Bear Stearns Covered Official Lobbyists:222
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Bear Stearns
Dombo III, Fred
Counsel, Office of Congressman Michael
Forbes 1999-2000
Venable LLP
Olchyk, Sam Joint Committee on Taxation Staff 2004-2008
Beeman, E. Ray
Legislative Counsel, Joint Committee on
Taxation Staff 2006-2008
222 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
122
Investment Banks: Goldman Sachs
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $25,445,983
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $21,637,530
Goldman Sachs Campaign Contributions223
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $5,635,501
1. Barack Obama (D) $884,907
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $405,475
3. John McCain (R) $229,695
4. Mitt Romney (R) $229,675
5. Jim Himes (D) $140,448
6. Chris Dodd (D) $110,000
7. Rudy Giuliani (R) $109,450
8. John Edwards (D) $66,450
9. Arlen Specter (R) $47,600
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $35,250
11. John Sununu (R) $31,400
12. Jack Reed (D) $30,100
13. Max Baucus (D) $26,000
14. Tom Harkin (D) $24,580
15. Frank Lautenberg (D) $24,100
16.
Michael Peter Skelly
(D) $23,364
17. Susan M Collins (R) $21,900
18. Mark Warner (D) $21,800
19. Mary L Landrieu (D) $20,700
20. Norm Coleman (R) $19,200
223 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,502,866
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $138,570
2. Robert Menendez (D) $80,500
3. Harold E Ford Jr (D) $80,497
4. Evan Bayh (D) $52,750
5. Sherrod Brown (D) $42,600
6. Maria Cantwell (D) $39,800
7. Joe Lieberman (I) $33,950
8. Ben Cardin (D) $33,150
9. Kent Conrad (D) $30,600
10. Thomas H Kean Jr (R) $29,500
11. Rick Santorum (R) $27,000
12. Bill Nelson (D) $25,400
13.
Sheldon Whitehouse
(D) $24,600
14. Mike DeWine (R) $23,500
15. Eric Cantor (R) $23,300
16.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $22,500
17. Richard Baker (R) $22,400
18. Max Baucus (D) $21,900
19. Rahm Emanuel (D) $18,800
20. George Allen (R) $17,800
Appendix 123
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $6,426,438
1. George W Bush (R) $390,600
2. John Kerry (D) $303,250
3. Jack Ryan (R) $218,161
4. Tom Daschle (D) $143,500
5. John Edwards (D) $102,300
6. Evan Bayh (D) $72,000
7. Charles Schumer (D) $58,040
8. Chris Dodd (D) $58,000
8. Barack Obama (D) $58,000
10. Hillary Clinton (D) $55,000
11. Arlen Specter (R) $51,000
12. Erskine Bowles (D) $37,250
13. Tony Knowles (D) $34,050
14. Joe Lieberman (D) $34,000
15. Dylan C Glenn (R) $33,000
16. Wesley Clark (D) $32,500
17. Howard Dean (D) $30,500
18. Robert Menendez (D) $30,000
19. Richard Burr (R) $29,496
20. John McCain (R) $29,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,510,035
1. Charles Schumer (D) $124,550
2. Jon Corzine (D) $47,970
3. John Edwards (D) $41,000
4. Robert Torricelli (D) $34,750
5. Tom Strickland (D) $34,000
6. Arlen Specter (R) $30,000
7. Tim Johnson (D) $28,980
8. Erskine Bowles (D) $28,000
9. Max Baucus (D) $26,000
10. Tom Harkin (D) $21,355
11. Lamar Alexander (R) $20,500
12. John E Sununu (R) $20,250
13. Robert Menendez (D) $18,500
14. Jean Carnahan (D) $18,355
15. Max Cleland (D) $18,230
16. John Cornyn (R) $18,000
16. John Kerry (D) $18,000
18. Norm Coleman (R) $15,500
19. Saxby Chambliss (R) $15,250
20. Maria Cantwell (D) $14,250
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $4,432,977
1. Jon S Corzine (D) $554,900
2. Bill Bradley (D) $271,200
3. Rick A Lazio (R) $175,300
4. George W Bush (R) $137,499
5. Charles Schumer (D) $99,500
6. Al Gore (D) $95,050
7. Hillary Clinton (D) $88,170
8. John McCain (R) $67,320
9. Dick Zimmer (R) $53,200
10. Rudolph Giuliani (R) $40,000
11. Phil Gramm (R) $29,000
12. Rush Holt (D) $26,000
13. Frank Pallone Jr (D) $19,000
14. Nita M Lowey (D) $18,000
15.
Brian David
Schweitzer (D) $16,250
16. Dylan C Glenn (R) $15,500
17.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $15,000
17. Bill McCollum (R) $15,000
19. Eliot L Engel (D) $14,000
Appendix
124
19. Edolphus Towns (D) $14,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,938,166
1. Charles Schumer (D) $107,550
2. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $70,050
3. Evan Bayh (D) $33,500
4. Chris Dodd (D) $21,000
5. Bob Kerrey (D) $17,495
6. Shawn D Terry (R) $15,000
7. Rick A Lazio (R) $14,500
8. John Breaux (D) $14,158
9.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $14,000
10. Geraldine Ferraro (D) $11,750
11. Amo Houghton (R) $11,500
12. Check Hagel (R) $11,000
13. John McCain (R) $10,400
14.
Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (R) $10,000
15. Jay R Pritzker (D) $9,200
16. Arlen Specter (R) $9,000
17. Nita M Lowey (D) $8,500
18. Paul Coverdell (R) $8,375
19. Lauch Faircloth (R) $8,000
19. Bob Graham (D) $8,000
Appendix 125
Goldman Sachs Lobbying Expenditures224:
2008
TOTAL: $5,210,000
Goldman Sachs $3,280,000
Duberstein Group $400,000
ML Strategies $280,000
Baptista Group $270,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Williams & Jensen $160,000
Rich Feuer Group $130,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
RR&G $80,000
Bingham McCutchen LLP $50,000
Law Offices of John T
O’Rourke $60,000
Sullivan & Cromwell $30,000
Vinson & Elkins $40,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC > $10,000*
Gephardt Group $70,000
2007
TOTAL: $4,610,000
Goldman Sachs $2,720,000
Baptista Group $280,000
Duberstein Group $260,000
Vinson & Elkins $160,000
ML Strategies $140,000
DLA Piper $140,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
Bigham McCutchen LLP $120,000
Rich Feuer Group $120,000
224 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Sullivan & Cromwell $120,000
RR&G $90,000
Williams & Jensen $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $80,000
Maddox Strategies $60,000
Capitol Tax Partners $60,000
Clark & Weinstock $60,000
2006
TOTAL: $3,651,250
Goldman Sachs $2,620,000
Baptista Group $200,000
DLA Piper $160,000
Rich Feuer Group $120,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
RR&G $110,000
Duberstein Group $100,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $81,250
Vinson & Elkins $80,000
Williams & Jensen $60,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2005
TOTAL: $1,712,000
Goldman Sachs $600,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $140,000
Vinson & Elkins $140,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $120,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $102,000
Rich Feuer Group $100,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
126
DCI Group $100,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC $90,000
Duberstein Group $80,000
Angus & Nickerson $80,000
Clark & Assoc $80,000
Williams & Jensen $80,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,230,000
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $260,000
DCI Group $100,000
Duberstein Group $40,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $200,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC $90,000
Rich Feuer Group $60,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $240,000
Vinson & Elkins $160,000
Williams & Jensen $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $1,030,000
Clark & Assoc $100,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $240,000
Duberstein Group $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $80,000
Mattox Woolfolk LLC $70,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $240,000
Vinson & Elkins $100,000
Williams & Jensen $40,000
Wilmer, Culter & Pickering $60,000
Winning Strategies Wash. $20,000
2002
TOTAL: $910,000
Clark & Assoc. > $10,000*
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy Group $200,000
Duberstein Group $220,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $120,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $110,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $40,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Verner, Liipfert et al $40,000
Vinson & Elkins $120,000
Williams & Jensen $20,000
Winning Strategies Washington
$40,000
2001
TOTAL: $810,000
Duberstein Group $100,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $30,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $260,000
Vinson & Elkins $100,000
2000
TOTAL: $500,000
Duberstein Group $80,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $40,000
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius $20,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
127
Vinson & Elkins $80,000
1999
TOTAL: $1,264,000
Duberstein Group $140,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $32,000
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius > $10,000*
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Verner, Liipfert et al $60,000
Vinson & Elkins $160,000
1998
TOTAL: $710,280
Duberstein Group $140,000
Law Offices of John T
O'Rourke $115,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Verner, Liipfert et al $80,000
Vinson & Elkins $120,000
Washington Counsel $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
128
Goldman Sachs Covered Official Lobbyists:225
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Angus, Barbara
Business Tax Counsel, Committee on Taxation
1999- 2000
Kies, Kenneth Chief of Staff, Committee on Taxation 1999- 2000
Hanford, Tim Tax Counsel, Counsel on Ways and Means 2001
Verner, Liipfert et al
Hawley, Noelle M. Legislative Director, Rep. Bill Archer 1999
Jones, Brian C.
Investigator, Perm. Subcommittee on Investigations
2002
Madigan, Johnson et al
English, James
Staff Director, Senate Appropriations, Min
Staff 2001- 2002
Griffin, Patrick J. Director of Legal Affairs, White House 2001- 2002
Winning Strategies Washington
Mullins, Donna Chief of Staff, Rep. Frelinghuysen 2002-2003
Angus & Nickerson
Angus, Barbara
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2005-2008,
Nickerson, Gregory International Tax Counsel, Dept. of Treasury 2005- 2008
Capitol Tax Partners LLP
Talisman, Johnathan Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2008
Grafmeyer, Richard Deputy Chief of Staff, JCT 2008
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2008
McKenney, William
Staff Director, Ways and Means Over Subcommittee
2008
225 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
129
Wilcox, Lawrence
Staff Director, Senate Republican Policy
Committee 2008
Dennis, James
Tax Counsel, Sen. Robb - Counsel, Sen
Bingaman 2008
Javens, Christopher
Tax Counsel, Sen. Grassley, Senate Finance
Committee 2008
The Goldman Sachs Group. Inc
Connolly, Ken
S.A. Director of Office of Environmental
Policy; LD, 2008
Sen. Jeffords; LD, CEPW
Shirzad, Faryar
Dept. Nat’l Security Adv. For Int’l Econ.
Affairs 2008
Appendix
130
Investment Banks: Lehman Brothers
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $6,704,574
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $8,660,000
Lehman Campaign Contributions:226
2008 Top Recipients227
TOTAL: $2,211,761
1. Barack Obama (D) $288,538
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $227,150
3. Rudy Giuliani (R) $140,000
4. John McCain (R) $116,907
5. Mitt Romney (R) $96,200
6. Chris Dodd (D) $31,400
7. Rahm Emanuel (D) $23,000
8. Jack Reed (D) $21,600
9. Joseph Biden Jr (D) $21,100
10. John Edwards (D) $20,400
11. Bill Richardson (D) $13,800
12. Charles Rangel (D) $11,900
13. Steny Hoyer (D) $9,300
14. Jim Himes (D) $8,100
15. Mark Warner (D) $7,600
16. Lee Terry (R) $7,100
17. Steve Israel (D) $6,600
18. Jerrold Nadler (D) $5,600
19. Norm Coleman (R) $5,300
226 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
227 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC money.
19. Arlen Specter (R) $5,300
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $917,414
1. Joe Lieberman (I) $82,900
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $54,190
3. Pete Ricketts (R) $13,600
4. Rick Santorum (R) $10,500
5. Harold Ford Jr (D) $9,600
6. Frank Lautenberg (D) $9,000
7. Robert Menendez (D) $8,900
8. Bill Nelson (D) $7,300
9. Ron Klein (D) $6,800
10. Rudy Giuliani (R) $6,300
11. Mike Crapo (R) $5,300
12. Dianne Feinstein (D) $5,100
13. Michael Oxley (R) $5,000
13. Orrin Hatch (R) $5,000
13. Dennis Hastert (R) $5,000
13. Barney Frank (D) $5,000
13. Vito Fossella (R-NY) $5,000
18. Claire McCaskill (D) $4,500
18. Jon Kyl (R) $4,500
18. Richard Baker (R) $4,500
Appendix
131
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,985,718
1. George Bush (R) $237,650
2. John Kerry (D) $92,312
3. Chris Dodd (D) $55,000
4. Joe Lieberman (D) $35,950
5. Charles Schumer (D) $35,250
6. Wesley Clark (D) $28,500
7. Richard Gephardt (D) $19,500
8. John Edwards (D) $18,650
9. Tom Daschle (D) $16,970
10. Erskine Bowles (D) $10,000
10. Nancy Pelosi (D) $10,000
12. Barack Obama (D) $9,062
13. John Spratt Jr (D) $9,000
14. Arlen Specter (R) $8,812
15. Mel Martinez (R) $8,500
16. Alcee Hastings (D) $7,500
17. Richard Baker (R) $7,000
17. James Stork (D) $7,000
19.
Joseph Edward Driscoll
(D) $6,500
20. Judd Gregg (R) $6,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $231,970228
1. Charles Schumer (D) $14,500
2. Robert Torricelli (D) $14,250
3. Max Baucus (D) $11,000
4. Michael Castle (R) $10,000
4. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
6. Tom Strickland (D) $8,000
7. Max Cleland (D) $7,000
8. Dan Wofford (D) $5,550
228 Based only on campaign contributions
9. Richard Baker (R) $5,000
9. Billy Tauzin (R) $5,000
11. Lamar Alexander (R) $4,000
11. Erskine Bowles (D) $4,000
11. Nita Lowey (D) $4,000
14. Timothy Carden (D) $3,250
14. Ron Kirk (D) $3,250
16. Rick Boucher (D) $3,000
16. Chris Dodd (D) $3,000
16. Vito Fossella (R) $3,000
16. Tom Harkin (D) $3,000
16. Dennis Hastert (R) $3,000
16. Amo Houghton (R) $3,000
16. Tim Johnson (D) $3,000
16. Mary Landrieu (D) $3,000
16. Carolyn Maloney (D) $3,000
16. Jay Rockefeller (D) $3,000
16. John Spratt Jr (D) $3,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $929,780
1. Bill Bradley (D) $51,800
2.
Brendan Thomas
Byrne Jr (D) $31,300
3. Jon Corzine (D) $20,200
4. Rick Lazio (R) $19,750
5. George W Bush (R) $11,000
6. Hillary Clinton (D) $10,550
7. Dianne Feinstein (D) $10,500
8. Charles Schumer (D) $10,000
9. Michael Oxley (R) $9,250
10. William Roth Jr (R) $9,000
11. Michael Castle (R) $8,000
11. Chris Dodd (D) $8,000
13. Spencer Abraham (R) $6,000
Appendix
132
13. Bob Kerrey (D) $6,000
15. Dennis Hastert (R) $5,500
16. Charles Rangel (D) $4,500
16. Edolphus Towns (D) $4,500
18. Richard Lugar (R) $4,000
19. Rick Boucher (D) $3,500
19. Rod Grams (R) $3,500
19. Joe Lieberman (D) $3,500
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $427,931
1. Charles Schumer (D) $10,200
2. Chris Dodd (D) $9,500
3. Tom Daschle (D) $7,500
4. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $7,400
5. Rick Lazio (R) $6,000
6. Charles Rangel (D) $5,500
7.
Brendan Thomas
Byrne Jr (D) $5,000
8. John Breaux (D) $4,000
9. Bob Kerrey (D) $3,500
10. Christopher Bond (R) $3,000
11. Rick White (R) $2,550
11. Jerry Weller (R) $2,500
13. Thomas Manton (D) $2,050
13. Billy Tauzin (R) $2,050
15. Robert Bennett (R) $2,000
15. John Ensign (R) $2,000
15. Newt Gingrich (R) $2,000
15. Bob Graham (D) $2,000
15. Fritz Hollings (D) $2,000
15. Amo Houghton (R) $2,000
15. Jerry Kleczka (D) $2,000
15. John LaFalce (D) $2,000
Appendix
133
Lehman Lobbying Expenditures:229
2008
TOTAL: $720,000
Lehman Brothers $590,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $60,000
DLA Piper $70,000
2007
TOTAL: $840,000
Lehman Brothers $720,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
DLA Piper $40,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,140,000
Lehman Brothers $920,000
American Continental
Group $100,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
DLA Piper $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,080,000
Lehman Brothers $820,000
American Continental
Group $140,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
DLA Piper $40,000
229 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
2004
TOTAL: $740,000
Lehman Brothers $620,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $40,000
2003
TOTAL: $660,000
Lehman Brothers $540,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $40,000
2002
TOTAL: $660,000
Lehman Brothers $540,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $40,000
Piper Rudnick LLP > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $600,000
Lehman Brothers $320,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $200,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
2000
TOTAL: $560,000
Lehman Brothers $280,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $200,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
134
1999
TOTAL: $860,000
Lehman Brothers $580,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $200,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
1998
TOTAL: $800,000
Lehman Brothers $560,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $140,000
O'Neill, Athy & Casey $80,000
Palmetto Group $20,000
Appendix
135
Lehman Covered Official Lobbyists:230
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Verner, Liipfert et al
Hawley, Noelle M. Legislative Director, Rep. Bill Archer 1999-2001
Krasow, Cristina L.
Sr. Cloakroom Asst., Sen. Dem. Cloakroom
1999-2000
230 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
136
Investment Banks: Merrill Lynch
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $9,977,724
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $59,076,760
Merrill Lynch Campaign Contributions:231
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,780,347
1. John McCain (R) $360,620
2. Barack Obama (D) $264,720
3. Rudy Giuliani (R) $210,275
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $202,568
5. Mitt Romney (R) $172,025
6. Chris Dodd (D) $67,300
7. Mitch McConnell (R) $31,600
8. Mark Pryor (D) $23,900
9. Debbie Stabenow (D) $23,850
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $20,800
11. John Edwards (D) $19,075
12. Max Baucus (D) $17,800
13. Joseph Biden (D) $15,900
14.
Christopher Shays
(R) $14,675
15. Jack Reed (D) $10,500
16. Linda Ketner (D) $10,200
17. Chuck Hagel (R) $10,000
18. Gregory Meeks (D) $9,600
19. Tim Ryan (D) $9,200
20. Ron Paul (R) $9,001
231 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,153,733
1. Chris Dodd (D) $61,650
2. Harold E Ford Jr (D) $50,450
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $49,510
4. Bob Corker (R) $33,900
5. Mike DeWine (R) $30,000
6. Robert Menendez $28,450
7. Ben Nelson (D) $18,200
8. Chuck Hagel (R) $17,300
9. Rick Santorum (R) $16,800
10. George Allen (R) $14,050
11. Mike Ferguson (R) $12,400
12. Jim Matheson (D) $11,500
13. Christopher Shays (R) $10,450
14. Joe Lieberman (/I) $10,400
15. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) $10,200
16. Thomas Kean Jr (R) $10,150
17. Michael McGavick (R) $9,900
18. Ed Royce (R) $9,000
19. Geoff Davis (R) $8,700
20. David Dreier (R) $8,300
Appendix
137
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,187,763
1. George W Bush (R) $580,004
2. David M Beasley (R) $118,500
3. John Kerry (D) $111,526
4. Charles Schumer (D) $50,250
5. Scott Paterno (R) $41,000
6. Arlen Specter (R) $29,600
7. Joe Lieberman (D) $27,900
8. Barack Obama (D) $21,000
9. Rick Santorum (R) $17,500
10. Tom Daschle (D) $13,000
11. Wesley Clark (D) $11,750
12. Richard C Shelby (R) $11,000
13. Howard Dean (D) $10,400
14.
Christopher s 'Kit'
Bond (R) $9,000
15.
Christopher Shays
(R) $8,200
16. Jay Helvey (R) $8,150
17. Christopher Cox (R) $7,675
18. Jim Bunning (R) $7,500
19. Lamar Alexander (R) $7,000
20. Michael R Turner (R) $6,750
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $955,306
1. Charles Schumer (D) $76,750
2. Robert Torricelli (D) $13,500
3. Erskine Bowles (D) $12,000
4. Arlen Specter (R) $10,700
5. Lamar Alexander (R) $9,750
6. Elizabeth Dole (R) $9,200
7.
Christopher Shays
(R) $9,000
8. John Kerry (D) $7,250
9. Douglas Forrester (R) $6,750
10. Chellie Pingree (D) $6,250
11. Wayne Allard (R) $6,000
11. Hillary Clinton (D) $6,000
13. Rob Simmons (R) $5,500
14. Suzanne Terrell (R) $5,000
15. James M Talent (R) $4,700
16.
David Howard Fink
(D) $4,500
17. Jim Marshall (D) $4,250
17. Tom Strickland (D) $4,250
19. Max Baucus (D) $4,200
19. Norm Coleman (R) $4,200
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,873,044
1. George W Bush (R) $132,425
2. Bill Bradley (D) $87,780
3. John McCain (R) $69,400
4. Rick A Lazio (R) $63,550
5. Al Gore (D) $28,500
6. Jon S Corzine (D) $24,250
7. Hillary Clinton (D) $22,925
8. Charles Schumer (D) $20,000
9. Spencer Abraham (R) $19,000
10. Phil Gramm (R) $17,000
11. Rudy Giuliani (R) $15,350
12. Dick Zimmer (R) $14,000
13. George Allen (R) $10,242
14. Orrin Hatch (R) $8,750
15. William Gormley (R) $8,500
16. Kent Conrad (D) $8,000
17. William Roth Jr (R) $7,250
18. Joe Lieberman (D) $7,000
18. Paul S Sarbanes (D) $7,000
Appendix
138
18. Robert Torricelli (D) $7,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,027,531
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $53,200
2. Charles Schumer (D) $31,150
3.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $17,750
4. Bob Kerrey (D) $16,000
5. Chris Dodd (D) $14,250
6. Geraldine Ferraro (D) $10,500
7. Lauch Faircloth (R) $10,400
8. Evan Bayh (D) $10,300
9.
Daniel Patrick
Moynihan (R) $10,000
10. James M Casso (D) $9,000
10. Paul Coverdell (R) $9,000
12. Tom Daschle (D) $7,450
13. Gary A Franks (R) $6,750
13.
Christopher Shays
(R) $6,750
15. Spencer Abraham (R) $6,500
15. Michael Coles (D) $6,500
17.
Ben Nighthorse
Campbell (R) $6,000
18. David Wu (D) $5,750
19. Matt Fong (R) $5,500
19. Ellen Tauscher (D) $5,500
Appendix
139
Merrill Lynch Lobbying Expenditures:232
2008
TOTAL: $6,174,000
Merrill Lynch $4,700,000
Ernst & Young $604,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $150,000
DLA Piper $210,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $120,000
Davis & Harman $80,000
Baptista Group $60,000
John Kelly Consulting $10,000
2007
TOTAL: $6,000,000
Merrill Lynch $4,420,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
DLA Piper $340,000
Mayer, Brown et al $160,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $120,000
Davis & Harman $120,000
Baptista Group $80,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
John Kelly Consulting $80,000
2006
TOTAL: $6,397,760
Merrill Lynch $3,952,760
Mayer, Brown et al $1,100,000
Ernst & Young $605,000
DLA Piper $300,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
232 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $120,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
John Kelly Consulting $80,000
Baptista Group $20,000
2005
TOTAL: $5,480,000
Merrill Lynch $4,160,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
DLA Piper $200,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $140,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
Deloitte Tax $120,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
John Kelly Consulting $40,000
Seward & Kissel > $10,000*
2004
TOTAL: $5,770,000
Merrill Lynch $4,210,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $380,000
Deloitte Tax $240,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $140,000
Davis & Harman $120,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Seward & Kissel > $10,000*
2003
TOTAL: $4,825,000
Merrill Lynch $3,300,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
140
Piper Rudnick LLP $460,000
Deloitte Tax $240,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
James E Boland Jr $65,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $20,000
Seward & Kissel > $10,000*
2002
TOTAL: $4,960,000
Merrill Lynch $3,100,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $580,000
Piper Rudnick LLP $320,000
Davis & Harman $160,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Seward & Kissel $60,000
Deloitte & Touche $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners $20,000
2001
TOTAL: $4,160,000
Merrill Lynch $2,940,000
Ernst & Young $620,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $300,000
Davis & Harman $140,000
OB-C Group $80,000
James E Boland Jr $60,000
Seward & Kissel $20,000
2000
TOTAL: $4,400,000
Merrill Lynch $3,660,000
* Not included in totals
Verner, Liipfert et al $240,000
Davis & Harman $200,000
OB-C Group $160,000
Ernst & Young $140,000
Swidler, Berlin et al > $10,000*
Wilmer, Culter & Pickering > $10,000*
1999
TOTAL: $5,400,000
Merrill Lynch $3,580,000
Ernst & Young $600,000
Swidler, Berlin et al $460,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $300,000
Davis & Harman $200,000
Rhoads Group $180,000
Seward & Kissel $40,000
George C Tagg $40,000
OB-C Group > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $5,510,000
Merrill Lynch $3,800,000
Washington Counsel $480,000
Swidler, Berlin et al $300,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $260,000
Rhoads Group $200,000
OB-C Group $160,000
Davis & Harman $160,000
Seward & Kissell $100,000
George C Tagg $50,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
141
Merrill Lynch Covered Official Lobbyists:233
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Ernst & Young
Badger, Doug Chief of Staff, Senate Majority Whip 12/98 1999-2002
Giordano, Nick
Minority Chief, Tax Counsel, Senate Committee
on Finance
1999-2000
2003-2008
Conklin, Brian Special Assistant to the President 2004
Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc
Thompson Jr, Bruce E.
Vice President, Director of Government
Relations 1999-2008
Kelly, John F. Vice President, Government Relations 1999-2005
Costantino Jr, Louis A. Director, Government Relations 2003-2008
Goldstein, Lon N. Director, Government Relations 2008
Micali, Mark A. Director, Government Relations 2008
Thibau, Janelle C. M. Director, Government Relations 2007-2008
Berry, Steven K. Managing Director, Government Relations 2008
Verner, Liipfert et al
Krasow, Cristina L.
Sr. Cloakroom Assistant, Sen. Dem. Cloakroom
1999
Hyland, James E. Legislative Director, Senator Kay Bailey 2003
Hutchison
OB-C Group
Calio, Nicholas E. Assistant to the President 2000-2005
Capitol Tax Partners, LLP
Fant, William
Dep. Asst. Secretary for Legislative Affairs
- Treasury 2002
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2002
Talisman, Johnathan Asst. Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2002
233 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
142
Piper Rudnick, LLP
Hyland, James E. Legislative Director, Senator Hutchison 2002-2004
Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C.
Mottur, Alfred
Sr. Telecommunications Counsel - Commerce
Committee 2003-2008
Chube, Ellen
Sr. Legislative Asst. - Cong. Harold Ford,
Jr.
Whonder, Carmencita
Staff Director - Subcommittee on House
Transport and 2008
Commercial Development; Min Stf Dir -
Subcomm on Econ.
Policy; Legislative Corresp. - Office of
Sen. Charles Schumer
Johnson, Madigan et al
Murphy, Sheila LD, Senator Klobuchar 2008
-
Woof, 10th Post;
Appendix
143
Investment Banks: Morgan Stanley
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $14,367,857
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $20,835,000
Morgan Stanley Campaign
Contributions:234
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,573,627
1. Barack Obama (D) $425,502
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $376,980
3. John McCain (R) $258,677
4. Mitt Romney (R) $165,750
5. Rudy Giuliani (R) $133,750
6. Chris Dodd (D) $69,400
7. Fred Thompson (R) $42,800
8. Max Baucus (D) $30,500
9. Mark Kirk (R) $23,850
10. Jack Reed (D) $21,350
11. Mark Warner (D) $19,450
12. Michael N Castle (R) $17,850
13. Niki Tsongas (D) $17,100
14. Rahm Emanuel (D) $16,200
15. Susan M Collins (R) $15,933
16. Bill Richardson (D) $14,900
17. John Boehner (R) $14,300
17. Al Franken (D) $14,300
19. Jim Himes (D) $13,200
19. Scott Kleeb (D) $13,200
234 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,943,033
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $116,060
2. Harold Ford Jr (D) $43,650
3. Chris Dodd (D) $42,200
4. Joe Lieberman (I) $24,700
5. Rick Santorum (R) $19,250
6. Orrin G Hatch (R) $19,000
7. Jon Kyl (R) $17,100
8. Michael N Castle (R) $16,100
9. Mike DeWine (R) $15,600
10. Dennis Hastert (R) $14,100
11.
Kathleen Troia
McFarland (R) $14,000
12. Mark Kirk (R) $13,900
13. Thomas Kean Jr (R) $12,550
14.
Christopher Shays
(R) $12,350
15. Bob Corker (R) $12,200
16. Robert Menendez (D) $12,150
17. Tom Carper (D) $11,880
18. Ned Lamont (D) $11,850
19. Conrad Burns (R) $11,100
20. Scott Kleeb (D) $11,050
Appendix
144
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,286,484
1. George W Bush (R) $600,480
2. John Kerry (D) $180,979
3. Charles Schumer (D) $57,000
4. Chris Dodd (D) $46,000
5. Robert Bennett (R) $38,000
6. Dennis Hastert (R) $34,750
7. John Edwards (D) $33,050
8. Erskine Bowles (D) $32,750
9. Howard Dean (D) $29,350
10. Arlen Specter (R) $27,750
11. James DeMint (R) $20,750
12. Barack Obama (D) $20,250
13. Wesley Clark (D) $19,550
14. Tom Daschle (D) $18,000
15. Michael N Castle (R) $17,000
15.
Andrew McKenna
(R) $17,000
17. Richard Burr (R) $16,549
18.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $15,400
19. Evan Bayh (D) $15,000
19. Mel Martinez (R) $15,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,899,242
1. Charles Schumer (D) $52,500
2. Erskine Bowles (D) $27,000
3. Elizabeth Dole (R) $23,750
4. Rob Portman (R) $19,000
5. Frank Lautenberg (D) $18,150
6. Saxby Chambliss (R) $16,000
7. Max Baucus (D) $15,500
8. Norm Coleman (R) $15,450
9. Michael N Castle (R) $14,800
10. Evan Bayh (D) $14,450
11. Richard Baker (R) $14,000
11. Lindsey Graham (R) $14,000
13. James M Talent (R) $13,000
14. Mike Ferguson (R) $12,250
15. Billy Tauzin (R) $12,000
16. Roy Blunt (R) $11,000
17. Arlen Specter (R) $10,250
18. Mark Foley (R) $10,200
19. Wayne Allard (R) $10,000
19. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,656,627
1. George W Bush (R) $148,050
2. Rick A Lazio (R) $139,450
3. Charles Schumer (D) $126,000
4. Bill Bradley (D) $97,850
5. Al Gore (D) $52,300
6. Phil Gramm (R) $41,500
7. John McCain (R) $38,050
8. Hillary Clinton (D) $30,400
9. Tom Campbell (R) $24,500
10. Charles S Robb (D) $23,000
11. Bill McCollum (R) $18,700
12. Spencer Abraham (R) $16,050
13. Rudy Giuliani (R) $15,800
14. William Roth Jr (R) $14,700
15. John J LaFalce (D) $14,000
16. Kent Conrad (D) $13,000
17. Mark Kirk (R) $12,150
17. Carolyn Maloney (D) $12,000
19. Jon S Corzine (D) $11,500
Appendix
145
20. Bob Franks (R) $11,250
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,008,844
1. Lauch Faircloth (R) $48,100
2. Evan Bayh (D) $31,750
3. Charles Schumer (D) $31,500
4. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $30,500
5. Barbara Mikulski (D) $7,500
6. Robert Bennett (R) $7,000
7. Tom Daschle (D) $6,500
8. Jon D Fox (R) $6,250
8. Arlen Specter (R) $6,250
10. Michael N Castle (R) $5,750
11. Chris Dodd (D) $5,225
12. Phil Crane (R) $5,000
12. Edward Kennedy (D) $5,000
12. Rick A Lazio (R) $5,000
12. Trent Lott (R) $5,000
12. Michael G Oxley (R) $5,000
12. Larry Schneider (D) $5,000
12. Billy Tauzin (R) $5,000
19. Rick White (R) $4,800
20. John J LaFalce (D) $4,750
Appendix
146
Morgan Stanley Lobbying Expenditures235:
2008
TOTAL: $3,005,000
Morgan Stanley $2,500,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Eris Group $120,000
American Capitol Group $45,000
Baptista Group $60,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
DCI Group > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $3,040,000
Morgan Stanley $2,360,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Eris Group $120,000
American Capitol Group $80,000
Baptista Group $80,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Alston & Bird $40,000
DCI Group > $10,000*
2006
TOTAL: $3,360,000
Morgan Stanley $2,720,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
James E Boland Jr $120,000
Bartlett & Bendall $60,000
Alston & Bird $60,000
Eris Group $60,000
235 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Kate Moss Co $40,000
American Capitol Group $40,000
Baptista Group $20,000
DCI Group > $10,000*
2005
TOTAL: $2,840,000
Morgan Stanley $2,280,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Bartlett & Bendall $120,000
James E Boland Jr $120,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Alston & Bird $40,000
2004
TOTAL: $2,750,000
Morgan Stanley $2,180,000
Capitol Tax Partners $240,000
Bartlett & Bendall $120,000
James E Boland Jr $120,000
Kate Moss Co $50,000
Alston & Bird $40,000
2003
TOTAL: $2,580,000
Morgan Stanley $2,000,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Bartlett & Bendall $120,000
James E Boland Jr $100,000
Alston & Bird $100,000
Kate Moss Co $60,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
147
2002
TOTAL: $1,960,000
Morgan Stanley $1,540,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Alston & Bird $80,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Kate Moss Co $60,000
2001
TOTAL: $1,300,000
Morgan Stanley $920,000
James E Boland Jr $80,000
Capitol Tax Partners $80,000
Kate Moss Co $80,000
Alston & Bird $70,000
Palmetto Group $40,000
George C Tagg $30,000
1998-2000
N/A
Appendix
148
Morgan Stanley Covered Official Lobbyists:236
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year (s)
Capitol Tax Partners
Fant, William
Deputy Asst Sec. (treasury) for legislative
affairs 2001-2004
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2001-2008
Talisman, Jonathan Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2001-2008
Wilcox, Lawrence
Staff Director, Senate Republican Policy
Committee 2006-2008
McKenny, William Chief of Staff, Rep. Amo Hougton 2004-2008
Grafmeyer, Richard Deputy Chief of Staff - JCT 2003-2008
Dennis, James
Tax Counsel, Sen. Robb - Counsel, Sen.
Bingaman 2008
Javens, Christopher
Tax Counsel, Sen. Grassley, Sen. Finance
Committee 2008
Bartlett & Bendall
Amy D. Smith Deputy Assistant Secretary, US Treasury 2003
Gill, Shane Legislative Director, Rep. Spencer Bachus
2004-2005
2007
Alston & Bird
Martino, Paul G Tax Counsel, Senate Finance Committee 2006
Eris Group
Kadesh, Mark Chief of Staff, Sen. Feinstein 2006-2007
236 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 149
Commercial Banks: Bank of America
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $11,292,260
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $28,635,440
BOA Campaign Contributions:237
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,212,369
1. Barack Obama (D) $230,552
2. John McCain (R) $126,175
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $106,071
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $69,050
5. Chris Dodd (D) $63,100
6. Mitt Romney (R) $52,550
7. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D) $44,000
8. Michael N. Castle (R) $25,250
9.
Dutch Ruppersberger
(D) $17,200
10. Melissa Bean (D) $16,000
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $16,000
12. Dick Durbin (D) $13,600
13. Melvin L. Watt (D) $13,500
14. Mark Warner (D) $12,800
15. Barney Frank (D) $12,750
16. Kay R. Hagen (D) $12,600
17. Peter Roskam (R) $11,500
18. Jack Reed (D) $11,321
19. James E. Clyburn (D) $11,000
20. John E. Sununu (R) $10,950
237 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,098,533
1. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $64,500
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $53,085
3. David McSweeney (R) $33,800
4. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $32,400
5. Michael N. Castle (R) $31,250
6. Rick Santorum (R) $21,250
7. Tom Carper (D) $20,130
8. Spencer Bachus (R) $18,500
9. Jack Reed (D) $17,828
10. Pete Sessions (R) $17,700
11. Patrick McHenry (R) $16,999
12.
Dutch Ruppersberger
(D) $16,450
13. Robert Menendez (D) $16,000
14. Melissa Bean (D) $15,130
15.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $15,000
16. Sue Myrick (R) $14,900
17. John E. Sununu (R) $14,607
18. Olympia J. Snowe (R) $14,600
19. Joe Lieberman (I) $14,549
20. James M. Talent (R) $14,500
Appendix
150
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,360,786
1. George W. Bush (R) $195,761
2. John Kerry (D) $126,202
3. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $50,700
4. Richard Burr (R) $44,100
5. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $43,800
6. Barack Obama (D) $28,500
7. Elizabeth Dole (R) $20,750
8. John Edwards (D) $18,050
9. Melvin L. Watt (D) $17,500
10. Richard Gephardt (D) $17,450
11. Sue Myrick (R) $16,500
12. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $16,000
13. Jay Helvey (R) $15,250
14. Michael G. Oxley (R) $15,000
15. Dennis Hastert (D) $14,500
16. Mike Ferguson (R) $13,000
17. David Vitter (R) $12,800
18. Pete Sessions (R) $11,065
19. Tim J. Michels (R) $10,950
20. Johnny Isakson (R) $10,700
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,193,660
1. Charles Schumer (D) $57,500
2. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $37,600
3. Elizabeth Dole (R) $22,150
4. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $20,750
5. Max Baucus (D) $18,450
6. John Cornyn (R) $11,000
7. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
7. Martin Frost (D) $10,000
9. Sue Myrick (R) $9,250
10. David Dreier (R) $9,000
11. Michael G. Oxley (R) $8,500
12. Charlie Gonzalez (D) $8,000
12. Tim Johnson (D) $8,000
14. Lindsey Graham (R) $7,750
14. Richard Baker (R) $7,500
16. Richard Gephardt (D) $7,000
16. Robin Hayes (R) $7,000
16. John Linder (R) $7,000
19. Jerry Weller (R) $6,888
20. Ken Bentsen (D) $6,500
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,649,522
1. George W. Bush (R) $113,500
2. Bill Bradley (D) $56,450
3. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $26,500
4. Phil Gramm (R) $25,500
5. Dianne Feinstein (D) $18,139
6. Sue Myrick (R) $16,850
7. Al Gore (D) $16,750
8. Martin Frost (D) $15,000
9. Rick A. Lazio (R) $13,550
10. Bill Nelson (D) $13,000
11. John McCain (R) $12,450
12. Bill McCollum (R) $11,500
13. Zell Miller (D) $11,000
14. David Dreier (R) $10,000
14. Richard Gephardt (D) $10,000
16. John Edwards (D) $9,750
17. Mel Carnahan (D) $8,150
18. Elizabeth Dole (R) $7,750
18. Charles S. Robb (D) $7,750
18. Ellen Tauscher (D) $7,750
Appendix 151
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,114,390
1. Lauch Faircloth (R) $56,000
2.
Christopher S. 'Kit'
Bond $21,900
3. Bill McCollum (R) $18,500
4. Bob Graham (D) $17,950
5. John McCain (R) $17,550
6. John M. Spratt Jr. (D) $17,500
7. Richard Baker (R) $17,000
8.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $16,050
9. Robert F. Bennett (R) $16,000
9. Tom Daschle (D) $16,000
11. John Linder (R) $15,000
12. Evan Bayh (D) $14,000
12. Martin Frost (D) $14,000
14. Matt Fong (R) $13,000
15. Paul Coverdell (R) $12,500
15. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $12,500
15. Richard Gephardt (D) $12,500
15. Rick A. Lazio (R) $12,500
19. Ellen Tauscher (D) $12,300
20. Dick Armey (R) $12,000
Appendix
152
BOA Lobbying Expenditures:238
2008
TOTAL: $5,755,000
Bank of America $4,090,000
King & Spalding $480,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $360,000
Smith-Free Group $250,000
Bryan Cave Strategies $160,000
Public Strategies $165,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $100,000
Quadripoint Strategies $90,000
American Capitol Group $60,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $4,946,400
Bank of America $3,220,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $360,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $300,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Smith-Free Group $280,000
King & Spalding $180,000
Covington & Burling $100,000
Bryan Cave Strategies $100,000
Quadripoint Strategies $76,400
Public Strategies $30,000
238 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2006
TOTAL: $3,486,014
Bank of America $1,986,014
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $360,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Smith-Free Group $240,000
Covington & Burling $120,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
Kate Moss Co $20,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,900,000
Bank of America $1,000,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $240,000
Smith & Assoc $240,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
Angus & Nickerson $20,000
Covington & Burling $20,000
Kate Moss Co $20,000
Winston & Strawn > $10,000*
* Not included in totals
Appendix 153
2004
TOTAL: $1,020,000
Bank of America $660,000
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Perkins, Smith & Cohen $20,000
Reed Smith LLP > $10,000*
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
2003
TOTAL: $1,196,141
Bank of America $656,141
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $300,000
Perkins, Smith & Cohen $160,000
Covington & Burling $40,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Reed Smith LLP > $10,000*
2002
TOTAL: $1,179,350
Bank of America $679,350
Clark Consulting Federal
Policy group $200,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $140,000
O'Connor & Hannan $120,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
2001
TOTAL: $1,932,204
Bank of America $1,552,204
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
O'Connor & Hannan $100,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
Holmes, Weddle & Barcott > $10,000*
2000
TOTAL: $1,947,331
Bank of America $1,567,331
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $240,000
Beck, Edward A III $40,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
O'Connor & Hannan $40,000
Hyjek & Fix $20,000
Winston & Strawn > $10,000*
1999
TOTAL: $340,000
Beck, Edward A III $20,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Hyjek & Fix $20,000
Kate Moss Co $40,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $260,000
Winston & Strawn > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $4,933,000
Bank of America $3,960,000
NationsBank $620,000
Bergner, Bockorny et al $140,000
Kate Moss Co $73,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $60,000
Beck, Edward A III $60,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Covington & Burling $20,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
154
BOA Covered Official Lobbyists:239
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
American Capitol Group
Nate Gatten Prof. Staff, Senate Banking Comm. 2008
Leg. Asst, Sen. Bennett
Staff, Sen. Budget Comm.
Brian Cave Strategies LLC
Waldo McMillan Intern, Rep. Chaka Fattah 2008
Floor Asst, Counsel for Bus. Affairs, Sen.
Harry Reid
Federal Policy Group (Clark & Wamberg)
Ken Kies Chief of Staff, Joint Comm on Taxation 2008
Matt Dolan Counsel, Sen. David Durenberger 2008
Pat Raffaniello Chief of Staff, Cong. Bill Brewster 2008
King & Spalding
William Clarkson Legislative Asst, Sen. Susan Collins 2007-2008
Archibald Galloway III
Sr. Defense Policy Advisor, Sen. Jeff Sessions
2008
Quinn Gillespie & Associates
Jack Quinn
Counsel, Pres. Clinton; Chief of Staff, VP
Gore 2008
Dave Hoppe
Staff Dir/CoS, Sen Lott; CoS Rep. Kemp and
Coats 2008
Jeff Connaughton Special Asst to chair of Sen. Judiciary Comm 2008
Special Asst to White House Counsel
Allison Giles Chief of Staff, Ways & Means Comm 2007-2008
Legislative Asst, Rep. Thomas
Elizabeth Hogan Special Asst, Dept of Commerce 2005-2008
Assoc. Dir, EOP; Intern, Rep. McCrery
Bonnie Hogue Duffy Staff, Sen. Comm on Aging 2008
239 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 155
Legislative Asst, Sen. Reed
Harriet James Melvin Prof. Staff, Rep Charles Hatcher 2008
Kevin Kayes Chief Counsel, Sen. Reid 2006-2008
Marc Lampkin Policy Dir, Sen Coverdell 2008
Nick Maduros Cloakroom assistant; Intern, Sen Lehman 2008
Christopher McCannell Chief of Staff, Cong. Crowley 2007-2008
Amy Jensen Cunniffee Special Asst to the Pres for Legal Affairs 2005-2006
Mike Hacker Comm Dir, Rep. Dingell 2005
Covington & Burling
Holly Fechner Policy Dir, Sen. Edward Kennedy 2007
Angus & Nickerson
Barbara Angus Int’l Tax Counsel, Dept of Treausry 2006
Gregory Nickerson Tax Counsel, Ways and Means Comm 2006
Cypress Advocacy
Patrick Cave Asst Sec, Dept of Treasury 2006
Kilpatrick Stockton
Armand Dekeyser Chief of Staff, Sen. Jeff Sessions 2005-2006
The Smith-Free Group
Jon Deuser Chief of Staff, Sen. Bunning 2006
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Tim Hanford Tax Counsel, Ways and Means Comm. 2001-2002
Kenneth Kies Chief of Staff, Joint Comm. on Taxation 2000-2001
Barbara Angus
Business Tax Counsel, Joint Comm. on
Taxation 2000-2001
Appendix
156
Commercial Banks: Citigroup
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $19,778,382
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $88,460,000
Citigroup Campaign Contributions:240
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $4,270,678
1. Barack Obama (D) $543,430
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $423,417
3. John McCain (R) $301,301
4. Mitt Romney (R) $168,550
5. Chris Dodd (D) $157,244
6. Rudy Giuliani (R) $151,100
7. Charles B. Rangel (D) $61,450
8. John Edwards (D) $44,600
9. Saxby Chambliss (R) $40,350
10. Dick Durbin (D) $40,250
11. Spencer Bachus (R) $35,450
12. David Landrum (R) $30,450
13. Rahm Emanuel (D) $28,000
14. John E. Sununu (R) $26,850
15.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $25,700
16. Richard C. Shelby (R) $25,200
17. Max Baucus (D) $24,500
18. Chuck Hagel (R) $24,100
19. Joe Biden Jr. (D) $23,950
20. Jim Marshall (D) $23,050
240 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,576,066
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $134,610
2. Christopher J. Dodd (D) $107,800
3. Joe Lieberman (I) $59,450
4. Tom Carper (D) $55,300
5. Kent Conrad (D) $36,000
6. John E. Sununu (R) $35,250
7. Jim McCrery (R) $34,300
8. Mitch McConnell (R) $33,700
9. Jon Kyl (R) $33,400
10. Rick Santorum (R) $29,850
11. Christopher Shays (R) $23,000
12. Mike DeWine (R) $21,850
13. Thomas H. Kean Jr. (R) $21,550
14. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $19,800
15. Robert Menendez (D) $19,550
16. Ben Nelson (D) $18,200
17. Doris O. Matsui (D) $18,050
18. Bob Corker (R) $17,250
19. David Yassky (D) $16,050
20. James M. Talent (R) $15,900
Appendix 157
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,003,758
1. George W. Bush (R) $315,820
2. John Kerry (D) $280,881
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $91,250
4. Charles Schumer (D) $80,800
5. Richard Shelby (R) $65,000
6. Tom Daschle (D) $56,700
7. Chris Dodd (D) $50,200
8. Michael G. Oxley (R) $40,550
9. Mike Crapo (R) $34,450
10. Harry Reid (D) $32,250
11. Wesley Clark (D) $30,650
12. Rob Portman (R) $30,000
13. Joe Lieberman (D) $29,000
14. Howard Dean (D) $26,886
15. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $25,550
16. Barack Obama (D) $21,350
17. Mel Martinez (R) $20,600
18. Evan Bayh (D) $17,543
19. Arlen Specter (R) $17,500
20. James W. DeMint (R) $17,250
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,021,725
1. Tim Johnson (D) $54,560
2. Chris Dodd (D) $41,550
3. Charles B. Rangel (D) $40,500
4. Jean Carnahan (D) $39,750
5. Charles Schumer (D) $30,750
6.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $17,448
7. Amo Houghton (R) $17,050
8. Max Baucus (D) $16,250
9. John E. Sununu (R) $15,750
10. Nancy L. Johnson (R) $15,250
10. Ron Kirk (D) $15,250
12. Max Cleland (D) $14,950
13. Rahm Emanuel (D) $14,250
14. Norm Coleman (R) $12,000
14. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,000
16. Bill Janklow (R) $11,000
16. Jim Maloney (D) $11,000
16. Billy Tauzin (R) $11,000
19. Nita M. Lowey (D) $10,500
19. Carolyn Maloney (D) $10,500
2000
TOTAL: $4,157,926
1. Charles Schumer (D) $135,550
2. Bill Bradley (D) $127,500
3. Rick A. Lazio (R) $127,390
4. George W. Bush (R) $115,700
5. Al Gore (D) $115,500
6. Hillary Clinton (D) $99,650
7. Joe Lieberman (D) $55,296
8. John McCain (R) $42,700
9. Rudy. Giuliani (R) $37,015
10. Spencer Abraham (R) $29,750
11. Bob Franks (R) $28,208
12. Carolyn Maloney (D) $22,000
13. William Roth Jr. (R) $20,650
14. Charles S. Robb (D) $19,250
15. Tim Johnson (D) $18,500
16. Nita M. Lowey (D) $18,000
17. John J. LaFalce (D) $15,250
18. Bill Nelson (D) $14,750
19. Nancy L. Johnson (R) $14,050
20. Phil Gramm (R) $13,500
Appendix
158
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,748,229
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $105,914
2. Charles Schumer (D) $99,116
3. Chris Dodd (D) $40,250
4. Tom Daschle (D) $39,000
5. Nancy L. Johnson (D) $26,975
6. Geraldine Ferraro (D) $25,724
7. Charles B. Rangel (D) $25,500
8. Paul Coverdell (R) $19,964
9. Bob Graham (D) $19,857
10. Rick A. Lazio (R) $19,500
10. Nita M. Lowey (D) $19,500
12. Richard Gephardt (D) $18,000
13. Bob Kerrey (D) $16,500
14. Newt Gingrich (R) $16,000
15. Lauch Faircloth (R) $15,775
16.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $15,450
17.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(D) $14,949
18. Richard Baker (R) $14,000
19. Evan Bayh (D) $13,750
20. Tom Delay (R) $12,000
Appendix 159
Citigroup Lobbying Expenditures:241
2008
TOTAL: $7,875,000
Citigroup Management
Corp $5,520,000
Avenue Solutions $100,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $260,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $240,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Cypress Advocacy $200,000
Ernst & Young $320,000
Ogilvy Government Relations
$320,000
Elmendorf Strategies $140,000
BGR Holding $110,000
Roberti Assoc $225,000
Timmons & Co $240,000
2007
TOTAL: $10,640,000
Citigroup Inc $8,180,000
Ernst & Young $320,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $320,000
Ogilvy Government Relations
$320,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $300,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $240,000
Avenue Solutions $240,000
Capitol Tax Partners $200,000
Cypress Advocacy $120,000
Dewey Square Group $40,000
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
King & Spalding $20,000
241 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Timmons & Co $300,000
2006
TOTAL: $9,100,000
Citigroup Inc $6,760,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
Ernst & Young $340,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $340,000
Federalist Group $320,000
Avenue Solutions $170,000
O'Melveny & Myers $160,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Cypress Advocacy $120,000
Capitol Tax Partners $110,000
Angus & Nickerson $60,000
Timmons & Co. $200,000
2005
TOTAL: $5,140,000
Citigroup Inc $3,600,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $360,000
Ogilvy Government Relations
$240,000
Avenue Solutions $180,000
Ernst & Young $160,000
Cypress Advocacy $120,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Capitol Tax Partners $120,000
Angus & Nickerson $80,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
Cleary, Gottlieb et al $100,000
Appendix
160
2004
TOTAL: $8,520,000
Citigroup Inc $7,200,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $360,000
Ernst & Young $280,000
Federalist Group $240,000
Avenue Solutions $180,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Capitol Tax Partners $120,000
Walker, Lynda K > $10,000*
Skadden, Arps et al $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $10,400,000
Citigroup Inc $7,800,000
Akin, Gump et al $960,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $360,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $240,000
Ernst & Young $200,000
Van Scoyoc Assoc $180,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $160,000
Federalist Group $120,000
Avenue Solutions $90,000
Tonio Burgos & Assoc $50,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $40,000
Franzel, Brent S $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners $120,000
2002
TOTAL: $7,730,000
Citigroup Inc $5,400,000
Akin, Gump et al $620,000
* Not included in totals
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $400,000
Ernst & Young $240,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $220,000
Avenue Solutions $150,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Baker & Hostetler $80,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $80,000
Franzel, Brent S $80,000
Thaxton, Richard R $70,000
Tonio Burgos & Assoc $50,000
Van Scoyoc Assoc $40,000
Venn Strategies $40,000
Hogan & Hartson $20,000
Heidepriem & Mager > $10,000*
Capitol Tax Partners $40,000
2001
TOTAL: $5,930,000
Citigroup Inc $4,100,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $440,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $380,000
Baker & Hostetler $260,000
Ernst & Young $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $100,000
PodestaMattoon $100,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $80,000
Thaxton, Richard R $60,000
Hogan & Hartson $40,000
Franzel, Brent S $40,000
Tonio Burgos & Assoc $30,000
Heidepriem & Mager $20,000
Rhoads Group $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix 161
2000
TOTAL: $6,420,000
Citigroup Inc $4,120,000
Associates First Capital $300,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $560,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $480,000
Akin, Gump et al $120,000
Ernst & Young $120,000
Baker & Hostetler $120,000
Thaxton, Richard R $90,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $80,000
Franzel, Brent S $60,000
Barrett, Michael F Jr $60,000
Walker, Lynda K $50,000
Arter & Hadden $40,000
Heidepriem & Mager > $10,000*
Rhoads Group $120,000
Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering $20,000
1999
TOTAL: $7,570,000
Citigroup Inc $5,080,000
Associates First Capital $300,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $500,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $480,000
Baker & Hostetler $240,000
Walker, Lynda K $180,000
Akin, Gump et al $160,000
Arter & Hadden $140,000
Franzel, Brent S $100,000
Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering $80,000
* Not included in totals
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $60,000
Silbey, Franklin R $40,000
Thaxton, Richard R $40,000
Barrett, Michael F Jr $30,000
Heidepriem & Mager $20,000
Rhoads Group $120,000
Cleary, Gottlieb et al > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $9,135,000
Citigroup Inc $7,290,000
Verner, Liipfert et al $420,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $320,000
Arter & Hadden $260,000
Baker & Hostetler $260,000
Akin, Gump et al $180,000
Walker, Lynda K $80,000
Campbell-Crane & Assoc $60,000
Franzel, Brent S $40,000
Callister, Nebeker &
McCullough $40,000
Thaxton, Richard R $35,000
Silbey, Fanklin R $20,000
Ely & Co $20,000
Barrett, Michael F Jr $20,000
Davis & Harman > $10,000*
Heidepriem & Mager > $10,000*
Biklen, Stephen C > $10,000*
Alston & Bird $30,000
Cleary, Gottlieb et al $60,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
162
Citigroup Covered Official Lobbyists:242
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Angus & Nickerson
Angus, Barbara
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2005-2007
Nickerson, Gregory International Tax Counsel, Dept. of Treasury 2005-2007
Avenue Solutions
Tejral, Amy Legislative Director, Senator Ben Nelson 2007
Baker & Hostetler
Kennelly, Barbara
Assoc. Commissioner - Social Securty
Admin. 2001
Barnett, Sivon & Natter
Barnett, Robert E. President (Attorney) 1999
Sivon, James C. VP/ Secretary (Attorney) 1999
Rivas, Jose S. Legislative/Regulatory Specialist 1999
Capitol Tax Partners
Fant, William
Deputy Asst. Secr (Treasury) for Legislative
Afrs 2002-2008
Mikrut, Joseph Tax Legislative Counsel - US Treasury 2002-2008
Talisman, Johnathan Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2002-2008
Grafmeyer, Rick Deputy Chief of Staff - JCT 2002-2008
McKenney, William Chief of Staff - Rep. Amo Houghton 2002-2008
Willcox, Lawrence G.
Staff Director, Senate Republican Policy
Committee 2006-2008
Dennis, James
Tax Counsel, Sen. Robb - Counsel, Sen.
Bingaman 2008
Javens, Christopher
Tax Counsel, Sen. Grassley, Sen. Finance
Committee 2008
Cypress Advocacy
Cave, J. Patrick Deputy Asst. Sec./Acting Asst. Sec, Treasury 2005-2007
242 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 163
Ernst & Young
Badger, Doug Chief of Staff, Office of Senator Nickles 2000-2002
Conklin, Brian Special Assistant to the President 2004
Federalist Group LLC
Cave, J. Patrick
Deputy Asst. Sec./ Acting Asst. Sec., Treasury
2003-2004
Dammann, Julie Chief of Staff, Senator Christopher S. Bond 2006
Sternhall, Alexander Deputy Staff Director, Sen. Banking Comm. 2008
Hogan & Hartson
Kyle, Robert D. Associate Director, OMB 2001
Kilpatrick Stockton
Dekeyser, Armand C/S Senator Jeff Sessions 2005-2006
King & Spalding LLP
Clarkson, William Legislative Assistant, Sen. Susan Collins 2007-2008
Ogilvy Government Relations
Dammann, Julie Chief of Staff, Senator Christopher S. Bond 2007-2008
PodestaMattoon
Clark, Bill
Executive Office of POTUS - Office of
Personnel 2001
Tornquist, David Office of Management and Budget 2001
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Angus, Barbara Business Tax Counsel, JCT 1999-2000
Kies, Kenneth J. Chief of Staff, JCT 1999, 2000
Timmons & Co
Shapiro, Daniel Deputy Cos - Office of Sen. Bill Nelson 2007-2008
Paone, Martin Secretary for the Majority, US Senate 2008
Appendix
164
Van Scoyoc Assoc
Porterfield, Lendell Maj. Econ. US Committee on Banking 2002
-
Woof, 11th Post;
Appendix 165
Commercial Banks: JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $15,714,953
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $49,372,915
JP Morgan Campaign
Contributions:243
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $4,247,991
1. Barack Obama (D) $559,210
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $272,694
3. John McCain (R) $205,657
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $94,300
5. Mitt Romney (R) $78,250
6. Chris Dodd (D) $68,950
7. Harry Reid (D) $53,300
8. John Cornyn (R) $48,598
9. Charles B. Rangel (D) $47,900
10. Rahm Emanuel (D) $44,700
11. Mary L. Landrieu (D) $41,399
12. Steny H. Hoyer (D) $34,300
13. Spencer Bachus (R) $33,000
14. Richard C. Shelby (R) $31,500
15. Dave Camp (R) $30,500
16. Fred Thompson (R) $29,450
17. Jack Reed (D) $27,850
18. Norm Coleman (R) $26,900
19. Tim Johnson (D) $26,495
20. Eric Cantor (R) $24,000
243 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,163,356
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $113,965
2. Richard Baker (R) $45,100
3. Tom Carper (D) $38,268
4. Michael G. Oxley (R) $35,100
5. Chris Dodd (D) $31,300
6. Mitch McConnell (R) $31,000
7. Mel Martinez (R) $30,600
8. Tim Johnson (D) $29,600
9. Steny H. Hoyer (D) $29,500
10. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) $27,100
11. Max Baucus (D) $27,000
12. Kent Conrad (D) $25,000
13. Joe Lieberman (I) $23,901
14. Mike DeWine (R) $23,500
15. John E. Sununu (R) $22,500
16. Orrin G. Hatch (R) $21,000
17. Christopher Shays (R) $19,366
18. Melissa Bean (D) $18,542
19.
David McSweeney
(R) $17,950
20. Debbie Stabenow (D) $15,650
Appendix
166
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $3,042,399
1. John Kerry (D) $200,565
2. George W. Bush (R) $187,150
3. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $59,750
4. Jay Helvey (R) $54,750
5. Charles Schumer (D) $47,550
6. Barack Obama (D) $47,300
7. Michael G. Oxley (R) $36,250
8. Richard C. Shelby (R) $35,000
9. Chris Dodd (D) $30,500
10. Tom Daschle (D) $28,450
11. Spencer Bachus (R) $20,000
12. John Edwards (D) $19,750
13. Jeb Hensarling (R) $19,500
14. Tom Carper (D) $19,411
15. Blanche Lincoln (D) $18,357
16. Martin Frost (D) $17,250
17. Michael N. Castle (R) $17,000
18. Pete Sessions (R) $16,800
19. Richard Baker (R) $16,500
20. Howard Dean (D) $16,161
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,277,188
1. Charles Schumer (D) $160,000
2. Ron Kirk (D) $85,400
3. Max Baucus (D) $41,604
4. Erskine B. Bowles (D) $38,556
5. John Kerry (D) $37,000
6. Richard Baker (R) $24,000
7. Amo Houghton (R) $21,000
8. Wayne Allard (R) $20,000
8. Spencer Bachus (R) $20,000
10. Jim Maloney (D) $17,000
11. Mike Enzi (R) $16,000
11. Carolyn Maloney (D) $16,000
13. Ken Bentsen (D) $15,000
13. Phil English (R) $15,000
13. Bart Gordon (D) $15,000
13. Pat Toomey (R) $15,000
17. John Edwards (D) $14,500
18. Michael G. Oxley (R) $14,000
18. Rob Portman (R) $14,000
20. Tom Strickland (D) $13,146
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,502,414
1. Bill Bradley (D) $133,255
2. Rick A. Lazio (R) $122,361
3. George W. Bush (R) $101,205
4. Charles Schumer (D) $89,250
5. Hillary Clinton (D) $53,750
6. Phil Gramm (R) $36,250
7. Al Gore (D) $36,050
8. Rudy Giuliani (R) $24,850
9. John McCain (R) $24,703
10. Richard G. Lugar (R) $24,550
11.
Peter Staub Wareing
(R) $21,500
12. Spencer Abraham (R) $21,250
13.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $21,000
14. John J. LaFalce (D) $19,750
15. Richard Baker (R) $17,000
16. Tom Campbell (R) $14,250
17. Pat Toomey (R) $13,500
18. Martin Frost (D) $13,000
18. Marge Roukema (R) $13,000
Appendix 167
20. Bill McCollum (R) $12,500
1998 Top Reciepients
TOTAL: $1,481,605
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $32,850
2. Charles Schumer (D) $27,650
3. Lauch Faircloth (R) $24,500
4. Rick A. Lazio (R) $19,350
5. Chris Dodd (D) $19,023
6.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
(R) $16,500
6. John J. LaFalce (D) $16,500
8.
Christopher S. 'Kit'
Bond (R) $13,000
8. Chuck Hagel (R) $13,000
10. Robert F. Bennett (R) $12,500
10. Tom Daschle (D) $12,500
12. Bill McCollum (R) $12,000
13. Martin Frost (D) $11,250
13. Pete King (R) $11,250
15. Richard Baker (R) $11,000
15. Bart Gordon (D) $11,000
17. Michael N. Castle (R) $10,550
17. Dick Armey (R) $10,500
19. Paul E. Gillmor (R) $10,000
19. Sue Kelly (R) $10,000
Appendix
168
JP Morgan Lobbying Expenses:244
2008
TOTAL: $6,336,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co $5,390,000
OB-C Group $240,000
Equale & Assoc $147,500
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Richard F Hohlt $130,000
Triangle Assoc $88,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Walter Group $80,500
Fennel Consulting $50,000
David L Horne LLC $10,000
B&D Consulting > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $6,452,500
JP Morgan Chase & Co $5,440,000
OB-C Group $240,000
BKSH & Assoc $140,000
Richard F Hohit $95,500
Triangle Assoc $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
David L Horne LLC $60,000
Equale & Assoc $60,000
Fennel Consulting $52,000
American Continental
Group $40,000
Walter Group $40,000
Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering $40,000
B&D Consulting $20,000
244 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Bryan Cave LLP $20,000
Thaxton, Richard R $45,000
2006
TOTAL: $7,204,040
JP Morgan Chase & Co $6,120,000
American Continental
Group $200,000
Tongour Simpson Group $140,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $100,000
Triangle Assoc $80,000
Zeliff Enterprises $80,000
Richard F Hohlt $74,800
Private/Public Solutions $62,500
Angus & Nickerson $40,000
B&D Consulting $36,740
David L Horne LLC $20,000
Fennel Consulting $20,000
OB-C Group $20,000
Thaxton, Richard R $90,000
2005
TOTAL: $4,448,500
JP Morgan Chase & Co $3,540,000
Mayer, Brown et al $140,000
B&D Sagamore $120,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Tongour Simpson Group $100,000
Richard F Hohit $83,500
Zeliff Enterprises $80,000
Triangle Assoc $70,000
Patton Boggs LLP $60,000
Angus & Nickerson $20,000
Appendix 169
Clark & Weinstock $20,000
Kerrigan & Assoc > $10,000*
Thaxton, Richard R $95,000
2004
TOTAL: $5,072,500
JP Morgan Chase & Co $3,580,000
Bank One Corp $415,000
Clark & Weinstock $310,000
B&D Sagamore $140,000
Mayer, Brown et al $140,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
Zeliff Enterprises $80,000
Richard F Hohit $67,500
Patton Boggs LLP $60,000
Triangle Assoc $40,000
Kerrigan & Assoc $40,000
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Thaxton, Richard R $60,000
Brownstein, Hyatt et al $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $8,246,575
JP Morgan Chase & Co $6,706,575
BankOne Corp $720,000
Patton Boggs LLP $220,000
Williams & Jensen 140,000
BKSH & Assoc $120,000
B&D Sagamore $100,000
Richard F Hohit $80,000
Kerrigan & Assoc $40,000
Triangle Assoc > $10,000*
Covington & Burling $40,000
* Not included in totals
Thaxton, Richard R $60,000
Carmen Group $20,000
2002
TOTAL: $5,062,800
JP Morgan Chase & Co $4,700,000
B&D Sagamore $120,000
BKSH & Assoc $96,000
Williams & Jensen $80,000
Richard F Hohit $66,800
Triangle Assoc > $10,000*
Kerrigan & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $6,550,000
JP Morgan Chase & Co $6,300,000
BKSH & Assoc $88,000
Richard F Hohit $62,000
B&D Sagamore $60,000
Williams & Jensen $40,000
1998-2000
N/A
* Not included in totals
Appendix
170
JP Morgan Covered Official Lobbyists:245
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Carmen Group, Inc
Hoitsma, Gary Press Secretary, Senator Inhofe 2003
Wassmer, Victoria
Program Examiner, Transport Branch,
OMB 2003
Clark & Wienstock
Godes, Niles Chief of Staff to Sen. Byron Dorgan 2003
Lehman, Dirksen
Spec. Asst. for Legal Affairs for the President
2003
Angus & Nickerson
Angus, Barbara
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2005-2006
Nickerson, Gregory
International Tax Counsel, Dept. of Treasury
2005-2006
Zeliff Enterprises
Zeliff, William H.
Former member of Congress: NH 1991-
1997 2005-2006
OB-C Group LLC
Stevenson, Robert Sen. Bill Frist Communications Director 2006
Private Public Solutions
Moffett, Anthony J. Former Member of Congress 2006
BKSH & Associates
Turner, Pam
Asst. Sec for LA Homeland Security,
2003-2006 2008
Dep Asst to Pres for LA 82-89
245 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 171
Fennel Consulting
Fennel, Melody Assistant Secretary, HUD 2005-2008
Appendix
172
Commercial Banks: Wachovia Corp.
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $3,946,727
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $11,996,752
Wachovia Campaign
Contributions:246
2008 Top Recipients247
TOTAL: $934,381
1. Barack Obama (D) $178,382
2. John McCain (R) $155,658
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $77,000
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $49,400
5. Mitt Romney (R) $36,550
6. Robin Hayes (R) $18,929
7. Eric Cantor (R) $17,750
8. Elizabeth Dole (R) $16,700
9. Mark Warner (D) $15,550
10. Lindsey Graham (R) $15,400
11. Patrick McHenry (R) $15,350
11. Sue Myrick (R) $15,350
13. James Clyburn (D) $13,500
14. Chris Dodd (D) $12,750
15. Melvin Watt (D) $12,500
16. Artur Davis (D) $10,250
16. Tim Johnson (D) $10,250
18. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
246 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
247 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
18. David Scott (D) $10,000
18. John Boehner (R) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $742,384
1. George Allen (R) $30,650
2. Rick Santorum (R) $26,600
3. Robin Hayes (R) $21,470
4. Sue Myrick (R) $17,700
5. Eric Cantor (R) $16,700
6. Patrick McHenry (R) $15,250
7. Richard Burr (R) $13,250
8. Michael Fitzpatrick (R) $11,050
9. Michael Steele (R) $10,450
10. Vernon Buchanan (R) $10,100
11. Robert Menendez (D) $10,000
11. Deborah Pryce (R) $10,000
11. Jim McCrery (R) $10,000
11. David Dreier (R) $10,000
11. John Boehner (R) $10,000
11. Richard Baker (R) $10,000
11. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
18. Jon Kyl (R) $9,000
18. Mitch McConnell (R) $9,000
20. John Spratt Jr (D) $8,800
Appendix 173
2004 Top Recipients248
TOTAL: $1,237,468
1. George W Bush (R) $223,960
2. Erskine Bowles (D) $95,750
3. Richard Burr (R) $76,000
4. John Kerry (D) $33,850
5. Eric Cantor (R) $23,000
6. Robin Hayes (R) $18,750
7. Sue Myrick (R) $16,500
8. Melvin Watt (D) $15,550
9. Arlen Specter (R) $14,300
10. Elizabeth Dole (R) $13,250
10. Jay Helvey (R) $13,250
12. Charlie Condon (R) $12,200
13. Johnny Isakson (R) $10,070
14. Chris Dodd (D) $10,000
14. Tom Carper (D) $10,000
16. John Thune (R) $9,500
17. Mel Martinez (R) $8,700
18. Pete Sessions (R) $8,250
19. Howard Dean (D) $7,460
20. Jim McCrery (R) $7,250
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $790,969
1. Erskine Bowles (D) $77,200
2. Elizabeth Dole (R) $31,325
3. Robin Hayes (R) $19,470
4. Melvin Watt (D) $12,500
5. Richard Burr (R) $11,800
6. Saxby Chambliss (R) $10,500
7. Lindsey Graham (R) $10,250
8. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
248 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
8. Richard Baker (R) $10,000
8. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
11. Walter Jones Jr (R) $9,500
12. Ed Royce (R) $6,000
12. Eric Cantor (R) $6,000
12. Max Baucus (D) $6,000
15. Calder Clay (R) $5,900
16. Cass Ballenger (R) $5,000
16. Gregory Meeks (D) $5,000
16. Jim Maloney (D) $5,000
16. Sue Myrick (R) $5,000
16. Wayne Allard (R) $5,000
16. Pete King (R) $5,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $130,175
1. Elizabeth Dole (R) $9,450
2. Richard Burr (R) $8,450
3. Robin Hayes (R) $8,000
4. Walter Jones Jr (R) $6,500
5. John Edwards (D) $5,250
6. Zell Miller (D) $4,000
6. Sue Myrick (R) $4,000
8. Al Gore (D) $3,250
8. Bill McCullum (R) $3,250
10. Johnny Isakson (R) $3,000
10. Melvin Watt (D) $3,000
12. Lindsey Graham (R) $2,825
13. Bob Barr (R) $2,500
13. George W Bush (R) $2,500
13. Roger Kahn (D) $2,500
13. Trent Lott (R) $2,500
13. Floyd Spence (R) $2,500
18. Charles Norwood (R) $2,250
Appendix
174
19. Bill Bradley (D) $2,000
19. George Allen (R) $2,000
19. Jack Kingston (R) $2,000
19. John Linder (R) $2,000
19. Lamar Alexander (R) $2,000
19. Mack Mattingly (R) $2,000
19. Richard Baker (R) $2,000
19. Saxby Chambliss (R) $2,000
19. William Roth Jr (R) $2,000
19. Doug Haynes (R) $2,000
19. Mike McIntyre (D) $2,000
19. Charles Taylor (R) $2,000
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $102,350
1. Lauch Faircloth (R) $15,100
2. Richard Burr (R) $13,000
3. Max Cleland (D) $7,500
4. Paul Coverdell (R) $5,750
5. Frank Lautenberg (R) $5,000
6. Fritz Hollings (D) $4,600
7. Walter Jones Jr (R) $4,500
8. Michael Coles (D) $4,000
9. Robin Hayes (R) $3,500
9. Mike McIntyre (D) $3,500
11. Melvin Watt (D) $3,250
12. Bob Ethridge (D) $3,000
13. John Linder (R) $2,500
13. Sue Myrick (R) $2,500
15. Charles Taylor (R) $2,250
15. Johnny Isakson (R) $2,250
17. James Clyburn (D) $1,500
18. Bob Graham (D) $1,000
18. Ernest Hollings (D) $1,000
18. John Kasich (R) $1,000
18. Bob Barr (R) $1,000
18. David Price (D) $1,000
18. Dan Page (R) $1,000
18. Howard Coble (R) $1,000
18. Cass Ballenger (R) $1,000
18. Jesse Helms (R) $1,000
18. Michael Fair (R) $1,000
18. John Spratt Jr (D) $1,000
Appendix 175
Wachovia Lobbying Expenditures:249
2008
TOTAL: $2,561,000
Wachovia Corp $1,781,000
C2 Group $200,000
Angus & Nickerson $120,000
Porterfield & Lowenthal $120,000
Public Strategies $80,000
Dixon, Dan $60,000
Jenkins Hill Group $80,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $80,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
Barnett, Sivon & Natter $20,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $2,295,752
Wachovia Corp $1,360,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $365,752
C2 Group $240,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $120,000
Jenkins Hill Group $100,000
Dixon, Dan $40,000
Public Strategies $30,000
Angus & Nickerson $20,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
249 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not counted in total
2006
TOTAL: $1,740,000
Wachovia Corp $900,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
C2 Group $240,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $100,000
Jenkins Hill Group $80,000
Cypress Advocacy $20,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,220,000
Wachovia Corp $840,000
C2 Group $240,000
Jenkins Hill Group $60,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
Capitol Hill Strategies $20,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,030,000
Wachovia Corp $720,000
C2 Group $240,000
Jenkins Hill Group $70,000
2003
TOTAL: $320,000
Wachovia Corp $220,000
C2 Group $100,000
Appendix
176
2002
TOTAL: $420,000
Wachovia Corp $120,000
Williams & Jensen $300,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $730,000
Wachovia Corp $10,000
Williams & Jensen $620,000
2000
TOTAL: $480,000
Wachovia Corp > $10,000*
Williams & Jensen $460,000
Groom Law Group $20,000
1999
TOTAL: $600,000
Wachovia Corp $20,000
Williams & Jensen $440,000
Groom Law Group $140,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Bradley, Arant et al > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $600,000
Groom Law Group $20,000
Sullivan & Cromwell > $10,000*
Williams & Jensen $580,000
* Not included in total
Appendix 177
Wachovia Covered Official Lobbyists:250
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
William & Jensen, PC
Bechtel, Phillip
General Counsel - Senate Banking Committee
1999-2002
Landers, David M. Legislative Counsel for Lauch Faircloth 1999-2002
McCarlle, Christine C. Special Assistant to Trent Lott 1999-2002
C2 Group, LLC
Hanson, Michael Chief of Staff to Congressman Sam Johnson 2003-2008
Murray, Jefferies Chief of Staff to Congressman Bud Cramer 2003-2008
Litterst, Nelson Special Asst. to the President for Leg Affairs 2004-2008
Knight, Shahira
Senior Advisor to Chair of Ways & Means
Committee 2006-2008
Elliott, Lesley Deputy Chief of Staff, Secretary of the Senate 2007-2008
Golden West Financial Corp
LaFalce, John Member of Congress 2005
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Dekeyser, Armand C/S Sen. Jeff Sessions 2005-2007
Cypress Advocacy
Cave, J. Patrick
Deputy Asst. Sec./ Acting Asst. Sec., Treasury
2005-2008
250 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
178
Commercial Banks: Wells Fargo
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $5,330,022
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $16,637,740
Wells Fargo Campaign Contributions:251
2008 Top Recipients252
TOTAL: $1,448,197
1. Barack Obama (D) $160,089
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $103,322
3. John McCain (R) $42,436
4. Norm Coleman (R) $36,500
5. Mitt Romney (R) $33,200
6. Rudy Giuliani (R) $19,450
7. John Edwards (D) $16,950
8. Max Baucus (D) $14,700
9. Erik Paulsen (R) $12,700
10. Ed Royce (R) $12,300
10. Paul Kanjorski (D) $12,300
12. John Cornyn (R) $11,500
13. John Sununu (R) $11,000
13. Tom Latham (R) $11,000
15. Pete Sessions (R) $10,000
15. Collin Peterson (D) $10,000
15. Nancy Pelosi (D) $10,000
15. George Miller (D) $10,000
15. Steny Hoyer (D) $10,000
251 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
252 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
15. James Clyburn (D) $10,000
15. James Clyburn (D) $10,000
15. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
15. John Barrasso (R) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,054,492
1. Dianne Feinstein (D) $21,750
2. Amy Klobuchar (D) $18,585
3. Rick Santorum (R) $14,750
4. Michael McGavick (R) $14,250
5. Orrin Hatch (R) $13,900
6. Richard Baker (R) $13,500
7. Ed Royce (R) $13,000
8. Jon Kyl (R) $11,250
9. Christopher Shays (R) $11,000
10. Jeffery Lamberti (R) $10,350
11. Deborah Pryce (R) $10,000
11. Nancy Pelosi (D) $10,000
11. Jim McCrery (R) $10,000
11. Robert Byrd (D) $10,000
11. Conrad Burns (R) $10,000
16. Tom Latham (R) $9,750
17. Joe Lieberman (I) $9,200
18. Earl Pomeroy (D) $9,000
18. Spencer Bachus (R) $9,000
Appendix 179
20. Ben Nelson (D) $8,650
2004 Top Recipients253
TOTAL: $1,190,226
1. John Kerry (D) $67,700
2. George W Bush (R) $63,735
3. Chuck Grassley (R) $21,250
4. Tom Daschle (D) $19,250
5. Nancy Pelosi (D) $16,000
6. Howard Dean (D) $13,750
7. Jim Bunning (R) $13,000
7. Randy Neugebauer (R) $13,000
7. Richard Baker (R) $13,000
10. Barney Frank (D) $11,800
11. Bob Beuprez (R) $11,000
12. Lisa Murkowski (R) $10,250
13. Robert Bennett (R) $10,000
13. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
13. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
13. Pete Domenici (R) $10,000
17. Richard Shelby (R) $9,750
18. John Thune (R) $9,400
19. Jeb Hensarling (R) $9,000
20. Mark Kennedy (R) $8,250
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $613,262
1. Wayne Allard (R) $23,550
2. Norm Coleman (R) $18,500
3. John Thune (R) $16,500
4. Richard Baker (R) $12,000
5. Tim Johnson (D) $11,750
253 Based on highest 1,000 contributions plus
PAC contributions.
6. Max Baucus (D) $9,000
7. John Cornyn (R) $8,950
8. Chuck Hagel (R) $8,000
9. Jim Ramstad (R) $6,750
10. Gordon Smith (R) $6,500
11. Larry Craig (R) $6,000
11. Mike Enzi (R) $6,000
11. Jack Reed (D) $6,000
14. Earl Pomeroy (D) $5,750
15. Dick Armey (R) $5,000
15. Chuck Grassley (R) $5,000
17. Mark Kennedy (R) $4,900
18. Nancy Pelosi (D) $4,750
19. Ron Kirk (D) $4,500
19. Silvestre Reyes (D) $4,500
19. Ted Stevens (R) $4,500
19. Michael Oxley (R) $4,500
19. Charlie Gonzalez (D) $4,500
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $676,676
1. Dianne Feinstein (D) $24,000
2. Jim Ramstad (R) $11,400
3. Bill Bradley (D) $10,500
3. Kent Conrad (D) $10,500
5. Jon Kyl (R) $10,250
6. George W Bush (R) $10,000
7. Rod Grams (R) $9,500
8. Bob Kerrey (D) $8,500
8. Bruce Vento (D) $8,500
8. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) $8,250
11. Al Gore (D) $7,550
12. Conrad Burns (R) $7,250
12. John Ensign (R) $7,250
Appendix
180
14. Slade Gorton (R) $6,900
15. Jeff Bingaman (D) $6,750
15. Paul Sarbanes (D) $6,750
17. Hillary Clinton (D) $6,460
18. Charlie Gonzalez (D) $5,500
18. Max Baucus (D) $5,500
18. Rick Lazio (R) $5,500
18. Tom Carper (D) $5,500
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $347,169
1. Robert Bennet (R) $10,550
2. Chuck Grassley (R) $10,000
3. Chris Dodd (D) $8,000
4. Byron Dorgan (D) $7,500
5. Rod Grams (R) $6,500
6. Jeff Sessions (R) $6,000
7. Matt Fong (R) $5,500
8. Bill Clinton (D) $5,000
8. Bob Kerrey (D) $5,000
10. Bruce Vento (D) $4,750
12. Pete Sessions (R) $4,500
12. Steven Kuykendall (R) $4,000
12. Richard Baker (R) $4,000
12. Tom Daschle (D) $4,000
15. Buck McKeon (R) $3,500
15. Blanche Lincoln (D) $3,500
17. Robert Greenlee (R) $3,300
18. John McCain (R) $3,000
18. David Dreier (R) $3,000
18. Earl Pomeroy (D) $3,000
18. Scott McInnis (R) $3,000
18. Rick Lazio (R) $3,000
18. Ray LaHood (R) $3,000
18. Jerry Kleczka (D) $3,000
18. Armando Falcon (D) $3,000
18. Mark Baker (R) $3,000
18. Chuck Hagel (R) $3,000
Appendix 181
Wells Fargo Lobbying
Expenditures:254
2008
TOTAL: $1,674,740
Wells Fargo $1,200,740
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $444,000
Chesapeake Enterprises $30,000
2007
TOTAL: $2,347,000
Wells Fargo $1,919,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $428,000
2006
TOTAL: $2,565,000
Wells Fargo $1,765,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $400,000
2005
TOTAL: $2,050,000
Wells Fargo $1,590,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
Kilpatrick Stockton $60,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,680,000
Wells Fargo $1,280,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
254 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
2003
TOTAL: $1,560,000
Wells Fargo $960,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $400,000
Davis, Polk & Wardwell $200,000
2002
TOTAL: $820,000
Wells Fargo $620,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $200,000
2001
TOTAL: $870,000
Wells Fargo $650,000
HD Vest Financial Services
$20,000
Davis, Pol & Wardwell $100,000
Doremus, Theodore A Jr $100,000
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart > $10,000*
2000
TOTAL: $800,000
Wells Fargo $720,000
Davis, Pol & Wardwell $80,000
1999
TOTAL: $671,000
Wells Fargo $471,000
Davis, Polk & Wardwell $200,000
* Not included in the total amount
Appendix
182
1998
TOTAL: $1,600,000
Norwest Corp $1,180,000
Canfield & Assoc $20,000
Hogan & Hartson > $10,000*
Davis, Polk & Wardwell $200,000
Miller & Chevalier $20,000
Vickers, Linda $180,000
* Not included in the total amount
Appendix 183
Wells Fargo Covered Official Lobbyists:255
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Dekeyser, Armand C/S Sen. Jeff Sessions 2005-2006
255 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
184
Hedge Funds: Bridgewater Associates
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $274,650
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $855,000
Bridgewater Campaign Contributions:256
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $239,400
1. John McCain (R) $69,050
2. Barack Obama (D) $13,700
3.
David John Cappiello
(R) $4,600
4. Rudolph Giuliani (R) $3,300
5. Mitt Romney (R) $2,300
5. Paul Hodes (D) $2,300
7. Christopher Shays (R) $2,000
8. Patrick Murphy $200
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $8,750
1. Christopher Shays (D) $2,250
2. Ned Lamont (D) $1,250
3. Paul Hodes (D) $1,000
4. Jon Tester (D) $750
5. Diane Goss Farrell (D) $250
5. James Webb (D) $250
256 Source: Center for Responsive Politics. Campaign
contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do not include
the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $25,500
1. George W Bush (R) $250
1. Wesley Clark (D) $250
2002
N/A
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $1,000
1. Stephanie Hunter Sanchez (D) $1,000
1998-1999
N/A
Appendix 185
Bridgewater Lobbying Expenses:257
2008
TOTAL: $135,000
Rich Feuer Group $135,000
2007
TOTAL: $220,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc. $60,000
Rich Feuer Group $160,000
2006
TOTAL: $440,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc. $340,000
Rich Feuer Group $100,000
2005
TOTAL: $60,000
Rich Feuer Group $60,000
1998-2004
N/A
Bridgewater Covered Official Lobbyists:
N/A
257 Source: Center for Responsive Politics. Lobbying amounts accessed January 2009 and may not include
4th Quarter amounts.
Appendix
186
Hedge Funds: DE Shaw Group
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $3,100,255
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $680,000
DE Shaw Campaign Contributions:258
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $841,541
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $18,650
2. Barack Obama (D) $13,320
3. Max Baucus (D) $3,250
4. Jeff Merkley (D) $2,700
5. Darcy Burner (D) $2,300
5. Kay Hagan (D) $2,300
5. Chellie Pingree (D) $2,300
5. Jerry McNerney (D) $2,300
5. Jeanne Shaheen (D) $2,300
5. Andrew Rice (D) $2,300
5. Jim Himes (D) $2,300
5. Mary Landrieu (D) $2,300
13. Bob Inglis (R) $2,000
13. Susan Collins (R) $2,000
14. Mitch McConnell (R) $2,000
15. Ron Klein (D) $1,500
16. Ron Paul (R) $1,100
17. Heather Wilson (R) $1,000
17. Steny Hoyer (D) $1,000
17. Roger Wicker (R) $1,000
17. James Risch (R) $1,000
17. Micahel Johanns (R) $1,000
258 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
17. Norm Coleman (R) $1,000
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $485,200
1. Bob Casey (D) $4,100
2. Maria Cantwell (D) $4,000
3. Robert Menendez (D) $3,600
4. Healther Wilson (R) $3,000
5. Tim Mahoney (D) $2,100
5. Ben Nelson (D) $2,100
5. Evan Bayh (D) $2,100
8. Jo Bonner (R) $2,000
8. Chet Edwards (D) $2,000
8. Joe Lieberman (I) $2,000
8. Mike Ferguson (R) $2,000
8. Clay Shaw (R) $2,000
8. Mark Pryor (D) $2,000
8. Baron Hill (D) $2,000
8. Darcy Burner (D) $2,000
8. Patricia Madrid (D) $2,000
17. Edwin Perlmutter (D) $1,000
17. Olympia Snowe (R) $1,000
17. Max Baucus (D) $1,000
17. Nancy Johnson (R) $1,000
Appendix 187
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $256,250
1. John Kerry (D) $6,250
2. Blanche Lincoln (D) $4,000
2. Patty Murray (D) $4,000
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $2,000
5. Erskine Bowles (D) $1,000
5. Joseph Hoeffel (D) $1,000
5. Charles Rangel (D) $1,000
8. Joe Lieberman (D) $500
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $769,296
1. Erskine Bowles (D) $1,000
1. Jeanne Shaheen $1,000
2000
TOTAL: $503,968
1. Richard Gephardt (D) $1,000
2. John McCain (R) $750
1998
TOTAL: $244,000
No contributions to individual candidates
Appendix
188
DE Shaw Lobbying Expenses:259
2008
TOTAL: $20,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $20,000
2007
N/A
2006
TOTAL: $70,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $30,000
Navigant Consulting $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $110,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $30,000
Navigant Consulting $80,000
2004
TOTAL: $80,000
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti
Inc $20,000
Navigant Consulting $60,000
2003
TOTAL: $20,000
Navigant Consulting $20,000
2002
N/A
259 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
2001
TOTAL: $20,000
Commonwealth Group $20,000
2000
TOTAL: $160,000
DE Shaw & Co $120,000
Commonwealth Group $40,000
1999
TOTAL: $80,000
DE Shaw & Co $40,000
Commonwealth Group $40,000
1998
TOTAL: $120,000
DE Shaw & Co $80,000
Commonwealth Group $40,000
Appendix 189
DE Shaw Covered Official Lobbyists:260
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Position Year(s)
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc
Kelly Bingel Chief of Staff, Sen. Blanche Lincoln 2005-2006
Elise Finley Pickering
Chief of Staff, Rep. Shaddegg; Exec Director,
RPC 2006
Dean Rosen
Health Policy Director, Senate Majority
Leader 2005-2006
David Thomas Chief of Staff, Rep. Zoe Lofgren 2006
C. Stewart Verdery Jr Asst Sec for Homeland Security 2005
Alex Vogel Chief Council, Senate Majority Leader 2005
260 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 200a
-
Woof, 12th Post;
190
Hedge Funds: Farallon Capital Management
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $1,058,953
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $1,005,000
Farallon Campaign Contributions:261
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $372,863
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $94,600
2. Barack Obama (D) $15,550
3. David Obey (D) $13,800
3. Chris Dodd (D) $13,800
4. Rahm Emanuel (D) $10,200
5. John McCain (R) $8,900
6. Howard Berman (D) $8,600
7. John Thune (R) $7,100
8. Tim Johnson (D) $4,600
8. Gary Trauner (D) $4,600
9. Mark Warner (D) $3,300
10. Donna Edwards (D) $2,000
11. Charles Rangel (D) $1,000
12. Allyson Schwartz (D) $500
13. Mitt Romney (R) $250
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $328,890
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $33,190
2. Kent Conrad (D) $8,400
261 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
3. Rahm Emanuel (D) $8,000
4. Evan Bayh (D) $6,300
5. John Thune (R) $4,400
6. Judy Aydelott (D) $4,200
6. John Hall (D) $4,200
8. Joe Sestak (D) $2,100
8. Ken Lucas (D) $2,100
8. Chris Carney (D) $2,100
8. Michael Arcuri (D) $2,100
8. Edwin Perlmutter (D) $2,100
8. Charles Brown (D) $2,100
8. Chris Murphy (D) $2,100
15. Dianne Feinstein (D) $1,000
15. Howard Berman (D) $1,000
16. Patrick Murphy (D) $500
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $233,950
1. John Kerry (D) $14,000
2. Tom Daschle (D) $9,250
3. Russell Feingold (D) $4,000
3. Chris John (D) $4,000
3. Tony Knowles (D) $4,000
3. Brad Carson (D) $4,000
7. Lisa Quigley (D) $2,500
8. Erskine Bowles (D) $2,000
8. Howard Dean (D) $2,000
Appendix 191
8. Ken Salazar (D) $2,000
8. Inez Tenenbaum (D) $2,000
8. Joe Lieberman (D) $2,000
8. Harold Ford, Jr (D) $2,000
8. Betty Castor (D) $2,000
15. Rob Bishop (R) $1,200
16. Robert Bennett (R) $1,000
17. Jamie Metzl (D) $500
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $97,250
1. John Kerry (D) $17,000
2. Tom Daschle (D) $7,500
3. John P Murtha (D) $4,000
4. Howard Berman (D) $2,500
5. Robert Bennett (R) $1,000
5. Rahm Emanuel (D) $1,000
5. Howard Berman (D) $1,000
5. John Thune (R) $1,000
9.
Steven Peter Andreasen
(D) $750
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $18,500
1. Norm Dicks (D) $9,000
2. Bill Bradley (D) $5,000
3. John McCain (R) $1,000
3. Ed Bernstein (D) $1,000
3. Nancy Pelosi (D) $1,000
1998 All Recipients
TOTAL: $7,500
1. John McCain (R) $1,000
1. Matt Fong (R) $1,000
3. Dick Lane (D) $750
4. Matt Fong (R) $250
Appendix
192
Farallon Lobbying Expenses:262
2004-2008
N/A
2003
TOTAL: $310,000
Timmons & Co. $310,000
2002
TOTAL: $335,000
Timmons & Co. $335,000
2001
TOTAL: $360,000
Fleischman & Walsh $40,000
Timmons & Co. $320,000
1998-2000
N/A
262 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Appendix 193
Farallon Covered Official Lobbyists:263
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Position Year(s)
Fleischman & Walsh
Louis Dupart
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Business Rights & Competition
2001,
2003-2005
Timmons & Co.
Richard Tarplin Asst Secretary for Legislation, Dept of HHS 2001-2004
263 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
194
Hedge Funds: Och-Ziff Capital Management
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $338,552
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $200,000
Och-Ziff Campaign Contributions:264
2008 All Recipients
TOTAL: $106,300
1. Mark Pryor (D) $11,500
2. Barack Obama (D) $7,900
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $6,800
4. John Thune (R) $4,600
5. Mitt Romney (R) $2,300
5. Eric Cantor (R) $2,300
7. Rahm Emanuel (D) $1,000
7. Norm Coleman (R) $1,000
7. Joe Biden (D) $1,000
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $82,650
1.
Sheldon Whitehouse
(D) $3,000
2. Olympia Snowe (R) $2,000
2. James Talent (R) $2,000
2. George Allen (R) $2,000
5. Mitch McConnell (R) $1,000
5. Eric Cantor (R) $1,000
5. Rahm Emanuel (D) $1,000
5. Robert Menendez (D) $1,000
264 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
5. Jon Kyl (R) $1,000
5. Bill Nelson (D) $1,000
11. Chris Shays (R) $250
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $95,002
1. John Kerry (D) $14,802
2. Tom Daschle (D) $3,000
2. Charles Schumer (D) $3,000
4. Evan Bayh (D) $2,000
4. Steny Hoyer (D) $2,000
4. Charles Rangel (D) $2,000
4. Rahm Emanuel (D) $2,000
4. Barack Obama (D) $2,000
4. Joe Lieberman (D) $2,000
10. Patty Murray (D) $1,000
10. Barbara Boxer (D) $1,000
10. James DeMint (R) $1,000
10. John McCain (R) $1,000
10. Jamie Metzl (D) $1,000
10. Peter Deutsch (D) $1,000
10. Daniel Inouye (D) $1,000
10. Denise Majette (D) $1,000
Appendix 195
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $26,600
1. Charles Schumer (D) $3,000
2. Denise Majette (D) $2,000
3. Tom Harkin (D) $1,000
3. Arlen Specter (R) $1,000
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $26,000
1. Charles Schumer (D) $8,000
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $2,000
3. Conrad Burns (R) $1,000
1998 All Recipients
TOTAL: $2,000
1. Charles Schumer (D) $1,000
1. Russell Feingold $1,000
Appendix
196
Och-Ziff Lobbying Expenses:265
2007-2008
N/A
2006
TOTAL: $40,000
Navigant Consulting $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $80,000
Navigant Consulting $80,000
2004
TOTAL: $60,000
Navigant Consulting $60,000
2003
TOTAL: $20,000
Navigant Consulting $20,000
1998-2002
N/A
Och-Ziff Covered Official Lobbyists:
N/A
265 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Appendix 197
Hedge Funds: Renaissance Technologies
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $1,560,895
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $740,000
Renaissance Campaign Contributions:266
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $721,250
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $59,600
2. Barack Obama (D) $39,250
3. Chris Dodd (D) $16,450
4. Timothy Bishop (D) $12,000
5. Tom McClintock (R) $6,900
6. Jeff Merkley (D) $6,100
7. John McCain (R) $5,100
8. Rudy Giuliani (R) $4,850
9. Nancy Pelosi (D) $4,600
9. Charles Rangel (D) $4,600
9. Sean Parnell (R) $4,600
9. Steve Pearce (R) $4,600
9. Steve Israel (D) $4,600
9. Gary Ackerman (D) $4,600
15. Scott Kleeb (D) $2,300
15. Jeanne Shaheen (D) $2,300
15. Gabrielle Giffords (D) $2,300
15. Harry Mitchell (D) $2,300
15. Bob Lord (D) $2,300
15. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) $2,300
266 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
15. Dina Titus (D) $2,300
15. Bart Gordon (D) $2,300
15. Dan Maffei (D) $2,300
15. Jerry McNerney (D) $2,300
15. Rahm Emanuel (D) $2,300
15. Steve Buehrer (R) $2,300
15. Andy Harris (R) $2,300
15. Paul Broun Jr (R) $2,300
15. Bob Schaffer (R) $2,300
15. Charlie Ross (R) $2,300
15. Woody Jenkins (R) $2,300
15.
Christopher L Hackett
(R) $2,300
15. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) $2,300
2006 All Recipients
TOTAL: $364,700
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $21,125
2. Timothy Bishop (D) $4,200
2. Chris Dodd (D) $4,200
2. Michael McGavick (R) $4,200
2. Ben Cardin (D) $4,200
6. Steve Israel (D) $4,100
7. John Yarmuth (D) $2,100
7. Michael Steele (R) $2,100
7. John Gard (R) $2,100
Appendix
198
7. Michael Bouchard (R) $2,100
7. Sharron Angle (R) $2,100
7. Adrian Smith (R) $2,100
7. Rick O'Donnell (R) $2,100
7. William Sali (R) $2,100
7. Chris Chocola (R) $2,100
16. John Sununu (R) $2,000
17. Francine Busby (D) $1,000
17. Claire McCaskill (D) $1,000
17. Debbie Stabenow (D) $1,000
20. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) $500
20. Scott Kleeb (D) $500
20. Tammy Duckworth (D) $500
2004 All Recipients
TOTAL: $239,950
1. John Kerry (D) $8,200
2. Timothy Bishop (D) $7,500
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $7,500
4. George Bush (R) $4,000
5. Betty Castor (D) $2,000
5. Joe Lieberman (D) $2,000
5. Michael Oxley (R) $2,000
5. Steve Israel (D) $2,000
9. Stephanie Herseth (D) $1,000
9. Patricia Lamarch (3) $1,000
11. Howard Dean (D) $550
12. Inez Tenenbaum (D) $500
12. Daniel Montiardo (D) $500
12. Allyson Schwartz (D) $500
12. Tom Daschle (D) $500
2002 All Recipients
TOTAL: $92,445
1. Charles Schumer (D) $15,000
2.
Vivian Viloria-Fisher
(D) $4,000
3. Steve Israel (D) $2,000
3. Denise Majette (D) $2,000
5. Hillary Clinton (D) $1,000
5. Frank Lautenberg (D) $1,000
7.
Jill Long Thompson
(D) $300
8.
Martha Fuller Clark
(D) $250
8. Carol Roberts (D) $250
8. Stephanie Herseth (D) $250
8. Jim Maloney (D) $250
8. Rick Larsen (D) $250
8. Rush Holt (D) $250
8. Jay Inslee (D) $250
2000 All Recipients
TOTAL: $49,550
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $14,700
2. John McCain (R) $1,000
2. Bill Bradley (D) $1,000
1998 All Recipients
TOTAL: $93,000
1. Charles Schumer (D) $4,000
Appendix 199
Renaissance Lobbying Expenditures:267
2008
TOTAL: >$10,000*
E-Copernicus > $10,000*
2005-2006
N/A
2004
TOTAL: $200,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $200,000
2003
TOTAL: $220,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $220,000
2002
TOTAL: $220,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $220,000
2001
TOTAL: $100,000
Liz Robbins Assoc. $100,000
1998-2000
N/A
Renaissance Official Covered Lobbyists:
N/A
267 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Appendix
200
Accounting Firms: Arthur Andersen
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $3,324,175
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $1,900,000
Arthur Andersen
Campaign Contributions:268
2006-2008
N/A
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $86,586
1. George W Bush (R) $12,950
2. John Edwards (D) $7,000
3. John Kerry (D) $6,750
4. George Allen (R) $1,000
4. Orrin G Hatch (R) $1,000
4. Paul Kanjorski (D) $1,000
4. Jim Moran (D) $1,000
4. David Vitter (R) $1,000
9. Bob Graham (D) $500
9. Nancy Johnson (R) $500
9. Pete Sessions (R) $500
12. Barack Obama (D) $300
13. Mike Ferguson (R) $250
13. Barbara Mikulski (D) $250
13.
George Nethercutt Jr
(R) $250
13. Earl Pomeroy (D) $250
13. David Scott (D) $250
268 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009.
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $705,263
1. Rahm Emanuel (D) $11,250
2. Billy Tauzin (R) $10,000
3. Tom Harkin (D) $9,000
4. Wayne Allard (R) $7,500
5. Ron Wyden (D) $7,050
6. Mike Ferguson (R) $6,950
7. Max Baucus (D) $6,500
7. Walter B Jones Jr (R) $6,500
9. Ken Bentsen (D) $6,250
10. Jim McCrery (R) $6,000
10.
Charles "Chip"
Pickering Jr (R) $6,000
12. Christopher Cox (R) $5,500
13. Dick Armey (R) $5,335
14. John Shadegg (R) $5,250
15. Martin Frost (D) $5,000
15. Dennis Hastert (R) $5,000
15. Jim Moran (D) $5,000
15. Harry Reid (D) $5,000
19. Dennis Moore (D) $4,750
20. Vito Fosella (R) $4,500
Appendix 201
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,564,270
1. George W Bush (R) $150,900
2. Rick A Lazio (R) $44,550
3. Charles Schumer (D) $34,334
4. Bill Bradley (D) $30,600
5. Jon Kyl (R) $20,101
6. Al Gore (D) $19,350
7. Spencer Abraham (R) $17,650
8. John Ensign (R) $17,000
9. John McCain (R) $14,750
10. John Ashcroft (R) $11,500
11. Chris Dodd (D) $10,500
12. Mel Carnahan (D) $9,000
12. Billy Tauzin (R) $9,000
14. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $8,500
15. Rudy Giuliani (R) $8,250
16. Rod Grams (R) $8,199
17. Lamar Alexander (R) $8,000
17. Cal Dooley (D) $8,000
19. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $7,565
20. George Allen (R) $7,500
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $968,056
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $27,000
2. Evan Bayh (D) $13,750
3. Matt Fong (R) $13,536
4. Paul Coverdell (R) $10,700
5. Ron Wyden (D) $10,650
6.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $9,750
7. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $9,350
8. John Ensign (R) $8,350
9.
George Voinovich
(R) $8,250
10. Sherrod Brown (D) $8,187
11. Lauch Faircloth (R) $8,000
11. Billy Tauzin (R) $8,000
13. Robert F Bennett (R) $7,805
14. Joe Barton (R) $7,500
15. Fritz Holings (D) $7,460
16.
Leslie Ann Touma
(R) $7,250
17. Rick White (R) $7,200
18. Barbara Mikulski (D) $7,000
19. Jim Bunning (R) $6,874
20.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $6,250
Appendix
202
Arthur Andersen Lobbying
Expenditures:269
1999-2008
N/A
1998
TOTAL: $1,900,000
Arthur Andersen & Co $1,600,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
OB-C Group $140,000
269 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
Appendix 203
Arthur Andersen Covered Official Lobbyists:270
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year (s)
Mayer, Brown et al
Rothfeld, Charles A
House Sub Comm on Select US Role/Iranian
Arms Transfers to Croatia & Bosnia 1998
OB-C Group
Mellody, Charles J Aide, House Ways & Means Comm. 1998
270 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
204
Accounting Firms: Deloitte & Touche
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $12,120,340
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $19,606,455
Deloitte Campaign Contributions:271
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,420,112
1. Barack Obama (D) $177,598
2. John McCain (R) $90,850
3. Hillary Clinton (D) $68,300
4. Mitt Romney (R) $58,550
5. Chris Dodd (D) $51,250
6. Norm Coleman (R) $26,750
7. Rudy Giuliani (R) $24,800
8. Christopher Shays (R) $21,800
9. Saxby Chambliss (R) $12,300
10. Max Baucus (D) $11,000
10. Barney Frank (D) $11,000
10. Michael McCaul (R) $11,000
13. Mike Conaway (R) $10,500
13. Vito Fossella (R) $10,500
15. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
15. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
15. John Boehner (R) $10,000
15. Allen Boyd (D) $10,000
15. John Campbell (R) $10,000
15. Chris Cannon (R) $10,000
271 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,180,294
1. Mark Kennedy (R) $42,100
2. Spencer Bachus (R) $32,500
3. Chris Dodd (D) $29,000
4.
Christopher Shays
(R) $22,900
5. Richard Baker (R) $20,921
6. Tom Price (R) $20,000
7. Sherrod Brown (D) $19,160
8. Vito Fossella (R) $18,400
9. Henry Bonilla (R) $18,000
10. Hillary Clinton (D) $17,970
11. Rick Santorum (R) $16,950
12. John Campbell (R) $16,500
13. Jon Kyl (R) $14,600
14. George Allen (R) $14,000
15. Joe Lieberman ( I) $13,500
16. Daniel K Akaka (D) $13,000
17. Deborah Pryce (R) $12,498
18. Eric Cantor (R) $12,000
18. David Dreier (R) $12,000
18. Ben Nelson (D) $12,000
Appendix 205
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,233,483
1. George W Bush (R) $290,450
2. John Kerry (D) $73,152
3. Charles Schumer (D) $39,999
4. Richard C Shelby (R) $28,500
5. Chris Dodd (D) $27,750
6. Vito Fossella (R) $23,300
7. Mark Kennedy (R) $19,700
8. John Thune (R) $15,450
9.
Robert "Bob"
Conaway (D) $15,000
10. James W DeMint (R) $13,850
11. Daniel K Inouye (D) $13,500
12. Eric Cantor (R) $13,000
13. Patty Murray (D) $12,050
14. Tom Latham (R) $12,000
15. Joseph Crowley (D) $11,000
15. David Vitter (R) $11,000
17. Richard Burr (R) $10,798
18. Tom Davis (R) $10,500
19. Erskine Bowles (D) $10,250
20. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,873,011
1. Mike Enzi (R) $44,249
2. Vito Fossella (R) $16,500
3. Connie Morella (R) $15,172
4. Mark Kennedy (R) $14,000
5. Eric Cantor (R) $12,999
6. Norm Coleman (R) $12,884
7. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,750
8. Billy Tauzin (R) $12,000
9. John Thune (R) $11,800
10. Felix Grucci Jr (R) $11,200
11. James Talent (R) $11,000
12. Anne Northup (R) $10,500
13. Max Baucus (D) $10,000
13. Thad Cochran (R) $10,000
13. Susan Collins (R) $10,000
13. J D Hayworth (R) $10,000
13. Tim Hutchinson (R) $10,000
13. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
13.
Charles “Chip”
Pickering Jr (R) $10,000
20. Sue Kelly (R) $9,999
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,982,826
1. George W Bush (R) $83,850
2. Charles Schumer (D) $48,500
3. Rick A Lazio (R) $48,250
4. Hillary Clinton (D) $40,750
5. Rudy Giuliani (R) $38,700
6. Spencer Abraham (R) $30,000
7. Bill Bradley (D) $25,000
8. John McCain (R) $18,200
9. Charles Rangel (D) $14,750
10. Chris Dodd (D) $14,500
11. Mike DeWine (R) $13,650
12. Vito Fossella (R) $12,750
13. Edolphus Towns (D) $11,000
14. E Clay Shaw, Jr (R) $10,800
15. James E Rogan (R) $10,724
16. Jim Maloney (D) $10,500
16. Brad Sherman (D) $10,500
18. John Ashcroft (R) $10,450
19. James M Jeffords (R) $10,000
19. Steven Kuykendall (R) $10,000
Appendix
206
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,430,614
1. Chris Dodd (D) $66,145
2. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $45,000
3. Charles Schumer (D) $28,450
4. Ron Wyden (D) $22,850
5. Vito Fossella (R) $20,050
6. Matt Fong (R) $13,050
7. Lauch Faircloth (R) $12,875
8.
George Voinovich
(R) $12,000
9. Chuck Grassley (R) $11,500
10. Anna Eshoo (D) $10,000
10. Rick White (R) $10,000
12. Don Nickles (R) $9,500
13.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $9,000
13. Collin C Peterson (D) $9,000
13. Heather Wilson (R) $9,000
16.
Carol Moseley Braun
(D) $8,800
17. Robert F Bennett (R) $8,000
17.
Ben Nighthorse
Campbell (R) $8,000
17. Trent Lott (R) $8,000
20. Paul Coverdell (R) $7,500
Appendix 207
Deloitte Lobbing Expenditures:272
2008
TOTAL: $1,140,000
Deloitte & Touche $650,000
Clark & Assoc $50,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al > $10,000*
BGR Holding $120,000
2007
TOTAL: $2,220,000
Deloitte & Touche $440,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte LLP $1,060,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
BGR Holding $120,000
Tew Cardenas $200,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,960,000
Deloitte & Touche $360,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte LLP $840,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
MWW Group > $10,000*
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
272 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Tew Cardenas LLP $200,000
2005
TOTAL: $1,440,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte Tax $860,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
Tew Cardenas LLP $120,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,520,000
Deloitte Tax $20,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers $120,000
Holland & Knight $100,000
Tew Cardenas LLP $60,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Deloitte Tax $840,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Public Strategies $40,000
2003
TOTAL: $1,125,000
Deloitte Tax $660,000
Holland & Knight $145,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
Clark & Weinstock $60,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $240,000
Appendix
208
2002
TOTAL: $1,677,455
Deloitte & Touche $1,107,455
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Velasquez Group $240,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $160,000
2001
TOTAL: $2,625,000
Deloitte & Touche $300,000
Deloitte & Touche $160,000
Dewey Ballantine LLP $1,600,000
Ickes & Enright Group $25,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $320,000
Velasquez Group $220,000
2000
TOTAL: $4,609,000
Deloitte & Touche $2,524,000
Deloitte & Touche $240,000
Dewey Ballantne LLP $1,180,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $60,000
Ickes & Enright Group $65,000
Johnson, Madigan et al $280,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
Velasquez Group $120,000
1999
TOTAL: $870,000
Deloitte & Touche $440,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $130,000
Ickes & Enright Group $20,000
Deloitte LLP $240,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
1998
TOTAL: $420,000
Deloitte & Touche $360,000
Deloitte & Touche > $10,000*
Latham & Watkins $20,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix 209
Deloitte Covered Official Lobbyists:273
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Clark & Assoc.
Sam Geduldig Dir of Coalitions, House Fin. Serv. Comm 2008
Sr. Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Clark & Weinstock
Ed Kutler Asst, Office of the Speaker, House of Reps 2006-2008
Asst, House Republic Whip
Vin Weber Member of Congress (MN) 2006-2008
Jon Schwantes Gen. Counsel, Sen. Judiciary Comm. 2007-2008
Margaret McGlinch Chief of Staff, Rep. Tim Walz 2007-2008
Leg. Director, Rep. Richard Neal
Leg. Counsel, Sen. Harry Reid
Leg. Aide, Sen. Daniel Moynihan
Sandra Stuart Asst Sec for Leg Affairs, Dept. of Defense 2006-2008
Chief of Staff, Rep. Vic Fazio
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rules Comm. 2002
Kent Bonham Policy Director, Sen. Chuck Hagel 2002
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary to the Vice President 2003
Timothy Morrison Assoc. Dir, Presidential Personnel 2003
Clark Lytle & Geduldig
Sam Geduldig Dir. Of Coalitions, House Fin. Serv Comm 2007
Sr Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Janet Hale Undersecretary for Mgt, DHS 2007
William Ezzell Partner 2007
Cindy Stevens Director 2007
Charles Heeter Principal 2007
273 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix
210
Holland & Knight
Leigh A. Bradley Gen Counsel, Dept of Veterans Affairs 2003
Tillie Fowler Former U.S. Representative 2003
Chris DeLacy Leg. Aide, Sen. John Warner 2003
David Gilliland Chief of Staff, Rep. Tillie Fowelr 2003
Mayer, Brown et al
Jeffrey Lewis Legislative Asst, Sen Breaux 2001-2000
Appendix 211
Accounting Firms: Ernst & Young
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $12,482,407
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $25,108,536
Ernst & Young
Campaign Contributions:274
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,170,392
1. Rudy Giuliani (R) $292,350
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $165,692
3. Barack Obama (D) $150,207
4. John McCain (R) $105,606
5. Chris Dodd (D) $70,750
6. Mitt Romney (R) $37,800
7. John Cornyn (R) $19,550
8. Max Baucus (D) $18,850
9. John Boehner (R) $13,500
9. Norm Coleman (R) $13,500
11. Susan M Collins (R) $13,300
12. Charles B Rangel (D) $13,287
13. Eric Cantor (R) $12,100
14. Chris Van Hollen (D) $11,000
15. Barney Frank (D) $10,900
16. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
16. Elizabeth Dole (R) $10,000
16. Steny H Hoyer (D) $10,000
16. Jay Rockefeller (D) $10,000
274 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
16. David Scott (D) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,592,550
1. Hillary Clinton (D) $81,500
2. Rudy Giuliani (R) $46,200
3. Ben Cardin (D) $23,003
4. Richard Baker (R) $20,250
5. Mike DeWine (R) $20,100
6. John Boehner (R) $19,300
7. Rick Santorum (R) $16,700
8. George Allen (R) $15,650
9. Mark Kennedy (R) $15,250
10. Deborah Pryce (R) $14,650
11. Joe Lieberman (I) $14,200
12. Jon Kyl (R) $13,500
13. Tom DeLay (R) $12,100
14. James M Talent (R) $11,999
15. Barney Frank (D) $11,750
16. Jim McCrery (R) $11,500
17. Eric Cantor (R) $11,200
18. John Campbell (R) $11,000
18. Anne Northrup (R) $11,000
20.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $10,500
Appendix
212
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,140,864
1. George W. Bush (R) $305,140
2. John Kerry (D) $101,425
3.
George Voinovich
(R) $43,600
4. Charles Schumer (D) $38,250
5. Richard C Shelby (R) $33,700
6. Richard Burr (R) $24,061
7. Pete Sessions (R) $20,097
8. Michael G. Oxley (R) $19,800
9. Chris John (D) $17,978
10. Hillary Clinton (D) $16,500
11. Mel Martinez (R) $16,261
12. John Thune (R) $15,000
13. Tom Daschle (D) $14,000
14. Arlen Specter (R) $13,750
15.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $13,000
15. Lisa Murkowski (R) $13,000
17. Steny H Hoyer (D) $11,000
18. Evan Bayh (D) $10,500
18. James DeMint (R) $10,500
18. John Tanner (D) $10,500
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,012,978
1. Charles Schumer (D) $63,550
2. John Cornyn (R) $16,700
3. Max Baucus (D) $16,261
4. Jay Rockefeller (D) $12,550
5. Saxby Chambliss (R) $12,500
5. Norm Coleman (R) $12,500
7. Mary L Landrieu (D) $12,250
8. James M Talent (R) $12,000
9. John Thune (R) $11,300
10. Connie Morella (R) $10,999
11. Anna Eshoo (D) $10,500
11. Rob Portman (R) $10,500
13. Dennis Moore (D) $10,200
14. Susan M Collins (R) $10,169
15. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
15. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,000
15. Michael G Oxley (R) $10,000
18. Jennifer Dunn (R) $9,916
19. E Clay Shaw, Jr (R) $9,750
20. Robert Torricelli (D) $9,250
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,845,336
1. George W. Bush (R) $181,949
2. Al Gore (D) $136,675
3. Bill Bradley (D) $67,750
4. Rick A Lazio (R) $30,850
5. Hillary Clinton (D) $30,450
6. Dianne Feinstein (D) $17,150
7. Mike DeWine (R) $15,750
8. John McCain (R) $14,525
9. George Allen (R) $14,450
10. Sherrod Brown (D) $14,000
10. Robert Torricelli (D) $14,000
12. John Ashcroft (R) $13,999
13. Spencer Abraham (R) $13,000
14. Bill Frist (R) $12,500
15. Charles S. Robb (D) $12,450
16. Chris Dodd (D) $12,250
17. Richard Gephardt (D) $12,000
17. Orrin G Hatch (R) $12,000
19. John R Kasich (R) $11,500
Appendix 213
20. E Clay Shaw, Jr. (R) $11,250
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,720,281
1. Charles Schumer (D) $26,700
2. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $13,750
3. Newt Gingrich (R) $12,000
4.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $11,750
4. John Linder (R) $11,750
6.
George Voinovich
(R) $11,450
6. Rick White (R) $11,450
8. Barbara Boxer (D) $11,000
9. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $10,500
10. John Breaux (D) $10,249
11. Evan Bayh (D) $10,000
11. Thomas Bliley Jr (R) $10,000
11. Paul Coverdell (R) $10,000
11. Tom DeLay (R) $10,000
11. Jennifer Dunn (R) $10,000
11. John Ensign (R) $10,000
11. Martin Frost (D) $10,000
11. Chuck Grassley (R) $10,000
11. Fritz Hollings (D) $10,000
20. Anna Eshoo (D) $9,999
Appendix
214
Ernst & Young
Lobbying Expenditures:275
2008
TOTAL: $3,173,056
Ernst & Young $2,103,056
RR&G $240,000
Elmendrof Strategies $200,000
Glover Park Group $160,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Mayer, Brown et al >$10,000*
Jolly/Rissler $210,000
2007
TOTAL: $3,560,480
Ernst & Young $2,440,480
RR&G $240,000
Glover Park Group $200,000
Elmendorf Strategies $200,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $200,000
2006
TOTAL: $1,741,500
Ernst & Young $861,500
RR&G $160,000
275 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
Glover Park Group $140,000
Alpine Group $140,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $120,000
2005
TOTAL: $2,549,640
Ernst & Young $1,749,640
Alpine Group $200,000
Glover Park Group $160,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Bryan Cave Strategies $40,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $20,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $140,000
2004
TOTAL: $2,650,000
Ernst & Young $1,790,000
Alpine Group $220,000
Harbour Group $140,000
Clark & Weinstock $140,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Assoc $60,000
Public Strategies $40,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $140,000
Appendix 215
2003
TOTAL: $2,880,000
Ernst & Young $1,980,000
Public Strategies $180,000
Clark & Weinstock $180,000
Alpine Group $160,000
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Assoc $80,000
Jolly/Rissler Inc $80,000
Harbour Group $60,000
Barrett, Michael F. Jr $40,000
2002
TOTAL: $2,573,860
Ernst & Young $2,343,860
American Continental
Group $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $1,600,000
Ernst & Young $1,320,000
American Continental
Group $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
2000
TOTAL: $1,340,000
Ernst & Young $1,200,000
American Continental
Group $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
* Not included in totals
1999
TOTAL: $1,400,000
Ernst & Young $1,200,000
Fleishman-Hillard $100,000
Mayer, Brown et al $100,000
1998
TOTAL: $1,640,000
Ernst & Young $1,420,000
Fleishman-Hillard $180,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Appendix
216
Ernst & Young Covered Official Lobbyists:276
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Mayer, Brown, & Platt
Jeffery Lewis Legislative Assitant to Senator Breaux 1999-2001
Clark and Weinstock
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rules Committee 2002
Kent Bonham Policy Director for Sen. Chuck Hagel 2002-2003
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary to the Vice President 2002-2003
Jonathan Schwantes
General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
2007
Ed Kutler
Assistant Office of the Speaker House of
Reps 2008
Assistant, House Republic Whip
Sandra Stuart Asst. Sec. for Leg Affairs, DoD 2008
Chief of Staff, Rep. Vic Fazio
Vin Weber Member of Congress (MN) 2008
Margaret McGlinch Chief of Staff, Rep. Tim Walz, 2008
Leg. Director, Rep. Richard Neal
Legislative Aide, Sen Daniel Moynihan
Leg. Counsel, Sen Harry Reid
Jolly/Rissler Inc.
Thomas R. Jolly Chairman 2003-2004
Glover Park Group
Joyce Brayboy Chief of Staff, Rep. Mel Watt 2007
Joel Johnson Chief of Staff, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, 2008
Exec. Director, House Democratic Study
Group
Assistant Secretary of the Minority US
Senate
Staff Director, Democratic Leadership
Committee, Special Assistant to the Presi-
276 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 217
dent for Policy, Communications
Susan Brophy Chief of Staff, Rep. Byron Dorgan 2008
Chief of Staff Senator Tim Wirth
Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative
Affairs
Clark, Lytle, & Geduldig
Sam Geduldig
Dir of Coalitions, House Fin Serv Com, Sr
Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt
-
Woof, 13th Post;
2008
Appendix
218
Accounting Firms: KPMG LLP
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $8,486,392
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $19,103,000
KPMG Campaign Contributions:277
2008 Top Recipients278
TOTAL: $1,746,293
1. Barack Obama (D) $67,500
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $40,900
3. John McCain (R) $22,490
4. Chris Dodd (D) $21,000
5. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,300
6. Steve Chabot (R) $10,300
7. Jim Ryun (R) $10,300
8.
Michele Marie
Bachmann (R) $10,000
9. Melissa Bean (D) $10,000
9. Allen Boyd (D) $10,000
9. John Campbell (R) $10,000
9. Michael Castle (R) $10,000
9. James Clyburn (D) $10,000
9. Norm Coleman (R) $10,000
9. Susan Collins (R) $10,000
9. Mike Conaway (R) $10,000
9. John Cornyn (R) $10,000
9. Joseph Crowley (D) $10,000
9. Artur Davis (D) $10,000
277 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
278 Based on highest 1,000 contributions and
PAC money.
9. Lincoln Davis (D) $10,000
9. Barney Frank (D) $10,000
9. Jim Gerlach (R) $10,000
9. Jeb Hensarling (R) $10,000
9. Michael Johanns (R) $10,000
9. Paul Kanjorski (D) $10,000
9. Ron Kind (D) $10,000
9. Ron Klein (D) $10,000
9. Tim Mahoney (D) $10,000
9. Carolyn Maloney (D) $10,000
9. Jim Marshall (D) $10,000
9. Jim Matheson (D) $10,000
9. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
9. Chris Murphy (D) $10,000
9. Steve Pearce (R) $10,000
9. Edwin Perlmutter (D) $10,000
9. Charles Rangel (D) $10,000
9. Harry Reid (D) $10,000
9. Peter Roskam (R) $10,000
9. Ed Royce (R) $10,000
9. Paul Ryan (R) $10,000
9. David Scott (D) $10,000
9.
Christopher Shays
(R) $10,000
9. Lamar Smith (R) $10,000
9. John Tanner (D) $10,000
9. Mike Thompson (D) $10,000
Appendix 219
9. Melvin Watt (D) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients279
TOTAL: $1,320,683
1. Heather Wilson (R) $15,000
2. Max Baucus (D) $13,233
3. Chris Dodd (D) $13,000
3. James Talent (R) $13,000
5. Rick Santorum (R) $11,200
6. Patrick McHenry (R) $10,704
7. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
7. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
7. Conrad Burns (R) $10,000
7. Eric Cantor (R) $10,000
7. Hillary Clinton (D) $10,000
7. Bob Corker (R) $10,000
7.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $10,000
7. Barney Frank (D) $10,000
7. Jeb Hensarling (R) $10,000
7. Jon Kyl (R) $10,000
7. Jim Matheson (D) $10,000
7. Raymond Meier (R) $10,000
7. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
7.
Marilyn Musgrave
(R) $10,000
7. Rick O'Donnell (R) $10,000
7. Rick Renzi (R) $10,000
7. Tom Reynolds (R) $10,000
7. David Scott (D) $10,000
7. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $10,000
7. Gordon Smith (R) $10,000
7. Patrick Tiberi (R) $10,000
279 Based on highest 1,000 contributions and
PAC money.
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,459,303
1. Charles Schumer (D) $32,000
2. Richard Shelby (R) $25,000
3. John Kerry (D) $22,750
4. Chris Dodd (D) $19,000
5. Peter Coors (R) $18,000
6. Mike Conaway (R) $16,000
7. James DeMint (R) $15,201
8. Richard Baker (R) $15,000
8. Jeb Hensarling (R) $15,000
10.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $12,000
10. George W Bush (R) $12,000
12. Gresham Barrett (R) $11,500
13. Mel Martinez (R) $11,000
14. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
14. Bob Beauprez (R) $10,000
14. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
14. Eric Cantor (R) $10,000
14.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $10,000
14. Vito Fossella (R) $10,000
14. Katherine Harris (R) $10,000
14. Bill Jones (R) $10,000
14. Sue Kelly (R) $10,000
14. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
14. Jim Ryun (R) $10,000
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,740,139
1. Saxby Chambliss (R) $16,050
2. Mike Ferguson (R) $14,500
3. Norm Coleman (R) $12,500
3. Felix J Grucci Jr (R) $12,500
Appendix
220
5. Jim McCrery (R) $11,750
6. Phil Gramm (R) $11,000
7. Connie Morella (R) $10,450
8. Lamar Alexander (R) $10,250
8.
Charles "Chip"
Pickering Jr (R) $10,250
10. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
10.
Shelley Moore Capito
(R) $10,000
10. Vito Fossella (R) $10,000
10. Robin Hayes (R) $10,000
10. Tim Hutchinson (R) $10,000
10. Chris John (D) $10,000
10. Sue Kelly (R) $10,000
10. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,000
10. Candice Miller (R) $10,000
10. Dennis Moore (D) $10,000
10. Michael Oxley (R) $10,000
10. Mike Rogers (R) $10,000
10. John Shadegg (R) $10,000
10. Rob Simmons (R) $10,000
10. John Sununu (R) $10,000
10. John Thune (R) $10,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,371,159
1. George W Bush (R) $89,567
2. Charles Schumer (D) $42,948
3. Spencer Abraham (R) $14,999
4. Rick Lazio (R) $14,550
5. Chris Dodd (D) $14,000
6. George Allen (R) $10,943
7. William Roth Jr (R) $10,500
8. John Ashcroft (R) $10,000
8. Slade Gorton (R) $10,000
8. Rod Grams (R) $10,000
11. Rick Santorum (R) $9,000
12. Rudy Giuliani (R) $8,999
13. Conrad Burns (R) $8,500
14. David Phelps (D) $8,000
15. John Ensign (R) $7,775
16. James Rogan (R) $7,725
17. Dick Armey (R) $7,500
18. Jane Harman (D) $7,400
19. Al Gore (D) $7,300
20. Heather Wilson (R) $7,225
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $848,815
1. Thomas Bliley Jr (R) $10,000
1. Billy Tauzin (R) $10,000
3. Barbara Mikulski (D) $8,219
4. Lauch Faircloth (R) $8,000
5. Ron Wyden (D) $7,795
6. Paul Coverdell (R) $7,500
7. Rick White (R) $6,225
8. Robert Bennett (R) $6,000
8. John Boehner (R) $6,000
8. Molly Bordonaro (R) $6,000
8. Heather Wilson (R) $6,000
12. Matt Fong (R) $5,750
13. Don Nickles (R) $5,500
14. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $5,300
15. Dick Armey (R) $5,000
15. Brian Bilbray (R) $5,000
15. Jim Bunning (R) $5,000
15. Christopher Cox (R) $5,000
15. Tom DeLay (R) $5,000
15. Peter Fitzgerald (R) $5,000
Appendix 221
15. Newt Gingrich (R) $5,000
15. Trent Lott (R) $5,000
15. Bill Redmond (R) $5,000
Appendix
222
KPMG Lobbying Expenses:280
2008
TOTAL: $2,985,000
KPMG LLP $2,525,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
Velasquez Group $200,000
Public Strategies $130,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $50,000
Mayer, Brown et al > $10,000*
2007
TOTAL: $2,590,000
KPMG LLP $2,130,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
Velasquez Group $180,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
2006
TOTAL: $2,190,000
KPMG LLP $1,650,000
KPMG LLP $40,000
Velasquez Group $180,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
280 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2005
TOTAL: $1,210,000
KPMG LLP $890,000
KPMG LLP $40,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Velasquez Group $40,000
2004
TOTAL: $1,838,000
KPMG LPP $1,368,000
KPMG LPP $60,000
KPMG LPP > $10,000*
Clark & Weinstock $200,000
Velasquez Group $140,000
Public Strategies $50,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
2003
TOTAL: $1,575,000
KPMG LLP $925,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
KPMG LLP $180,000
Clark & Weinstock $180,000
Velasquez Group $160,000
Public Strategies $90,000
McGovern & Smith $40,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
* Not included in totals
Appendix 223
2002
TOTAL: $1,850,000
KPMG LLP $1,430,000
KPMG LLP $40,000
KPMG LLP $60,000
KPMG LLP $10,000
Public Strategies $160,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
McGovern & Smith $20,000
Capitol Tax Partners $20,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $1,455,000
KPMG LLP $1,175,000
KPMG LLP > $10,000*
KPMG LLP $80,000
Public Strategies $120,000
Palmetto Group $80,000
2000
TOTAL: $1,580,000
KPMG LLP $1,340,000
KPMG LLP $80,000
Palmetto Group $100,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
1999
TOTAL: $1,190,000
KPMG LLP $850,000
Palmetto Group $280,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
* Not included in totals
Spectrum Group $20,000
1998
TOTAL: $640,000
KPMG LLP $600,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Spectrum Group > $10,000*
* Not included in totals
Appendix
224
KPMG Covered Official Lobbyists:281
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
Clark & Assoc.
Sam Geduldig Dir of Coalitions, House Fin. Serv Comm. 2007-2008
Sr Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Clark & Weinstock
Ed Kutler Asst, Office of Speaker, House of Reps 2007-2008
Asst, House Republican Whip
Johathan Schwantes Gen Counsel, Senate Judiciary Comm 2007-2008
Sandra Stuart Asst Sec for Legislative Affairs, DoD 2008
Chief of Staff, Rep. Vic Fazio
Vin Weber Member of Congress (MN) 2007-2008
Margaret McGlinch Chief of Staff, Rep. Tim Walz 2008
Legislative Dir, Rep. Richard Neal
Legislative Counsel, Sen. Harry Reid
Kent Bonham Policy Dir, Sen Chuck Hagel 2002-2003
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary, Vice President 2002-2003
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rulse Comm. 2002
Timothy Morrison Assoc Dir, Presidential Personnel 2002
Anne Urban Legislative Dir, Sen. Robert Kerrey 2002
Capital Tax Partners
William Fant Deputy Asst Sc for Leg Affairs, Treasury 2002-2003
Joseph Mikrut Tax Legislative Counsel, Treasury 2002-2003
Jonathan Talisman Asst Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy 2002-2003
Public Strategies, Inc
Wallace Henderson Counsel, Rep. Tauzin 2001-2002
Mayer, Brown & Platt
Jeffrey Lewis Legislative Asst, Sen. Breaux 1999-2000
281Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 225
Accounting Firms: Pricewaterhouse
Decade-long campaign contribution total (1998-2008): $10,800,772
Decade-long lobbying expenditure total (1998-2008): $44,291,084
Pricewaterhouse Campaign
Contributions:282
2008 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $2,652,971
1. Barack Obama (D) $205,318
2. Hillary Clinton (D) $190,200
3. John McCain (R) $166,970
4. Mitt Romney (R) $90,150
5. Chris Dodd (D) $64,800
6. Rudy Giuliani (R) $16,250
7. Susan M Collins (R) $16,100
8. Norm Coleman (R) $13,050
9. Elizabeth Dole (R) $12,000
10. Steny H Hoyer (D) $11,000
11. Dean F Andal (R) $10,500
11. Mike Conaway (R) $10,500
13. Keith S Fimian (R) $10,200
14. John Edwards (D) $10,100
15.
Michele Marie
Bachmann (R) $10,000
15. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
15. Max Baucus (D) $10,000
15. Melissa Bean (D) $10,000
15. Judy Biggert (R) $10,000
282 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Campaign contribution totals accessed February
2009. Individual recipient numbers do
not include the 4th Quarter of 2008.
15. John Boehner (R) $10,000
2006 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,388,604
1. Tom Davis (R) $71,208
2. Mark Kennedy (R) $35,600
3. Rick Santorum (R) $23,546
4. Richard Baker (R) $23,488
5. Tom Carper (D) $20,499
6. Spencer Bachus (R) $20,000
7. Joe Lieberman (I) $17,000
8. Deborah Pryce (R) $14,750
9. Mike Ferguson (R) $14,150
10. George Allen (R) $13,850
11. James M Talent (R) $13,000
12. Mike DeWine (R) $11,600
13.
Michael Fitzpatrick
(R) $11,000
13. Jon Kyl (R) $11,000
15. Tom DeLay (R) $10,500
16. Barney Frank (D) $10,250
16. Nancy L Johnson (R) $10,250
16. Tom Reynolds (R) $10,250
16.
Christopher Shays
(R) $10,250
20. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $10,204
Appendix
226
2004 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,882,353
1. George W. Bush (R) $513,750
2. John Kerry (D) $73,000
3. Richard C Shelby (R) $61,250
4. Michael G Oxley (R) $50,550
5. Charles Schumer (D) $27,476
6. Mike Conaway (R) $17,000
7. James W DeMint (R) $12,500
8. Arlen Specter (R) $12,350
9. Chuck Grassley (R) $12,000
9. Scott Paterno (R) $12,000
9. John Thune (R) $12,000
12. Johnny Isakson (R) $11,000
13. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,500
14. Spencer Bachus (R) $10,000
14. Richard Baker (R) $10,000
14. Roy Blunt (R) $10,000
14. Max Burns (R) $10,000
18. Rick Renzi (R) $10,000
19. Richard Burr (R) $9,750
20. Eric Cantor (R) $9,500
2002 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,357,480
1. Norm Coleman (R) $13,500
2. Roy Blunt (R) $11,000
3. Connie Morella (R) $10,750
4. John E Sununu (R) $10,500
5. Dennis Hastert (R) $10,000
5. Mark Kennedy (R) $10,000
5. Michael G Oxley (R) $10,000
8. James M Talent (R) $9,950
9. Elizabeth Dole (R) $9,500
9. John Thune (R) $9,500
11. Max Baucus (D) $9,000
12. Phil Crane (R) $8,566
13. Tim Hutchinson (R) $8,000
14. Ken Lucas (D) $7,950
15. Susan M Collins (R) $7,750
16. Wayne Allard (R) $7,500
16. Jim Mcrery (R) $7,500
16. Dennis Moore (D) $7,500
19. Robin Hayes (R) $7,000
19. William Jefferson (D) $7,000
2000 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,868,674
1. George W Bush (R) $131,798
2. Rick A Lazio (R) $53,086
3. Bill Bradley (D) $51,550
4. Rudy Giuliani (R) $41,150
5. Charles Schumer (D) $33,974
6. Spencer Abraham (R) $29,550
7. Al Gore (D) $23,630
8. John McCain (R) $19,080
9. John Ashcroft(R) $12,500
10. Edward Kennedy (D) $12,250
11. James E Rogan (R) $11,950
11. William Roth Jr (R) $11,950
13. Chris Dodd (D) $11,750
14. Ernie Fletcher (R) $11,000
15.
Steven Kuykendall
(R) $10,750
16. E Clay Shaw Jr (R) $10,270
17. Rod Grams (R) $10,000
17. Dennis Hastert (R) $10,000
17. Billy Tauzin (R) $10,000
20. Sherrod Brown (D) $9,999
Appendix 227
1998 Top Recipients
TOTAL: $1,650,690
1. Alfonse D'Amato (R) $25,970
2. Chris Dodd (D) $17,800
3.
George Voinovich
(R) $15,500
3. Billy Tauzin (R) $15,000
5. Lauch Faircloth (R) $14,000
5. Martin Frost (D) $14,000
7. Sherrod Brown (D) $13,948
8. Rick White (R) $13,825
9. Newt Gingrich (R) $13,800
10. Paul Coverdell (R) $13,500
10. Anna Eshoo(D) $13,500
10. Ron Wyden (D) $13,500
13. Robert F Bennett (R) $13,000
13. Matt Fong (R) $13,000
15. Thomas Bliley Jr. (R) $12,500
16. Michael Coles (D) $11,750
17.
Christopher S 'Kit'
Bond (R) $11,500
18. Don Nickles (R) $11,000
19. Harry Reid (D) $10,000
20. Christopher Cox (R) $9,111
Appendix
228
Pricewaterhouse Lobbying
Expenditures:283
2008
TOTAL: $3,165,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $2,340,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $370,000
Rich Feuer Group $160,000
American Capitol Group $125,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Clark & Assoc $50,000
Commonwealth Group > $10,000*
Covington & Burling > $10,000*
Donna McLean Assoc > $10,000*
Mayer, Brown et al > $10,000*
Patton Boggs LLP > $10,000*
Cypress Advocacy $40,000
2007
TOTAL: $3,630,584
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $2,650,584
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $600,000
Rich Feuer Group $80,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
American Capitol Group $60,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Donna McLean Assoc $40,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Patton Boggs LLP $40,000
283 Source: Center for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying amounts accessed February 2009.
* Not included in totals
2006
TOTAL: $4,413,500
PriceWaterHouseCoopers $3,333,500
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $600,000
Patton Boggs LLP $240,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Mayer, Brown et al $80,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
Donna McLean Assoc $40,000
2005
TOTAL: $13,600,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $12,580,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $600,000
Patton Boggs LLP $200,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Thelen, Redi & Priest $60,000
Donna McLean Assoc $40,000
Clark & Assoc $40,000
2004
TOTAL: $2,505,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,660,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $580,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $105,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Public Strategies $40,000
Donna McLean Assoc $20,000
Clark & Assoc $20,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix 229
2003
TOTAL: $2,390,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,680,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $560,000
Clark & Weinstock $80,000
Thelen, Reid & Priest $70,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2002
TOTAL: $4,445,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $3,160,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $155,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $260,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers > $10,000*
Alcalde & Fay $200,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $540,000
Clark & Weinstock $100,000
Arnold & Porter $20,000
Thelen, Reid et al $10,000
Clark & Assoc > $10,000*
2001
TOTAL: $4,560,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,240,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $560,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $700,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $840,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $120,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $360,000
Alcalde & Fay $220,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $460,000
Cathy Abernathy Consult. $60,000
* Not included in totals
2000
TOTAL: $2,186,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $580,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $800,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $360,000
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc $350,000
Mayer, Brown et al $60,000
Fleishman-Hillard Inc $36,000
Downey-McGrath Group > $10,000*
Alcalde & Fay > $10,000*
1999
TOTAL: $2,316,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,220,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $1,000,000
Mayer, Brown et al. $40,000
Fleishman-Hillard Inc $36,000
McDonald, Jack H $20,000
Dierman, Wortley et al > $10,000*
Downey McGrath Group > $10,000*
1998
TOTAL: $1,080,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $620,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $60,000
Coopers & Lybrand $340,000
Mayer, Brown et al $40,000
Downey Chandler Inc $20,000
* Not included in totals
Appendix
230
Pricewaterhouse Covered Official Lobbyists:284
Firm / Name of Lobbyist Covered Official Position Year(s)
PWC Leasing Corp.
Barabara M. Angus
Business Tax Counsel, Joint Committee on
Taxation 1999
Kenneth J. Kies Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation 1999
Mayer, Brown, & Platt
Jeffery Lewis Legislative Assitant to Senator Breaux 1999-2000
Quinn Gillespie Associates
LLC
John M. Quinn White House Counsel, Chief of Staff to VP 2000
Bruce Andrews Legislative Director, Rep. Tim Holden 2000
Section 170 Coalition
Tim Hanford
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
PwC Structured Finance
Coalition
Tim Hanford
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
John Meager
Special Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
PwC Leasing Coalition
Tim Hanford
Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and
Means 2001
Dierman, Wortley et al
Norman D'Amours Chairman National Credit Union Admin 2002
Clark & Weinstock
Brian Bieron Policy Director, House Rules Committee 2002
284 Source: Senate Office of Public Records <http://soprweb.senate.gov/>. Accessed January 2009.
Appendix 231
Kent Bonham Policy Director for Sen. Chuck Hagel 2002-2003
Juleanna Glover Weiss Press Secretary to the Vice President 2002-2003
Jonathan Schwantes
General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
2007
Pricewaterhouse Coopers
Beverly Bell Administrative Assistant, Rep. Don Johnson 2003
Amy Best Deputy Director of Public Affairs 2005-2006
Laura Cox Managing Executive External Affairs 2005-2006
Michael O'Brien Legislative Affairs Specialist 2005-2006
Donna Mclean Assoc.
Donna Mclean
US Dept. of Transportation, Asst Sec for
Budeget & Programs & CFO 2004-2006
Quinn Gillespie Associates
LLC
Mike Hacker Communications Dir. (Rep. John Dingell) 2004-2005
Amy Cunniffe Special Asst. to the Pres for Leg. Affairs 2005-2006
Elizabeth Hogan Speical Asst, Dept of Commerce 2005-2006
Kevin Kayes Chief Counsel Senator Reid 2006-2007
Allison Giles
Chief of Staff, House Ways and Means
Committee 2007
Christopher Mccannell Chief of Staff, Congressman Joe Crowley 2007
Patton Boggs LLP
Stephen Mchale Deputy Administrator, TSA 2005
Clark, Lytle, & Geduldig
Sam Geduldig Dir of Coalitions, House Fin Serv Com 2007-2008
Sr Advisor, Majority Whip Roy Blunt 2007-2008Gr
I just wanted to get all this in the record.
P.C.
-
Woof,
This url leads to the PDF file of all the information of the previous post's, and is easy to read. I'm leaving the other post's in, even though the formatting is poor, because the visual effect of scrolling down the list of the millions, even billions of dollars paid out by these failed companies to our politicans is just stunning and if the original is taken down for some reason, we'll still have the info here.
www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/sold_out.pdf (http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/sold_out.pdf)
P.C.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/congress-isn-t-supposed-to-be-above-the-law-commentary-by-stephen-carter.html
Congress Isn’t Supposed to Be Above the Law: Stephen L. Carter
By Stephen L. CarterDec 7, 2011 5:24 PM MT 11 Comments
About Stephen Carter
Stephen L. Carter is a professor of law at Yale, where he teaches courses on contracts, professional responsibility, ethics in literature, intellectual property and the law and ethics of war.
The recent publicity surrounding the very old news that members of Congress aren’t prohibited from trading stock using nonpublic information has the House and Senate running for cover. Hastily drafted bills are picking up co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle.
Yet it is something of a wonder that there is so much public excitement at the discovery that regulations that apply to lots of other people turn out to be largely irrelevant to those who serve in Congress. This isn’t an exception to congressional practice. It is, far too often, business as usual.
One of the most memorable lines from the billionaire Ross Perot’s quixotic presidential run in 1992 went something like this: “Capitol Hill is the only workplace in America where the employees can park and the owners can’t.”
Perot was being under-inclusive, of course. Even then, pretty much every place peopled by supposed public servants met the description. Yet he was right about the principle at work. It has become all too easy for members of Congress to grant themselves special privileges, among them exemption from many complex laws and regulations that apply to everyone else.
Consider the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. For all its good intentions, OSHA is considered by many companies a bane of their existence, the source of a constant stream of regulations and enormous costs, often for relatively small benefits. Sometimes the rules are important. Sometimes they are silly. Either way, it’s no concern of our national legislature, which, in its wisdom, has exempted itself.
OSHA Exemption
Actually, the entire federal government is exempted from OSHA. But federal agencies are at least required to develop operational rules that are “consistent with” OSHA standards. This minimal requirement doesn’t include Congress, which turns out not to be an agency.
Then there is financial regulation. Critics have lamented that no equivalent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies to Congress. The chief executives of public companies must certify their accounts, and face fines of up to $5 million and as many as 20 years in prison if they do so falsely. Members of Congress (like all federal officials) can make up numbers out of whole cloth without any sanction at all. Incorrect corporate numbers can mislead markets. Incorrect federal budget numbers can mislead the nation. (Perhaps the federal budget, like corporate balance sheets, should be vetted by independent third-party auditors.)
Examples abound. Federal minimum-wage laws apply to private employers and federal agencies; but, once again, Congress isn’t an agency. For the same reason, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply. The National Labor Relations Act exempts the federal government generally, but there are special rules relating to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices of federal employees -- rules that don’t, however, apply to Congress. The Merit System Protection statutes shield personnel in executive agencies, and even in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; not in Congress. And so on.
Even when Congress does decide to apply statutes to itself, members have trouble resisting the temptation to treat themselves differently. So, for example, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 extended the reach of several (not all) antidiscrimination statutes to cover congressional employees, but with provisos stripping the protections of much of their force. One has to love this sentence, amending Title VII, the most prominent federal law against employment discrimination: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the provisions of this title shall apply to the Congress of the United States, and the means for enforcing this title as such applies to each House of Congress shall be as determined by such House of Congress.”
Complex System
In short, the prohibitions apply, but the remedies are up to each house. Unsurprisingly, each house has created its own complex system of adjudication that bypasses the procedures facing mere private employers accused of identical acts of discrimination.
This wasn’t supposed to happen. James Madison, in Federalist No. 57, scoffed at the idea that members of Congress would exempt themselves from laws that applied to other people. They “can make no law,” he wrote, “which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”
This principle, Madison declared, creates between the legislature and the people “that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”
We’re not headed for tyranny, but the problem is serious. No branch of the federal government is less admired than Congress. Part of the reason is surely the attitude that Perot identified two decades ago: the tendency of members to forget that they work for the public rather than the other way around.
Most members of the House and Senate, on both sides of the aisle, are decent and well-meaning public servants. Unfortunately, they have been caught up in a culture so imbued with privilege that Madison’s principle has been forgotten. In place of his “communion of interests,” we find countless exceptions.
No doubt there is sometimes good reason for a congressional exemption. But there are good reasons to exempt lots of companies from lots of laws, and, unless those companies are very powerful, our national legislature is generally less interested in their uniqueness than its own. And it isn’t likely that the case for exemption is equally strong with respect to all the many bills that happen to exclude Congress.
Madison insisted that the American spirit -- “which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it” -- would rise up against any effort by members of Congress to make “legal discriminations in favor of themselves.” He added: “If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.”
Today we tolerate plenty of laws not obligatory on the legislature. Certainly it’s a lot easier to pursue great goals when the costs of that pursuit fall on other people. If Congress truly wants to improve its public standing, a good place to start would be by breaking the habit of treating itself as special. Passage of new stock-trading rules should be treated as only a tiny first step on a very long road.
(Stephen L. Carter, a novelist, professor of law at Yale University and the author of “The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama,” is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Stephen L. Carter at stephen.carter@yale.edu.
To contact the editor responsible for this column: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net.
-
Folks, please note the PC has provided the URL to a MUCH more readable form of the invaluable info he posted here.
GM: Articles like you just posted seem to me great propaganda pieces for Tea Party Candidates.
-
Folks, please note the PC has provided the URL to a MUCH more readable form of the invaluable info he posted here.
GM: Articles like you just posted seem to me great propaganda pieces for Tea Party Candidates.
One need not be a political junkie to see that things are very out of balance in America today. Time to unfcuk things before it all comes apart.
-
Woof,
It certainly shows how our News Media and Press have completely failed us. I guess they think this kind of information is just more than we can understand. I'm just an ol' country boy from Kentucky and even I can grasp the highlights of this accounting. We the People had better wake up to what's going on here, GM is absolutely correct. This is Rome at the end of the Republic.
P.C.
-
We are Spartacus-- and this time Spartacus wins! :-D
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/17/gsa-inspector-general-investigating-potential-bribes-and-kickbacks-at-agency/
GSA Inspector General investigating potential bribes and kickbacks at agency
posted at 11:01 am on April 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
This may come as a shock to readers, but the agency that spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on bogus, self-congratulatory “meetings” and bubble baths for its regional commissioner might also have been involved in a little graft, too. The Inspector General of the GSA told Congress yesterday that he has opened an investigation into allegations of bribery and kickbacks, deepening the potential scandal:
The inspector general for the General Services Administration said Monday that he is investigating possible bribery and kickbacks in the agency, as lawmakers accused the former GSA administrator of allowing a Las Vegas spending scandal to erode taxpayers’ trust in government.
Inspector General Brian Miller told a congressional committee scrutinizing an $823,000 Las Vegas conference that his office has asked the Justice Department to investigate “all sorts of improprieties” surrounding the 2010 event, “including bribes, including possible kickbacks.” He did not provide details.
Miller’s revelations of possible further misconduct by organizers of the four-day event, coming on the heels of a highly critical report, enraged Democrats and Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The lawmakers put GSA officials on the defensive during a tense four-hour hearing, with some Republicans loudly rebuking former administrator Martha N. Johnson and her colleagues.
Small wonder, then, that regional commissioner Jeff “Bubble Bath” Neely took the Fifth Amendment when called to answer for himself in Congress yesterday:
The General Services Administration official at the center of a scandal over lavish government spending declined to answer questions at a congressional hearing on Monday, invoking the Fifth Amendment.
“Mr. Chairman, on the advice of my counsel I respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment constitutionally privilege,” Jeff Neely, the GSA official, said repeatedly in response to a string of questions from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
I wondered about Neely’s action when I first heard about it. Certainly, it’s every American’s right to protect himself against self-incrimination while under oath, but until now, there hadn’t been any allegations of serious criminality in the GSA scandal — only exceedingly poor judgment. If the IG has now begun looking into graft and corruption at the agency, that makes this an entirely different kettle of very stinky fish indeed.
That’s not to say that the potential criminality is the entire extent of the scandal, though. Last week’s reporting on the story included a couple of smaller but still significant items into the mindset of the people involved — and the administration’s efforts to defend itself. First, Roll Call’s Jonathan Strong reported that the GSA didn’t just settle for overspending on normal team-building events, but went way out of their way to find excuses to stage new ones, including the creation of a Jackass Award:
Officials at the General Services Administration invented fake awards as an excuse to hold taxpayer-funded dinner events at conferences, according to an interview transcript obtained by Roll Call.
At one such event, GSA bestowed the “jackass award” on an employee, a GSA employee told the agency’s Office of Inspector General, according to the transcript. …
In the interview transcript obtained by Roll Call, a GSA employee who attended the Las Vegas conference said the administration’s officials routinely created awards to justify taxpayer reimbursement for dinner events.
“Typically at any — any conference in my memory over the last three or four years, probably even further back, there was always — there’s always one night where we have an awards ceremony and people are fed. I mean, it’s not even like it’s snacks. I mean, sometimes it’s pretty close to being like a full meal,” the employee said.
Describing the award ceremonies as a “running joke,” the employee said, supervisors explained that the fake awards were designed to justify dinner events at the conferences.
“He says: ‘OK, everybody, just remember, the only way we can have food is if we have an awards ceremony.’ Maybe not in those exact words, but fairly similar,” the employee said.
Also last week, an anonymous source within the Obama administration tried to argue that costs had actually gone down at GSA events since the lavish years of the Bush administration. US News reported that this Politico source flat-out lied to get the heat off of the White House:
But an anonymous source provided numbers to the news outletPolitico last week, floating the idea that the opulence of the GSA Western Region Conference had its roots in the Bush administration.
The source turned over documents to Politico showing that from 2004 to 2006 the cost of the conference ballooned by nearly 250 percent from $93,000 to $323,855.
But the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform says that whomever provided those numbers from the Obama administration fibbed.
“Instead of costs going up 248 percent between 2004 and 2006 as had been claimed, costs were actually reduced from $401,024 in 2004 to $323,855 in 2006—a 19 percent decrease,” the press release from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform stated.
Classy. The very stinky fish tends to rot from the head down, after all.
-
It's almost like Chicago Graft and Corruption has gone nationwide somehow.....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/richer-democratic-states-with-lower-unemployment-got-bulk-of-obama-stimulus
In their explosive new book Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future, Grover Norquist and John Lott, Jr. uncover a startling fact: heavily Democratic states with lower poverty rates, lower unemployment rates, lower bankruptcy rates, and lower foreclosure rates received most of President Barack Obama's $825 billion Stimulus.
Put another way, Stimulus money went to precisely the states that needed it the least but were more politically connected to the Democratic Party.
As Norquist and Lott's data reveal:
There is a perverse pattern: The states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure, and unemployment rates got less money. And higher-income states received more. Obama may have claimed that he was motivated to help out those in the toughest shape, but it looks more likely that Democrats were more interested in helping their supporters.
In Debacle, Norquist and Lott catalog the stunning degree to which Stimulus funds were allocated to the very states that needed them least. For example, richer states got more, not less, Stimulus money. For every additional $1,000 in a state's per-capita income a state received an average $86 more per capita in Stimulus money.
Furthermore, states with high foreclosure rates got less, not more, money. Specifically, for every percentage point increase in a state's foreclosure rate, a state received $217 less per person.
The amounts given to states ranged widely. For example, while Florida only received $553 per capita, the District of Columbia walked away with $3,745 per capita. And as Norquist and Lott reveal, "The patterns early show that the money went to the places the Democrats represented."
The folly of the federal government's misappropriation of funds can best be summed up with a quote from an Obama Administration official whom Norquist and Lott interviewed for their penetrating book. As she explained, where government spends taxpayers' money doesn't matter because "giving out money is good for everyone."
-
Got to get this off the page before the election. Justice is skewed when big money and influence is involved. On this OWS people are certainly correct. Not a peep from Republicans on this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/jon-corzine-hedge-fund_n_1791198.html
-
Fool me twice, shame on me.
-
http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40845/#4iryAfJMbfO2DbGb.99
-
Diplomats for sale
The practice of presidents awarding ambassadorships to big contributors or political supporters is not new, but President Barack Obama may be carrying it to an all-time low. An analysis by The Hill, a congressional newspaper, said Mr. Obama has named 19 of his major campaign helpers to such posts, including a college classmate of his wife, Michelle
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/23/homeland-security-nominee-accused-of-visa-push-for/
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/16/mitch-mcconnell-accused-of-sneaking-in-2-billion-kentucky-kickback-in-budget-debt-limit-deal/
-
Friends of Barry? Anthony Welters, key company man at UnitedHealth Group, whose subsidiary Quality Software Services, Inc., received $150 million for its work on Healthcare.gov, were top fundraisers for Obama's 2008 campaign. And now, QSSI is being summoned to help repair Healthcare.gov.
-
Christmas With the Obamas
We recently told you about Toni Townes-Whitley, the senior vice president at CGI Federal, which was awarded the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Healthcare.gov fiasco. Toni was a classmate of Michelle Obama (Princeton '85) and they share membership in the Association of Black Princeton. Evidently, the two are still close friends. Townes-Whitley, in a Facebook album titled "Christmas with the Obamas," published a personal photo from inside the White House in 2010. Daniel Greenfield quips, "A 600 million dollar website that doesn't work made by a company with a lousy track record and a top executive who's a pal of the First Lady. It's the free market at work. I blame the private sector."
Patriot Post
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/fbi-blocked-in-corruption-probe-involving-sens-rei/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/fbi-blocked-in-corruption-probe-involving-sens-rei/
Funny enough, Harry Reid grew up poor, yet somehow got rich while working in government his whole life. Must have hit the lottery at some point.
-
Very bummed to see that Sen. Lee might have some dirt , , , :cry:
-
http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/another-day-another-case-democrat-corruption/
-
Rush was trying to explain how the FBI was coming up with all these stings against Democrats, especially Mayors now.
A year ahead of an election. Dems cleaning house now? He wondered how Obama would permit this.
Not clear. It is just as hard to believe the FBI is independently non political during this Administration. We know the DOJ is not. I would like to think the FBI is but it is so hard not to be cynical these days.
:|
-
Well, the evidence here seems to be that there ARE parts of the perennial government that do retain institutional integrity. This is a very good thing.
-
I expect these cases were in the pipeline for years.
Still waiting for the FBI investigation of the IRS targeting of conservatives.
-
Who tipped off the powerful to scrub their photos? The World Wide Web was incapable of coming up with an image of indicted, anti-gun, gun runner San Francisco State Sen Leland Yee pictured with San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi or either of California Senators Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein as the bad news of corruption broke. Jerry Brown was not so lucky: (http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Leland+Yee+Jerry+Brown+Gets+Endorsement+Californai+clV8b2dN8jql.jpg)
John Edwards, no clout at all: (http://www.ibabuzz.com/insider/files/2007/03/edwards-and-yee1.JPG)
In other news, there is no record in George Orwell's 1984 that Oceana was ever in alliance with Eurasia. Only in your mind and they can erase that too.
(Hat tip freerepublic.com)
-
"If Leland Yee had a machine that controlled the weather, he'd be a Batman villain".-Larry Correia
-
Very bummed to see that Sen. Lee might have some dirt , , , :cry:
It doesn't seem that anything came out of this against Mike Lee. The accusation is that he did business with someone he knew once and that it was not investigated. Then they combined the story with Harry Reid, a known crook. I did not see the connection.
-
Thanks for the follow up.
It is important that we display integrity in our pursuit of the unveiling of corruption. If our guy is innocent, we should know that too and be able to communicate the facts.
-
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579491881406165124?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories&mg=reno64-wsj
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314025/how-did-harry-reid-get-rich-betsy-woodruff
National Review AUGUST 15, 2012
Try this thought experiment. Imagine that someone grows up in poverty, works his way through law school by holding the night shift as a Capitol Hill policeman, and spends all but two years of his career as a public servant. Now imagine that this person’s current salary — and he’s at the top of his game — is $193,400. You probably wouldn’t expect him to have millions in stocks, bonds, and real estate.
But, surprise, he does, if he’s our Senate majority leader, whose net worth is between 3 and 10 million dollars, according to OpenSecrets.org. When Harry Reid entered the Nevada legislature in 1982, his net worth was listed as between $1 million and $1.5 million “or more,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. So, since inquiring minds inquire, let’s try to figure out how Reid’s career in public service ended up being so lucrative. He hasn’t released his tax returns, which makes this an imperfect science, but looking at a few of his investments helps to show how he amassed his wealth.
In 2004, the senator made $700,000 off a land deal that was, to say the least, unorthodox. It started in 1998 when he bought a parcel of land with attorney Jay Brown, a close friend whose name has surfaced multiple times in organized-crime investigations and whom one retired FBI agent described as “always a person of interest.” Three years after the purchase, Reid transferred his portion of the property to Patrick Lane LLC, a holding company Brown controlled. But Reid kept putting the property on his financial disclosures, and when the company sold it in 2004, he profited from the deal — a deal on land that he didn’t technically own and that had nearly tripled in value in six years.
Advertisement
When his 2010 challenger Sharron Angle asked him in a debate how he had become so wealthy, he said, “I did a very good job investing.” Did he ever. On December 20, 2005, he invested $50,000 to $100,000 in the Dow Jones U.S. Energy Sector Fund (IYE), which closed that day at $29.15. The companies whose shares it held included ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips. When he made a partial sale of his shares on August 19, 2008, during congressional recess, IYE closed at $41.82. Just a month later, on September 17, Reid was working to bring to the floor a bill that the Joint Committee on Taxation said would cost oil companies — including those in the fund — billions of dollars in taxes and regulatory fees. The bill passed a few days later, and by October 10, IYE’s shares had fallen by 42 percent, to $24.41, for a host of reasons. Savvy investing indeed.
Here’s another example: The Los Angeles Times reported in November 2006 that when Reid became Senate majority leader he committed to making earmark reform a priority, saying he’d work to keep congressmen from using federal dollars for pet projects in their districts. It was a good idea but an odd one for the senator to espouse. He had managed to get $18 million set aside to build a bridge across the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., a project that wasn’t a priority for either state’s transportation agency. His ownership of 160 acres of land nearby that stood to appreciate considerably from the project had nothing to do with the decision, according to one of his aides. The property’s value has varied since then. On his financial-disclosure forms from 2006, it was valued at $250,000 to $500,000. Open Secrets now lists it as his most valuable asset, worth $1 million to $5 million as of 2010.
How Reid acquired that land is interesting, too. He put $10,000 into a pension fund his friend Clair Haycock controlled, to take over the 160-acre parcel at a price far below its assessed value. Six months later, Reid introduced legislation that would help Haycock’s industry, a move many observers said appeared to be a quid pro quo, though Reid and Haycock denied that the legislation was the result of a property deal.
We don’t know how much more money Reid has or how he made all of it. For that, we’d have to see his tax returns.
-
Hat tip to GM:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/bill-henck-inside-the-irs.php
-
Sadly I own Arch Col shares :cry:. Rumors allege this kind of kickback stuff is rampant is some groups of doctors too. Doctors taking covert like payments from pharmaceutical companies or illegal kickbacks from each other via referrals. Corruption really is everywhere.
****Feds: Arch Coal workers took $2M in kickbacks
Feds: Arch Coal workers at West Virginia mine accused of taking $2M in kickbacks from vendors
Associated Press
By Jonathan Mattise, Associated Press 18 hours ago
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- Arch Coal employees at a West Virginia mine are charged with pocketing almost $2 million from vendors in a pay-to-play kickback scheme, federal prosecutors said Friday.
U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin said the widespread setup required vendors to pay kickbacks to Arch Coal employees to do business with the coal company.
Four employees at Arch Coal's Mountain Laurel mining complex in Logan County are accused of taking kickbacks from 2007 to 2012. Prosecutors said the mine's former general manager, David E. Runyon, was at the center of the setup.
Prosecutors said some companies spent more than $400,000 to maintain lucrative contracts with Arch Coal, one of the biggest coal producers and marketers worldwide.
Ten people in all have been charged, with vendors, contractors and four Arch employees among them. The employees are no longer with the company.
Companies knew Arch Coal would sever their contracts if the side payments stopped. Likewise, Runyon knew losing the contracts would hurt the companies, according to court documents.
"This kind of pay-to-play scheme hurts honest coal industry vendors who refuse to pay bribes as a way to get customers," Goodwin said in a news release Friday.
Arch Coal has mines in Wyoming, Colorado, Illinois, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland. Its Mountain Laurel facility employs more than 350 in underground and surface mining. Mountain Laurel produced 2.9 million tons in sales last year, according to the company's website.
The St. Louis-based company has previously said it reached out to the U.S. attorney for help investigating possible misconduct. The company issued a statement Friday thanking investigators for their quick response.
"While it was extremely disappointing to find that former employees had failed to live up to our trust in them, we are pleased and relieved to have this issue behind us," the company said.
Runyon, a 45-year-old from Delbarton, faces up to 25 years in prison and $500,000 in fines if convicted of extortion and tax evasion.
Runyon's charges show a variety of contracts dependent on kickbacks, from mine machine repair to contracted mine labor.
Two employees at Tri-State Mining Service Inc. shelled out nearly $425,000 over five years to keep their contract, prosecutors said. An unnamed Arch Coal worker helped fix the bidding process, which requires three bids, by securing other vendors to place bids that couldn't win, court documents say.
Quality Oil Inc., then doing business as Southern Construction of Logan, directly paid Runyon $400,000 in kickbacks through its owner, Alvis R. Porter, prosecutors said.
Porter, a 61-year-old from Holden, is a former Logan County Circuit Court clerk. He was charged with failing to collect, account for and pay over trust fund taxes for an employee.
In another instance, prosecutors said, the owner of MAC Mine Service Inc. paid $340,000 for more than three years to keep Runyon from terminating a contract for mine labor.
Another vendor that refurbishes mine shuttle cars gave Runyon and a former maintenance manager at least $250,000 in kickbacks, prosecutors said.
"If they are willing to pay upwards of $2 million in total to keep them, you can imagine how big these contracts are," Goodwin said.
Court documents and officials did not discuss specifics of the contracts.
Other Arch employees and vendors face various charges, from mail fraud to structuring cash withdrawals.
Goodwin said the investigation is ongoing and he anticipates other significant developments.*****
-
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/bidens-son-gets-ukrainian-oil-company-gig/
-
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Daughter-of-Ex-Obama-Pastor-Guilty-in-Fraud-Scheme--249129711.html#
-
Goddam America!
I suppose this was entrapment just to get a minority :wink:
-
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/pelosi-son-ran-firm-ownedcontrolled-illegally-by-convicted-criminals/
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/18/hilda-solis-obamas-former-labor-secretary-might-be-in-deep-trouble/
-
Just another example of a "public servant" who was not a public servant but just an person planted in position for the march forward.
Perhaps the only difference between the usual corruption in government of nepotism, cover-ups, fraud, theft, people looking the other way, bribery, the few people with integrity who are threatened with their jobs to remain silent, etc is that the Obama people appear more led by shoving through one way or the other the liberal agenda. Legally or illegally. Ethically or unethically, right or wrong, unfair to some and favorable to others, and anyway other way they can dream of.
-
Exclusive: Cuomo’s Office Hobbled New York State Ethics Inquiries
A high-powered commission created by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to root out corruption in New York politics was hobbled almost from the outset by demands from the governor’s office, which sought to shield his allies from scrutiny, according to an examination by The New York Times.
A three-month review of the panel’s short life and sudden death found that the governor’s office deeply compromised the commission’s work, objecting whenever its investigators focused on groups with ties to Mr. Cuomo or on issues that might reflect poorly on him.
Ultimately, Mr. Cuomo abruptly disbanded the commission halfway through what he had indicated would be an 18-month life. And now, as the Democratic governor seeks a second term in November, federal prosecutors are investigating the roles of Mr. Cuomo and his aides in the panel’s shutdown and are pursuing its unfinished business.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/nyregion/governor-andrew-cuomo-and-the-short-life-of-the-moreland-commission.html?emc=edit_na_20140723
-
A guy willing to stand up to white collar corruption. This guy is now my hero:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/nyregion/us-attorney-warns-cuomo-on-ethics-case-.html?_r=0
-
A guy willing to stand up to white collar corruption. This guy is now my hero:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/nyregion/us-attorney-warns-cuomo-on-ethics-case-.html?_r=0
Let's see some actual prosecutions...
-
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/san-fran-nan-billion-deal-helps-husband-make-millions-from-your-taxes/
-
Classic corruption. Land deals with rail lines or highways to soar values.
Sounds like Reid's deal in Nevada.
But comeback will be think of the jobs created. Think of turning an old lot into a thriving neighborhood.
And nothing done illegally (?)
And corruption does not concern Democrats. Not at all.
She just keeps getting elected and getting richer.
What about other family members? Her kids are raking in the dough and stuffing their pockets while she is in power too, no?
-
Al Gore vs. Al Jazeera vs. the Truth
How the ex-veep came by his cable TV windfall remains heavily redacted.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
updated Aug. 22, 2014 7:09 p.m. ET
As with the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, let's hope both sides lose.
Al Gore sued Al Jazeera, saying it still owes him $65 million from the sale two years ago of Mr. Gore's unwatched liberal cable channel for $500 million. Al Jazeera says it's rightfully holding back monies left in escrow against breaches of contract by Mr. Gore's Current TV when he was still in charge.
What breaches? We don't know because the lawsuit has been sealed, not unusual in cable disputes. But Current TV during its short heyday was known to be constantly flirting with violating minimum viewership requirements under its unusually lucrative contracts with cable operators. Almost as soon as its sale was announced, Al Jazeera found itself in disputes with Time Warner Cable, AT&T and DirecTV, all of which cited "contractual breaches" by the previous owner Current TV.
What's really interesting, though, is the extent to which all parties, including the cable operators and Al Jazeera, have sought to keep these records sealed to hide Mr. Gore's dealings with the cable operators. And no wonder: It's clearer than ever that Current TV's carriage rights, the main assets that it sold to Al Jazeera for $500 million, were a gift of the cable industry and provided a windfall to Mr. Gore. He's personally believed to have cleared $70 million. And let's not forget that $70 million is oil money from Qatar, whose ruling family out of another pocket is believed to subsidize Hamas and other Islamic radical groups.
Not that you would guess Mr. Gore has anything to be embarrassed about. His celebrity lawyer David Boies insists Mr. Gore is ready for a full and complete airing. Said Mr. Boies: "If it thinks this is an ordinary commercial dispute, then Al Jazeera America should be willing to allow the entire complaint to be made public."
Uh huh. This is likely a bluff, not least because both parties, Mr. Gore included, have insisted on redactions in the publicly available version of the lawsuit. And Mr. Gore's lawyers would have watched closely a just-settled lawsuit between Al Jazeera and AT&T, a case that demonstrated Al Jazeera's extreme publicity-squeamishness. Mr. Gore undoubtedly is looking to use that squeamishness as leverage to settle his own case without undue public disclosure.
A quick recap: Most of the details of its AT&T fight remain under wraps, but Al Jazeera accused the TV distributor of dropping its channel to avoid offending Republican viewers in Texas. Al Jazeera also implied that AT&T had only been appeasing Al Gore by running Current TV.
In turn, AT&T alleged unspecified contract violations under Current TV's ownership, likely regarding minimum viewership levels.
But here's the noteworthy part: The parties almost immediately stopped fighting each other in order to fight efforts by the national media, including the Associated Press, Bloomberg News and Dow Jones, to pry open the record. When the Delaware Supreme Court ruled for the news organizations on May 30, AT&T and Al Jazeera quickly settled their own dispute. Al Jazeera turned full attention to quashing any disclosures about what the puzzled judge in the case called "a stale deal with a defunct network," namely AT&T's previous dealings with Current TV.
Nobody, it seems, has much appetite for exposing the degree to which short-lived Current TV had become a gratuitous bestowal of wealth on Mr. Gore by cable operators.
Mr. Gore likes to say "our democracy has been hacked by big money," but he has done some hacking himself in his many rent-seeking activities. His Current TV payday, partly at the expense of the Qataris, partly at the expense of U.S. cable subscribers and shareholders, must be especially piquant to Americans exhausted by Mr. Gore's incessant moralizing.
What would be nice to know, and what a full airing of the legal record might show, and is at what point Current stopped being a sincere experiment in liberal news and entertainment. At what point did it morph into a scheme to shake down TV distributors and flip the carriage rights for what BusinessWeek estimates was $450 million in profit to Mr. Gore and partners.
Alas, we're not likely to get much satisfaction as a result of Al Gore vs. Al Jazeera, since both parties have a clear motive to settle before there's a record for the media to pick over. Our hopes still rests with the effort by media lawyers to break open the record in the now-settled AT&T-Al Jazeera case.
-
Former Viginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Guilty of Public Corruption, A.P. Reports
Former Viginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Thursday was convicted of at least one one public corruption charge, the Associated Press reported. More verdicts are pending.
Mr. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, were indicted on 14 counts of conspiracy, bribery, extortion and related charges stemming from what prosecutors said was a scheme to sell the office of governor, which Mr. McDonnell occupied through January this year, for $177,000 in gifts and cash from a dietary supplements executive.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/bob-mcdonnell-maureen-mcdonnell-virginia-verdict.html?emc=edit_na_20140904
-
Kind of sad. He seemed like a good guy. The state Virginia really cleaned up. His successor is Clinton crony, Terry McAulliffe. It's funny what is legal and what is not, and who gets off scot-free and who gets convicted of multiple felonies. Hillary was certainly worse, between cattle futures and Whitewater. She is the current frontrunner for President and McDonnell is headed to prison.
There shouldn't be any tolerance for even the appearance of helping one company or industry over another and yet they do it all the time.
-
Emails show ‘collusion’ between Obama’s EPA, environmental lobby
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/15/emails-show-collusion-between-epa-environmental-lo/?page=all#pagebreak
The EPA and environmental groups are exceptionally close for a government agency and lobby groups, with a revolving door and pressure from the groups often shaping EPA’s policies, according to a new report from a conservative watchdog group based on emails obtained in a yearslong battle with the agency.
-
Doug writes,
"There shouldn't be any tolerance for even the appearance of helping one company or industry over another and yet they do it all the time."
"His successor is Clinton crony, Terry McAulliffe. It's funny what is legal and what is not, and who gets off scot-free and who gets convicted of multiple felonies.
Excellent at pointing out the irony Doug. I didn't think of it. McDonnell gets caught but McAulliffe gets away with his crookedness and gets McDonnell's governorship.
-
Because of this post, I have added the word "treason" to the title of this thread
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/184713/martin-indyk-qatar
:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o
-
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/11/03/police-man-arrested-for-kicking-heinz-field-barriers-trying-to-bribe-officers/
-
I would like to know how he "could help you in other ways".
"I know how this works".
So how does it work at the IRS. This guy should be water boarded till he explains.
-
Obama vs. Us
Posted By Walter Williams On November 18, 2014
Suppose you saw a person driving his car on the wrong side of a highway, against the traffic. Would you call him a stupid and/or incompetent driver? You say, “Williams, what kind of question is that? Of course he’s one or the other!” I’d say, “Hold your horses. What are his intentions?” If the driver’s intentions are to cause highway calamity, one can hardly call his actions stupid or incompetent. Given his intentions, he is wisely acting in a manner to achieve his objectives.
This observation lies at the heart of my colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell’s column last week, in which he says, “Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past.” After suffering an elective trouncing at the polls, President Barack Obama issued Congress an ultimatum, saying that if it doesn’t enact the kind of immigration law that he would like, he will unilaterally issue an executive order to change the nation’s immigration laws. This threat, along with other abuses of his office, is not a sign of presidential stupidity or incompetence.
Obama is doing precisely what he promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, to cheering and mesmerized crowds: “We are going to fundamentally change America” and “We will change America. We will change the world.” Obama is living up to those pledges by subverting our Constitution and adopting the political style of a banana republic dictator. He showed his willingness to ignore the Constitution when he eliminated the work requirement in welfare reform laws enacted during the Clinton administration. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was enacted by Congress and hence is the law of the land. Obama has used executive orders to change the law on several occasions. Ask yourself whether our Constitution permits the president to unilaterally change a law enacted by Congress. For a president to do so is for him to behave like a banana republic dictator.
As Sowell says, “people who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.”
The recent elections, which gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, clearly indicate a repudiation of much of Obama’s agenda. But the question is whether the Republican majority has the courage to act on that repudiation and stop the president from running roughshod over the Constitution. Because Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, there is not much a president can do without a budget appropriation. The question is whether Congress has the guts to exercise its power.
We can rightfully condemn the president for picking and choosing which laws of the land he will obey and which he won’t, in violation of the Constitution’s Article 2, but is his administration’s executive branch that much of an exception to the other branches of the federal government — the legislative and judicial branches?
The legislative branch is bound by Article 1 of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 delineates the scope of congressional power to tax and spend. Nowhere within Article 1, Section 8 is Congress granted the authority to tax for at least two-thirds of the federal budget.
The courts are bound by the Constitution’s Article 3. Part of the courts’ responsibility is to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government uphold the Constitution. In that respect, the courts have been grossly derelict, particularly during and after the New Deal era.
Seeing as all branches of federal government ignore most of the provisions of the Constitution, I think we can safely say that we’ve reached the post-Constitution stage of our history. Washington politicians are not to blame. It’s the American people who’ve lost their love and respect for our Constitution. Washington’s politicians are simply the agents for that contempt.
-
Some hopefully good news. 30,000 emails found from Lois Lerner. We can only hope and pray that many copies are made so criminals who work for the left cannot destroy them. If they show links to WH then repubs must start lining up the culprits till they get to Obama.
If case is made he MUST be impeached.
-
How Many Lies Have Democrats Told To Sabotage The War on Terror?
Posted By David Horowitz On November 24, 2014
[To order David Horowitz’s new book, “The Black Book of the American Left, Volume III: The Great Betrayal,” click here.]
Start with Obama’s claim that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS) is not Islamic. Say what? In fact, the so-called war on terror is clearly a war that Islamic jihadists have declared on us. Yet Obama is so hostile to this war that even the subterfuge “war on terror” was too much for him and he purged it from official government statements and replaced it with “Overseas Contingency Operations,” which describes nothing. Why would he do this? To avoid confronting the actual threat from what is obviously the most dynamic movement in Islam today: the jihadist war to purge the world of infidels and establish a global Islamic state. The same impulse to deny this threat can be seen in the Obama administration’s characterization of domestic acts of Islamic terror like the recent beheading in Oklahoma and the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.”
The origin of the Democratic lies that fog the nature of the war against the Islamists and make us vulnerable to their attacks can be traced to the Democrats’ defection from the war in Iraq, the second front in the so-called “war on terror.” “Bush Lied People Died.” This was the disgusting charge with which progressives and Democrats sought successfully to demonize America’s commander-in-chief and demoralize the nation as it went to war to take down the terrorist-supporting monster regime of Saddam Hussein and eventually defeat Ansar-al-Islam and al-Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, Bush didn’t lie about the reasons for taking on the terrorist regime in Iraq, as the Democrats claimed. Democrats, including senators John Kerry and Diane Feinstein sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of data about Saddam Hussein’s weapons and the reasons for going to war that George Bush did. If they had any doubts about these reasons all they had to do was pick up the phone to CIA director George Tenet – a Bill Clinton appointee – and ask him. The reprehensible claim that Bush lied was concocted by Democrats to justify their defection from a war they had just authorized betraying their country in time of war along with the young men and women they had sent into the battlefield.
The Democrats lied in claiming that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that therefore the war was unnecessary and therefore immoral. This was actually two lies in one. In the first place the decision to go to war wasn’t about Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. It was about his determination to build and use weapons of mass destruction and his violation of 17 Security Council resolutions designed to stop him from doing just that. Saddam violated all 17 of the UN resolutions, beginning with those that constituted the Gulf War Truce and culminating in the ultimatum to disclose and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction. His defiance of that ultimatum is why we went to war with him.
But it was the second lie – that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction – that the Democrats used to discredit the president and the war we were fighting. In fact, the Saddam regime did have weapons of mass destruction, including a chemical weapons storage plant recently discovered by ISIS along with 2200 rockets filled with deadly Sarin gas. Here’s the report from the Daily News of July 9, 2014:
“A terrorist group bent on turning Iraq into an Islamic state has seized a chemical weapons depot near Baghdad stockpiled with sarin-filled rockets left over from the Saddam Hussein era…. The site, about 35 miles southwest of Baghdad, was once operated by Saddam’s army and is believed to contain 2,500 degraded rockets filled with potentially deadly sarin and mustard gas.”
Not a single Democrat has apologized for the monstrous defamation campaign they conducted around this lie to cripple their president and their country in a time of war.
The Democrats began their sabotage campaign against the war in Iraq in June 2003, claiming that Bush lied when he cited a British report that Saddam was seeking fissionable uranium in Niger for his nuclear weapons program. Two official reports, one by the British and the other by the U.S. Senate confirmed that Bush’s statement was correct, but this was long after the Democrats had so demonized America’s commander-in-chief as a cynical and dangerous liar that his ability to mobilize American citizens to support the war against the Iraqi terrorists was severely damaged. No apologies from Democrats or the media, which abetted their lies, in this case either. Here is a recent testimony about the facts of Saddam’s quest for fissionable yellow cake uranium:
“As someone who led the company that transported 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium—enough to make fourteen Hiroshima-size bombs—from Saddam’s nuclear complex in the Iraq War’s notorious ‘Triangle of Death’ for air shipment out of the country, I know Baathist Iraq’s WMD potential existed.”
Not content with these lies, the Democrats reached into their Marxist pocket for another. The progressive slogan “No Blood For Oil” was a maliciously false claim designed to undermine the moral basis for the war by accusing President Bush of serving the interests of his Texas oil cronies beginning with Vice President Cheney, former president of Halliburton, instead of the American people. In the Democrats’ telling, evil corporations in the Republicans’ pocket pushed the country into a needless and “imperialist” war that cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. But the fact is that despite spending trillions of dollars on a war that cost thousands of American lives, America got no oil out of the war in Iraq, which has wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists and the People’s Republic of China. No apologies for this myth either.
Perhaps the most destructive lie that Democrats have used to sabotage the war against the Islamist fanatics is that fighting terrorists creates more of them. Nancy Pelosi actually told 60 Minutes’ Steve Croft that if America left Iraq the terrorists would leave too. The argument has been used by progressives to oppose a serious military effort to stop ISIS in Syria and Iraq rather than having to fight them here at home. But aggressive pre-emptive war against the terrorists in their homelands rather than ours has the opposite effect as the victory in Iraq showed before Obama undid it.
The six-year retreat of the Obama Administration from the battlefields in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and appeasement of the terrorist state of Iran, has created more terrorists than we have ever seen. The weakness displayed by the chief defender of freedom under the leadership of an anti-American president has been a provocation to terrorists. The terror threat diminished under Bush but has grown dramatically under Obama. That is because fighting terrorists does not produce them. ISIS is able to recruit thousands of new terrorists because Islamist radicals are inspired by what Osama bin Laden called “the strong horse,” by beheadings and the slaughter of Christians without a serious reprisal. This is the face of the evil that confronts us, and we better wake up to that threat before it is too late.
-
Bharara continues to be my hero. This part is especially important:
"The arrest comes just a day after Silver shared the stage with Gov. Andrew Cuomo during his State of the State address. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara took over the files of New York's Moreland anti-corruption commission after Cuomo closed it in April."
******NY Assembly Speaker Arrested, Suspected of Graft
by Wochit 1:07 mins
An FBI spokesman says New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, one of the most powerful politicians in the state, has been arrested. The spokesman, Peter Donald, says Silver was taken into custody around 8 a.m. Thursday. Donald declined to discuss the charges Silver is facing. The U.S. attorney’s office is expected to discuss the case later Thursday, and Silver is expected in court. The arrest comes just a day after Silver shared the stage with Gov. Andrew Cuomo during his State of the State address. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara took over the files of New York's Moreland anti-corruption commission after Cuomo closed it in April. He said in October that investigations into Albany's pay-to-play politics are continuing. The commission and Bharara were looking into lawmakers’ earnings outside their state salaries. Silver’s outside income has long been a subject of discussion and controversy. Last year, he reported making up to $750,000 for legal work, mostly with the trial firm of Weitz & Luxenberg.
*****
-
The fact he is Jewish is not lost on me. I thought to myself he 'had' to be Jewish which of course adds to the stereotype of corrupt Jewish shyster. Then on Drudge the first line is "Jewish powerbroker".
If this guy were black would we here "Black"?
If he were Muslim would we here that?
If he were anything else would that have been pointed out?
No
-
Columnist Michelle Malkin: "Before the nation’s Food Nanny guilt-trips you into ditching boxed dinners on a frazzled night, know this: The first lady profited from cheese dust before she was against it. ... In June 2005, a few months after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Obama snagged a seat on the corporate board of directors of TreeHouse Foods Inc. Currying favor, the food-processing company put her on its audit and nominating and corporate governance committees despite her complete lack of experience or expertise. For her on-the-job training and the privilege of putting her name and face on their literature, the company forked over $45,000 in 2005 and $51,200 in 2006 to Mrs. Obama – as well as 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year. Mrs. Obama raked in that easy money thanks to the worldwide conglomerate’s popular product line of powdered non-dairy creamers and sweeteners, hot and cold cereals, evil macaroni and cheese, skillet dinners, powdered gravy and sauce mixes, powdered drink mixes, powdered soup, and puddings. She certainly didn’t look down her nose at milk dust, cheese dust, juice dust, oatmeal dust or broth dust when it came mixed with a healthy paycheck.."
-
Wasn't she on multiple boards? I am not aware of her having any special expertise or management or business experience.
-
Quite right; I remember she got $350,000 a year for one year in a job that was created for her and when she left no one replaced her in the position.
There also is the matter of her school buddies scoring a HUGE Obamacare website contract (I want to say well over $100M :-o :-o :-o ) on the website that never worked.
-
"There also is the matter of her school buddies scoring a HUGE Obamacare website contract (I want to say well over $100M shocked shocked shocked ) on the website that never worked."
No biggie. :evil: :roll: :x
Pelosi's husbands company(s) reportedly received one billion in contracts. :x
-
The crat party is replete with them:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/13/the-con-artist-who-took-down-oregon-s-guv.html
-
Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise
Donations raise ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up expected 2016 bid
By James V. Grimaldi And
Rebecca Ballhaus
Updated Feb. 17, 2015 11:05 p.m. ET
WSJ
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.
In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad.
The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.
The donations come as Mrs. Clinton prepares for an expected run for the Democratic nomination for president, and they raise many of the same ethical quandaries. Since leaving the State Department in early 2013, Mrs. Clinton officially joined the foundation, which changed its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has become a prodigious fundraiser as the foundation launched a $250 million endowment campaign, officials said.
A representative for Hillary Clinton referred all questions to the Clinton Foundation.
A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects, which aim to do such things as improve education, health care and the environment around the world. He also said that donors go through a vigorous vetting process.
One of the 2014 donations comes from a Canadian agency promoting the proposed Keystone pipeline, which is favored by Republicans and under review by the Obama administration. The Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development agency of Canada, a first-time donor, gave between $250,000 and $500,000. The donations, which are disclosed voluntarily by the foundation, are given only in ranges.
One of the agency’s priorities for 2014-2015 was to promote Keystone XL “as a stable and secure source of energy and energy technology,” according to the agency’s website. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department was involved in approving the U.S. government’s initial environmental-impact statement. Since leaving State, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly declined to comment on Keystone.
The Canadian donation originated from an agency office separate from the one that advocates for Keystone XL, a Foundation spokesman said.
While the Canadian donation didn’t appear in a Clinton Foundation online database of donors until recently, the donation of about $480,000 was announced in June in Cartagena, Colombia, where the program provides job training for youths.
Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, said the Clintons should immediately reimpose the ban, for the same reasons it was in place while Mrs. Clinton led U.S. foreign policy.
“Now that she is gearing up to run for president, the same potential exists for foreign governments to curry favor with her as a potential president of the United States,” he said.
If she becomes president and deals with these nations, “she can’t recuse herself,” added James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “Whether it influences her decision making is questionable, but it is a legitimate thing to focus on by her political opposition.”
The donations weren’t announced by the foundation and were discovered by The Wall Street Journal during a search of donations of more than $50,000 posted on the foundation’s online database. Exactly when the website was updated isn’t clear. The foundation typically updates its website with the previous year’s donations near the beginning of the year. All 2014 donations were noted with asterisks.
At least four foreign countries gave to the foundation in 2013—Norway, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands—a fact that has garnered little attention. The number of governments contributing in 2014 appears to have doubled from the previous year. Since its founding, the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments, according to a Journal tally.
United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.
A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.
The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.
Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.
Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.
The Clinton Foundation has set a goal of creating a $250 million endowment, an official said. One purpose was secure the future of the foundation’s programs without having to rely so much on the former president’s personal fundraising efforts, the official said.
The Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman donations went to the endowment drive.
Write to James V. Grimaldi at James.Grimaldi@wsj.com
-
Integrity in Public Life Adar 19, 5775 • March 10, 2015
By Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Print this Page
There is a verse so familiar that we don’t often stop to reflect on what it means. It is the line from the first paragraph of the Shema: “You shall love the L rd your G d with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your me’od.” That last word is usually translated as “strength” or “might.” But Rashi, following the Midrash and Targum translates it as “with all your wealth.”
If so, the verse seems to unintelligible, at least in the order in which it is written. “With all your Life is more important than wealth soul” was understood by the sages to mean, “with your life” if need be. There are times, thankfully very rare indeed, when we are commanded to give up life itself rather than commit a sin or a crime. If that is the case then it should go without saying that we should love G d with all our wealth, meaning, even if it demands great financial sacrifice. Yet Rashi and the sages say that this phrase applies to those “to whom wealth means more than life itself.”
Of course, life is more important than wealth. Yet the sages also knew that, in their words, Adam bahul al mammono,1 meaning: people do strange, hasty, ill-considered and irrational things when money is at stake. Financial gain can be a huge temptation, leading us to acts that harm others and ultimately ourselves. So when it comes to financial matters, especially when public funds are involved, there must be no room for temptation, no space for doubt as to whether it has been used for the purpose for which it was donated. There must be scrupulous auditing and transparency. Without this there is moral hazard: the maximum of temptation combined with the maximum of opportunity.
Hence the parsha of Pekudei, with its detailed account of how the donations to the building of the mishkan were used: “These are the amounts of the materials used for the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the Testimony, which were recorded at Moses' command by the Levites under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest.”2 The passage goes on to list the exact amounts of gold, silver and bronze collected, and the purposes to which it was put.
Why did Moses do this? A midrash suggests an answer:
“They gazed after Moses”3– People criticized Moses. They used to say to one another, “Look at that neck. Look at those legs. Moses is eating and drinking what belongs to us. All that he has belongs to us.” The other would reply: “A man who is in charge of the work of the Sanctuary – what do you expect? That he should not get rich?” As soon as he heard this, Moses replied, “By your life, as soon as the Sanctuary is complete, I will make a full reckoning with you.”4
Moses issued a detailed reckoning to avoid coming under suspicion that he had personally appropriated some of the donated money. Note the emphasis that the accounting was undertaken not by Moses himself but “by the Levites under the direction of Ithamar,” in other words, by independent auditors.
There is no hint of these accusations in the text itself, but the Midrash may be based on the remark Moses made during the Korach rebellion, “I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”5 Accusations of corruption and personal enrichment have often been leveled against leaders, with or without justification. We might think that since G d sees all we do, this is enough to safeguard against wrongdoing. Yet Judaism does not say this. The Talmud records a scene at the deathbed of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, as the master lay surrounded by his disciples:
They said to him, “Our master, bless us.” He said to them, “May it be G d's will that the fear of heaven shall be as much upon you as the fear of flesh and blood.” His disciples asked, “Is that all?” He replied, “Would that you obtained no less than such fear! You can see for yourselves the truth of what I say: when a man is about to commit a transgression, he says, I hope no man will see me.”6
When humans commit a sin they worry that other people might see them. They forget that G d certainly sees them. Temptation befuddles the brain, and no one should believe they are immune to it.
When humans sin they worry that others might see
A later passage in Tanakh seems to indicate that Moses’ account was not strictly necessary. The Book of Kings relates an episode in which, during the reign of King Yehoash, money was raised for the restoration of the Temple. “They did not require an accounting from those to whom they gave the money to pay the workers, because they acted with complete honesty.”7 Moses, a man of complete honesty, may thus have acted “beyond the strict requirement of the law.”8
It is precisely the fact that Moses did not need to do what he did, that gives the passage its force. There must be transparency and accountability when it comes to public funds even if the people involved have impeccable reputations. People in positions of trust must be, and be seen to be, individuals of moral integrity. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law had already said this when he told Moses to appoint subordinates to help him in the task of leading the people. They should be, he said, “Men who fear G d, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain.”9
Without a reputation for honesty and incorruptibility, judges cannot ensure that justice is seen to be done. This general principle was derived by the sages from the episode in the book of Numbers when the Reubenites and Gadites expressed their wish to settle on the far side of the Jordan where the land provided good grazing ground for their cattle (Numbers 32: 1-33). Moses told them that if they did so, they would demoralize the rest of the nation. They would give the impression that they were unwilling to cross the Jordan and fight with their brothers in their battles to conquer the land.
The Reubenites and Gaddites made it clear that they were willing to be in the front line of the troops, and would not return to the far side of the Jordan until the land had been fully conquered. Moses accepted the proposal, saying that if they kept their word, they would be “clear [veheyitem neki’im] before the L rd and before Israel.”10 This phrase entered Jewish law as the principle that “one must acquit oneself before one’s fellow human beings as well as before G d.”11 It is not enough to do right. We must be seen to do right, especially when there is room for rumour and suspicion.
There are several instances in the early rabbinic literature of applications of this rule. So, for example, when people came to take coins for sacrifices from the Shekel Chamber in the Temple, where the money was kept:
They did not enter the chamber wearing either a bordered cloak or shoes or sandals or tefillin or an amulet, lest if he became poor people might say that he became poor because of an iniquity committed in the chamber, or if he became rich people might say that he became rich from the appropriation in the chamber. For it is a person's duty to be free of blame before men as before G d, as it is said: “and be clear before the L rd and before Israel,”12 and it also says: “So shall thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of G d and man.”1314
Those who entered the chamber were forbidden to wear any item of clothing in which they could hide and steal coins. Similarly, when charity overseers had funds left over, they were not permitted to change copper for silver coins of their own money: they had to make the exchange with a third party. Overseers in charge of a soup kitchen were not allowed to purchase surplus food when there were no poor people to whom to distribute it. Surpluses had to be sold to others so as not to arouse suspicion that the charity overseers were profiting from public funds.15
They had to make the exchange with a third party
The Shulkhan Aruch rules that charity collection must always be done by a minimum of two individuals so that each can see what the other is doing.16 There is a difference of opinion between R. Joseph Karo and R. Moshe Isserles on the need to provide detailed accounts. R. Joseph Karo rules on the basis on the passage in II Kings – “They did not require an accounting from those to whom they gave the money to pay the workers, because they acted with complete honesty” – that no formal accounting is required from people of unimpeachable honesty. R. Moshe Isserles however says that it is right to do so because of the principle, “Be clear before the L rd and before Israel.”17
Trust is of the essence in public life. A nation that suspects its leaders of corruption cannot function effectively as a free, just and open society. It is the mark of a good society that public leadership is seen as a form of service rather than a means to power, which is all too easily abused. Tanakh is a sustained tutorial in the importance of high standards in public life. The prophets were the world’s first social critics, mandated by G d to speak truth to power and to challenge corrupt leaders. Elijah’s challenge to King Ahab, and the protests of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah against the unethical practices of their day, are classic texts in this tradition, establishing for all time the ideals of equity, justice, honesty and integrity. A free society is built on moral foundations, and those must be unshakable.
Moses’ personal example, in giving an accounting of the funds that had been collected for the first collective project of the Jewish people, set a vital precedent for all time.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Shabbat 117b.
2.
Exodus 38:21.
3.
Exodus 33:8.
4.
Tanchuma, Buber, Pekudei, 4.
5.
Numbers 16:15.
6.
Berakhot 28b.
7.
II Kings 12:16.
8.
A key concept in Jewish law (see, e.g. Berakhot 7a, 45b, Baba Kamma 99b), meaning supererogation, doing more, in a positive sense, than the law requires.
9.
Exodus 18:21.
10.
Numbers 32:22.
11.
Mishnah, Shekalim 3: 2.
12.
Numbers 32:22.
13.
Proverbs 3:4.
14.
Mishnah, Shekalim 3: 2.
15.
Pesachim 13a.
16.
Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 257: 1.
17.
Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 257: 2.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10/ted-kennedy-secretly-asked-the-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/
-
Sorry about the formatting here, it will be easier to read at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415212/suspicious-fires-twice-destroyed-key-sharpton-records-jillian-kay-melchior
Blogs Authors Topics Magazine Subscribe Login Suspicious Fires Twice Destroyed Key Sharpton Records By Jillian Kay Melchior That Iran letter, &c., by Jay Nordlinger, And he didn’t comply with tax and campaign filing requirements.
As Al Sharpton ran for mayor of New York City in 1997 and for president in 2003, fires at his offices reportedly destroyed critical financial records, and he subsequently failed to comply with tax and campaign filing requirements. The first fire began in the early hours of April 10, 1997, in a hair-and-nail salon one floor below Sharpton’s campaign headquarters at 70 West 125th Street. From the start, investigators deemed the fire “suspicious” because of “a heavy volume of fire on arrival” and because many of the doors remained unlocked after hours, according to the New York Fire Department’s fire-and-incident report. As the fire crept upward into Sharpton’s headquarters, it destroyed nearly everything, including computers, files, and campaign records, the Reverend’s spokesperson at the time told Newsday, adding that “we have lost our entire Manhattan operation.”
But a source knowledgeable about the investigation tells National Review Online that Sharpton’s office was mostly empty, and that the damage was not extensive. Top city officials, including then-mayor Rudy Giuliani, said initial suspicions centered on the hair-and-nail salon, not on Sharpton’s campaign, Newsday reported. The fire department sent the case as an arson/explosion investigation to the New York Police Department. By the time of publication of this report, the NYPD had not provided the records requested by National Review Online on December 16, 2014, but it confirmed that the investigation had been closed without an arrest. More Al Sharpton How the Obama-Sharpton Alliance Began Eric Garner's Daughter: Al Sharpton 'All About the Money' Busted FDNY’s report references a “flammable liquid,” and firefighters’ photos of the scene show traces of an incendiary puddle.
Another photo captures what appears to be a singed rag that someone is holding next to a fuse box, perhaps because that is where it was found. But a 2003 Newsday article says “the 1997 fire started when a curling iron overheated in an adjoining beauty parlor.” NRO could find no other sources referencing a curling iron as the cause, and the fire department’s reports make no mention of it, either. View slideshow of FDNY fire investigations As the mayoral campaign continued, Sharpton missed tax and campaign disclosure deadlines. The 1997 fire occurred five days before Tax Day and, the New York Post reported, “just after Sharpton announced that he would open his financial records.” After the fire, Sharpton said he would seek an extension because crucial financial records had been destroyed. It’s unclear whether that extension was granted. In July 1997, Sharpton also missed the deadline to file his personal financial-disclosure forms with the New York City Conflict of Interests Board, violating a legal requirement and risking a fine of up to $10,000. He said the destruction of records in the fire had prevented him from filing. When Sharpton finally filed a year later, in July 1998 — months after the November 4, 1997 elections — he paid a $100 late fee.
It’s unclear what information his filing did or did not contain; in accordance with Section 12-110(f) of the administrative code, the board shredded Sharpton’s financial-disclosure forms more than a decade ago. More Al Sharpton How the Obama-Sharpton Alliance Began Eric Garner's Daughter: Al Sharpton 'All About the Money' Busted During the campaign, Sharpton criticized his opponents for having a “penthouse mentality,” calling one a “limousine liberal.” But while his competitors had voluntarily released their income-tax returns to the media, Sharpton had not even filed his yet, much less publicly disclosed them, Newsday noted. He finally filed his tax returns on August 15, publicly offering only estimates of his earnings that year, which he said were between $50,000 and $60,000. A New York Daily News report a few weeks later alleged that Sharpton owed $100,000 in overdue federal and state taxes and fines, reportedly prompting him to finally release his tax records. A federal tax lien assessed in 2005 also estimated that Sharpton’s nonprofit, National Action Network, owed more than $15,000 for 1997. In early September 1997, the New York City Campaign Finance Board cited Sharpton for accepting political contributions in excess of the limits established in the Campaign Finance Act, the New York Daily News reported.
Six years later, on January 23, 2003 — one day after Sharpton filed paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee — another fire caused heavy damage at National Action Network, located at 1941 Madison Avenue. (The Federal Election Commission (FEC) later determined that Sharpton had actually become a candidate no later than October 2002, although, contrary to law, he had not filed his statement of candidacy until April 2003.) The battalion chief who responded to the fire initially coded it as suspicious. On the fire-and-incident report, the cause of fire is designated as “NFA [Not Fully Ascertained] — Heat from electrical equipment (Extension Cords).” But by the evening of January 24, the chief fire marshal told the New York Times that “both an eyewitness account and a physical examination by fire marshals point to the cause as accidental.”
Nevertheless, significant oddities surrounded both the fire and the investigation, and the story of the key eyewitness had some holes that were apparently never addressed. James Kelty, a supervising fire marshal who responded to the 2003 fire, tells NRO he was unexpectedly relieved from the fire investigation. “I was on the fire, and then I wasn’t on the fire; I was on the fire scene, and then I was no longer at the fire scene,” he says, adding that it was unusual. When NRO told him that the investigative report was only six pages long and accompanied by 38 photographs, Kelty said: “Big fires and fires involving prominent people are generally much more exhaustive. Thirty-eight photos are a drop in the bucket, especially given Sharpton’s notoriety and given the fact that he was running for U.S. president.” View slideshow of FDNY fire investigations According to the fire-and-incident report, a maintenance man named J. D. Livingston discovered the fire. (His name is listed in the report as both Joseph Dennis Livingstone and Joseph D. Livingston.) Livingston, who immigrated to the United States from Guyana, died in March 2014. U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement confirmed to NRO that he was living in the U.S. illegally after overstaying his visa, though it’s unclear when it expired. Carl Redding, who worked with Sharpton but publicly criticized him after a personal falling out, tells me Sharpton paid Livingston under the table. “I always heard that he was unofficially homeless and ended up living at the [National Action] Network,” Redding says.
Another source close to Sharpton described Livingston as a good man who was fiercely loyal to, and heavily dependent on, Sharpton. He said he saw Sharpton pay Livingston in cash, and also alleged that Livingston was living in the office of National Action Network. In an interview with NRO, Sharpton says Livingston “did some side work with me, and that’s all that I’m willing to say about someone deceased.” He adds: “I didn’t pay anyone under the table. Under what table?” Sharpton says Livingston’s wages were reported and covered in a tax repayment. He refused to show NRO any proof, saying he would “absolutely not” give records for “someone who’s deceased and can’t give permission.” As for Livingston living at National Action Network, Sharpton says, “not to my knowledge.” According to the fire-and-incident report, Livingston’s interview with fire investigators occurred “in the presence of his attorney, Michael Hardy,” who is also Sharpton’s longtime lawyer. Kelty, the fire marshal who was at the scene initially, tells me that it’s routine for fire marshals to speak with maintenance men or superintendents to collect information about the building. He also said it’s critically important for fire investigators to speak to the first person at the scene of a fire — in this case, Livingston. Kelty adds, “I could probably count on my hand — and have fingers left over — how many times I have talked to a superintendent or maintenance worker and had an attorney there. It’s just extremely unusual.”
The FDNY report recounts the story Livingston told the fire investigators in the first of two interviews: [Livingston] states that he is an employee of the Reverend Al Sharpton and arrived at work at approx. 7:55 a.m. He states that the downstairs doors were unlocked when he arrived and that wasn’t unusual. He then went upstairs where he unlocked the door to the office. He then entered and immediately locked the door behind him. He states that he went down the hall to check that area and turn on the lights. He then went back into the reception area and entered the Main Speaking Hall to plug in his cell phone. He then went through the reception area to Rev. Sharpton’s Office to check it and turn the lights on. He said that when he left his office, he closed the door. He then states that he went to the bathroom area that was down the hall to start replenishing the bathroom supplies. While doing that he said he heard a noise coming from the reception room and thought it might be Rev. Sharpton’s secretary (Sylvia Matthews) knocking on the door. He states he checked the office entrance door, but no one was there. He then noticed smoke and fire on the floor next to the reception desk. He then went into the stairwell and began banging on the gate that leads upstairs to let whoever was up there know that there was a fire. He then went downstairs to warn them in the restaurant and asked [cook] Rapica Persaud to call 911. A couple of potential inconsistencies stick out: First, Livingston says it “wasn’t unusual” for the downstairs doors to be unlocked — even though the office was in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and even though Livingston in the rest of his account describes unlocking and relocking a door within the office. Livingston’s account also puts him in the reception area where at least four times he says the fire started. Livingston told the cook downstairs to call 911 at approximately 8:15 a.m., the report says. The report places the incident time as 8:29; the FDNY prides itself on arriving at fires within minutes of a 911 call, and the report makes no mention of any delay in response. In other words, Livingston’s account suggests that he must have caught the fire almost immediately, given that he had been back and forth through the reception area so frequently that morning. The report also makes no mention of Livingston’s trying to extinguish the fire. Both the photos and the report indicate that the blaze had grown massive — in discussing them, Kelty described it as a “well-progressed, rapidly advanced fire” — by the time firefighters arrived. According to the fire report, the first firefighter upstairs saw “the second floor entrance door was left open with heavy fire showing in the reception room. He then states that he immediately closed the door to contain the fire while his company was stretching the line. He also states that they then knocked the fire down in the reception area and then proceeded to the main hall where there was also a heavy volume of fire.”
Discussing the interviews with both Livingston and the first firefighter on the scene, Kelty says: “These interviews are not consistent. Usually, any maintenance person or any super, if an incident like this did occur — they notice that there’s some kind of fire by the reception area. They’d normally tell you they’d rush to try to get something to put the fire out, still call the fire department, but try to extinguish the fire. Regardless, we’re normally there around four to five minutes after the transmission of a fire alarm, and we have a heavy volume of fire upon arrival at National Action Network. That’s not normal fire behavior. To me, it strikes me as odd. It doesn’t mean that could not have happened, but it’s unusual.”
Another source close to Sharpton says: It’s very fishy. It doesn’t make sense, and it never made sense. The fact that Livingston was living there — I think probably Sharpton or somebody in that camp said, “Just make this a fire.” After the fires, there was a lot of discussion about, “We can’t do this,” asking for delays because our paperwork was there in the filing cabinets, and they allegedly got destroyed. A lot of pertinent paperwork and accounting stuff was there. Now, everyone who knew J.D. knew that he was a great individual and a nice human being, but I also think he was desperate, in the sense that he needed Sharpton to survive. And that makes me concerned that if you have that kind of reliance on an individual, maybe things went awry. (By his death, Livingston had risen to become a producer for Gary Byrd’s radio show and a beloved community activist, known for ending conversations with “thank you for your kindness,” according to affectionate obituaries and tributes online.)
Though the chief fire marshal later told reporters the investigators had ruled out arson, suspicions still abounded in the neighborhood, according to news accounts. “The fact that a day after [Sharpton] announces he’s running for president his place burns down?” one National Action Network member told the New York Times. “I don’t buy it. They couldn’t sell me on that.” “It was accidentally on purpose,” the New York Times quoted another neighbor saying, adding that his comments “echo[ed] the sentiments of nearly every person interviewed near the burned-out headquarters of the National Action Network.” Another bystander said, “I just have the feeling that something more is going on. I don’t believe the excuse they gave. Even if it was the power cord, someone could have hooked up the cord to set the place on fire.” It’s unclear whether most of these spectators thought the fire was an attack against Al Sharpton or an inside job.
Even Sharpton himself seemed to hint at arson, according to news reports of a church service he held at the Metropolitan Community United Methodist Church days after the fire. “They can burn up buildings, but they didn’t burn down the dream, and the dreamers are still here,” Sharpton said, according to a Newsday report. “It will take more than a fire to in any way quell the desire we have to give new leadership and new direction to this country.” Newsday also noted that after the sermon, “Sharpton said he had raised $12,000 in cash and an additional $13,000 in pledges.” At a January 25 rally, SEIU Local 1199 donated $25,000 and supplied office space for National Action Network, The Final Call reported, and the Nation of Islam also gave $1,000. “Sharpton raised several thousand dollars,” the article says. As National Action Network raised money to rebuild, Sharpton continued his presidential campaign, violating several laws, many of which were related to poor record-keeping and book-keeping, according to an April 2009 FEC conciliation agreement. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed two complaints with the FEC, helping trigger an investigation into Sharpton’s presidential campaign. The FEC later found that both National Action Network and other entities had illegally paid for travel expenses incurred by Sharpton’s campaign, in part because “Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures.” The FEC’s conciliation agreement says that $65,000 in campaign expenses charged to Sharpton’s personal credit card came from unknown sources. It also says an additional $209,677 in unreported in-kind contributions came from Sharpton’s for-profit entity Rev. Al’s Productions. (In 2004, Sharpton told the New York Times that Rev. Al’s Productions was a subsidiary of another one of his entities, Rev. Al’s Communications.) Rev. Al’s Productions, as well as another company called Sharpton Media Group, were “two unincorporated wholly owned, sole proprietorships founded by Sharpton” that “serves as vehicles for Sharpton’s entrepreneurial activities and has no staff, maintains no overhead, and pays all of their profits to Sharpton in the form of dividends, which he claims as income in his personal tax filings,” according to the conciliation agreement. So who was paying Rev. Al’s Communications money that eventually ended up at the campaign? That’s unclear, because Sharpton’s lawyer Michael Hardy said that the fire had destroyed honorarium records for the company. The National Legal and Policy Center suggested in its complaint to the FEC that some of the money may have come from two affluent Sharpton campaign supporters, La-Van Hawkins and his wife, Wendy. The FEC later determined that, in addition to giving the maximum $2,000-per-person donation, Wendy and La-Van had flown Sharpton to Atlanta on a private jet owned by their company, Hawkins Food Group, and thrown him a lavish fundraising event there, featuring crab cakes, beef tenderloin, and $200 bottles of Cristal. The FEC determined that this amounted to more than $10,750 in prohibited in-kind contributions from the Hawkins and Hawkins Food Group. Though the FEC did not address this issue in its conciliation agreement, the NLPC also claimed that Hawkins Food Group had given Sharpton a $25,000 consulting fee before the fire. And in 2008, La-Van Hawkins told the New York Post from a South Dakota federal prison, where he’d been sent for attempted bribery, that he had given both a $25,000 annual consulting fee to Sharpton and “over $1 million” to National Action Network. “There was nothing disclosed by the Sharpton campaign to describe the type of ‘consulting’ Sharpton may have provided Mr. Hawkins’ company in return for the $25,000 payment,” the NLPC wrote. “Perhaps the contract and supporting documents were lost in the fire. . . . The payment by an individual who subsequently became a major donor and then some to Sharpton’s campaign is all the more questionable given the statement by the Sharpton campaign that records for some of his ‘consulting’ work were destroyed in a fire which also destroyed other records about honoraria and income earned by Sharpton.”
New York State eventually dissolved Rev. Al’s Communications in 2009 for failure to pay taxes. From its 1999 founding to 2002, the for-profit entity either failed to file or failed to pay taxes, and by January 2003, the company had managed to run up more than $226,000 in tax debt, according to federal liens. In 2002, the year before the fire, New York had also dissolved Sharpton’s other company, Raw Talent, for tax problems; it owed $589,453 in federal taxes and $4,834 in state taxes, according to a 2007 lien and New York tax warrants. Meanwhile, Delaware dissolved Sharpton Media Group in 2007 for failure to file tax records, though the entity remains active in New York despite state corporate law. National Action Network’s annual tax filings show Sharpton Media Group had loaned the nonprofit tens of thousands of dollars. As Sharpton ran for president, he submitted several FEC filings late. One of them, filed in July 2003, revealed that the IRS had opened a federal tax audit into Sharpton, examining his finances throughout the 1990s, according to a July 12, 2003, New York Times report.
It was not the first time Sharpton had been under scrutiny; in 1990, he was acquitted of 67 counts, including larceny and fraud. Three years later, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after failing to file state income taxes, with the state dropping two felony charges in exchange, the New York Times reported. The IRS investigation lasted for years, and Sharpton continued to cite the fires in connection with it, according to a New York Daily News report. The paper noted that “Sharpton and [National Action Network] owe several million dollars in back taxes, but Sharpton attributed the problem to a fire at his Harlem headquarters that destroyed many records.” By 2008, the IRS dropped its criminal probe, reaching a settlement with Sharpton and his entities of “between $2 million and $9 million,” the New York Daily News reported. Based on the NLPC complaints, the FEC eventually reached two conciliation agreements with Sharpton. It fined him $5,500 for failing to file his statements of candidacy on time, and an additional $208,000 for violating campaign-finance laws by “failing to file complete and accurate reports disclosing all of the Committee’s receipts and expenditures” and “knowingly accepting excessive and prohibited in-kind contributions.” It also fined National Action Network and Sharpton $77,000 for making prohibited contributions to his campaign. The FEC’s latter conciliation agreement notes that it “does not establish or mean that any of the violations were knowing and willful.” Sharpton tells NRO that as part of the settlement with both the IRS and the FEC, “whatever was lost [in the fires] was reconstructed through bank records and whatever else they required. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have made an agreement.” The IRS settlement is not public record, and the conciliation agreement makes no mention of records lost in the fire and subsequently reconstructed. Sharpton also says he did not recall whether he received insurance payments for either fire. “Whatever we got, we got,” he says. “I have no idea.” But some of Sharpton’s former confidants still have questions about the fires and the records they destroyed. “It was always suspicious — it was always suspicious, to this day,” says Carl Redding, the former Sharpton staffer who has publicly criticized him. He adds: “All I could do was just go by whatever the police reports would say. . . . It always seemed like it just died out. There was never any serious questions raised about what happened” in both fires. Then again, it has happened before that two accidental fires hit the same establishment, says Joe Sesniak, a public-information officer for the International Association of Arson Investigators. From just fire-and-incident reports, he says, it’s hard to draw a conclusion. “Some people, if they didn’t have bad luck, they’d have no luck at all,” Sesniak says. “But sometimes, well, it’s not really a coincidence. Knowing what caused the fire depends on the nature of the investigation, the level of training, and the experience of the investigators.” So is Sharpton simply unlucky? “I would say,” Sharpton tells NRO, “that you could speak to people that would certainly, whoever they are, could have their views.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397681/busted-jillian-kay-melchior
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/355638.php
Have we ever had such a blatantly lawless president ever before?
-
Better for the Rule of Law thread.
-
http://conservative50plus.com/blog/dianne-feinsteins-husband-wins-near-billion-dollar-california-high-speed-rail-contract/
-
second post
http://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-subsidies-benefit-husbands-investment-in-dem-mega-donors-company/
-
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason
-
Makes you want to call out politicians early and often who show signs of being capable of committing this sort of act just to gain power.
-
The Most Ominous Opening to a Scandal in a Long Time
Yeesh. We don’t know what Dennis Hastert did . . .
According to the indictment, the former House Speaker agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2010 to a person identified only as “Individual ‘A,” in an effort to “compensate and conceal” Hastert’s “prior misconduct.”
The indictment doesn’t reveal details of the misconduct, but it does note the two have known each other for “most of Individual A’s life” and that the individual is from the same Illinois town where from 1965 to 1981 “Hastert was a high school teacher and wrestling coach.”
To conceal the relationship, prosecutors allege that Hastert, over a four year period, withdrew a total of $1.7 million from a number of his personal bank accounts to give to Individual A. According to the indictment, at first, he took out large amounts -- “$50,000 withdrawals of cash” on 15 occasions. But when “bank representatives questioned” him in 2012, “Hastert began withdrawing cash in increments of less than $10,000” because banks are required by federal law to report anything larger.
In 2014 the FBI questioned Hastert about his withdrawals, and he allegedly lied, telling agents “Yeah... I kept the cash. That’s what I’m doing,” explaining that he did not trust the banking system.
. . . but whatever Hastert did, we can all take a guess at what kind of a secret is so bad that it’s worth paying $3.5 million for and sufficiently damaging that it would destroy the life of a 73-year-old man long removed from political office and enjoying a quiet, lucrative life as a lobbyist. The fact that the indictment pointed out the alleged blackmailer’s connection to where Hastert was a high-school teacher and coach sure seems . . . particular.
-
FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family
JUNE 22, 2015
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.
Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.
According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.
Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”
It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.
JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.
In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.
-
FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family
JUNE 22, 2015
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.
Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.
According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.
Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”
It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.
JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.
In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.
Thanks for posting this even though we all know nothing will ever become of it. She shouldn't be punished for what her family has done, but we should be aware of the background and relationships that shaped and guide her. Note that Hillary's top adviser Huma also has family with major issues. Meanwhile the media is pounding a GOP candidate to separate himself from family members that were fully vetted and elected a combined number of 5 times elected to the office of VP and President. They are also slamming Rand for his father's strict adherence to the US constitution, and attack Marco Rubio for a friend's finances and his wife's driving.
-
http://freebeacon.com/politics/democratic-congresswomans-convicted-felon-spouse-heading-progressive-financed-non-profit-2/
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/21/new-citizens-can-skip-pledge-to-take-up-arms-and-defend-us/
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/21/new-citizens-can-skip-pledge-to-take-up-arms-and-defend-us/
Cough... Muslims...cough...cough
-
by Andrew C. McCarthy August 11, 2015 4:00 AM If what senior Iranian officials are saying is true, the Obama administration’s duplicity in explaining its nuclear negotiations with Iran is even more staggering than we realized. In a new report, MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute) reveals that, according to Iranian officials, the Obama administration initiated secret negotiations with Iran not after the 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani, but rather in 2011 when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still Iran’s president. That means the administration did not wait to reach out until Iran was governed by Rouhani, the purportedly “pragmatic” moderate the Obama administration contrasts with Iranian “hardliners” who supposedly oppose the Iran deal. It reached out when Ahmadinejad, an unapologetic “Death to America, death to Israel” hardliner, was running Iran’s government. To be clear, these distinctions are nonsensical. In Iran, the president is not in charge; the president is subordinate to the nation’s sharia jurists, the chief of whom is “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As I observed last week, Khamenei is a hardliner through and through. So is Rouhani — a protégé of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s jihadist regime. Rouhani, a close friend and adviser of Khamenei, has been a staunch advocate of Iran’s nuclear program and a leader in crushing dissident protests. There is no meaningful difference between Iran in the Ahamdinejad era and in the Rouhani era. Nevertheless, the Obama administration promoted the fiction that the election of Rouhani — who would not have been permitted to run had Khamenei objected — marked a hopeful Iranian turn toward moderation. This, we were to believe, was a worthy justification for engaging in direct negotiations with the regime on its nuclear program. According to Supreme Leader Khamenei, however, Obama himself reached out to Khamenei in 2011, using the dictator of Oman, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, as his intermediary. The Iranian regime’s interpretation of what Qaboos told them was that the Americans “want to solve the nuclear issue and lift sanctions within six months, while recognizing Iran as a nuclear power.” It was on that basis, Khamenei claims, that he agreed. ADVERTISING Of course, negotiations were kept secret in the Ahmadinejad days because Obama was campaigning for a second term in office. If this version of events is true, then the suggestion that the election of Rouhani marked a turning point is not just an absurdity offered by an administration predisposed to appeasement. It is cover for an initiative that was already well underway. Of course, this initiative was not openly spoken of in the Ahmadinejad days because Obama was campaigning for a second term in office. Iranian officials also claim, according to the MEMRI report, that John Kerry was already playing a key role in negotiations in the pre-Rouhani stages — i.e., while Hillary Clinton was still secretary of state and Kerry, a key Obama ally, was still chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. The report relates that then-Senator Kerry, also using Oman as an intermediary, relayed a letter to the regime in Tehran “stating that America recognizes Iran’s rights regarding the enrichment cycle.” If this were true, it would constitute a major betrayal. It has long been the position of the United States that recognition of an “inalienable right” to peaceful nuclear power in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does not translate into a right to any particular route to such power, in particular a right to enrich uranium. This American position has always been a major bone of contention for Iran. Indeed, Iran’s unyielding insistence on international recognition of a right to enrich is one of the primary reasons for several years of stalemate between Iran and the West, with severe sanctions leveled on Iran based on Security Council resolutions banning the country’s enrichment activities. Get Free Exclusive NR Content The Obama administration has repeatedly signaled to Congress and the public that it was holding the line against a right to enrichment. In fact, as Henry Sokolski and Greg Jones of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center noted here at National Review when Obama announced the “interim agreement” with Iran in late 2013, the administration made a point of assuring that the interim agreement “does not concede that Iran has a right to enrich uranium.” Sagely, Sokolski and Jones detected capitulation in the offing: Secretary of State Kerry and President Obama claim that the U.S. has not recognized this right, but that’s just a technicality — he means “not yet.” The U.S. seems willing to grant Iran this right once the follow-on comprehensive solution is reached between the P5+1 (the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany) and Iran. In two separate places the interim agreement says, “This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme.” Note that the text says “would,” not “might” or “could.” Now, if what Iranian officials are saying is true, we know that the Obama administration had already recognized an Iranian right to enrichment. More Iran Nuclear Negotiations While Still a Senator, Kerry Communicated Obama’s Capitulation Policy to the Iranian Regime Families of the Fallen and Wounded Warriors Leave Defenders of Iran Deal with Nowhere to Hide Here's What's Wrong with Obama's Case for the Iran Deal There is, moreover, good reason to conclude that the Iranians are a reliable source on this point. Since the “right to enrichment” has been their top agenda item from the start, it was undoubtedly a key consideration in the regime’s decision to engage in the negotiations Obama was so anxious to have. Furthermore, Iran has been consistent in its public statements about this issue, while the Obama administration has been slippery to the point of embarrassment. Obama’s capitulation is a national-security disaster. Not only will it inexorably arm the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism with nuclear weapons. There is no conceding Iran’s right to enrich uranium without conceding every nation’s right to enrich uranium. The president obsessed with eliminating nuclear weapons, and who can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, has succeeded in creating a nuclear-arms race that will empower the bad guys. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422363/obama-iran-negotiations-new-documents-rouhani-ahmadinejad?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NR5PM&utm_campaign=Wednesday%20Email%208%2F12
-
OBAMA'S BETRAYALS: WILLFULLY SUPPORTING AL-QAEDA AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
Dare anyone call it treason?
August 12, 2015 Robert Spencer
Editor's note: The following is the first article in the FrontPage series "Obama's Betrayals," which will explore the president's record of perfidy, malfeasance and crimes against the American people. As the Obama presidency enters its final stages, examples of this treachery are only becoming more numerous and brazen. "Obama's Betrayals" will shine the spotlight on these attacks on the American polity, the incredible damage they are inflicting on the nation, and the dangerous agenda the president intends to complete before leaving office.
It doesn’t get any more explosive than this: a high-ranking former Obama administration official charging that the administration made a conscious decision to support al-Qaeda – so where is the mainstream media?
Brad Hoff reported in Foreign Policy Journal last Friday that “in Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was ‘a willful decision.’”
When Hasan asked Flynn if “the administration turned a blind eye” to analyses explaining how the Syrian “rebels” against the Assad regime were actually Islamic jihadists who wanted to establish a hardline Sharia state in Syria, Flynn responded: “I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.”
“A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?,” asked Hasan.
Flynn responded: “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.” That is, arm those Salafist, al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood elements, and do all they could to enable them to succeed.
One has to pause and consider the source for all this. Mehdi Hasan is a highly suspect analyst and Foreign Policy Journal appears to be a pro-jihad paleocon publication, and Al Jazeera is certainly a pro-jihad propaganda outlet. All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State.
And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that? It has been well known for years that Obama has energetically supported the Muslim Brotherhood – so well known that Egyptians protesting against the corrupt and tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohamed Morsi in 2013 held up signs calling on Obama to “stop supporting terrorism.”
But al-Qaeda? The former head of the DIA revealing that the Obama administration made a conscious decision to aid the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001 and has been waging global warfare against the United States ever since? That is something else again.
It would, however, be consistent with so many odd aspects of Obama’s behavior. The President has aroused controversy over his affinity with Islam throughout his presidency, with his extravagant praise of the non-existent Islamic role in the founding and growth of the American republic, his exaggeration of Muslim achievements, his refusal to name the global jihad threat in any accurate manner, and so much more – even small incidents such as his notorious 2008 “slip of the tongue” in which he referred to “my Muslim faith,” right up to the one that broke in February 2015, when a photo surfaced from the U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in August 2014, showing Obama passing by a group of African delegates with his right index finger raised in a gesture strongly reminiscent of the Islamic State’s now notorious one-finger salute.
That Islamic State, of course, was the direct beneficiary of Obama’s Syria policies, and now Michael Flynn has revealed that that was essentially the plan all along. So why isn’t the honking gaggle of Republican presidential candidates saying anything about this – demanding an investigation, asking Flynn for more information, imploring Obama to come clean about his Syria strategy – anything at all? In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.
Why that is so remains a mystery. Can it be that Flynn’s allegations are simply too hot to handle for everyone, and that, if taken seriously, they would bring down many more people than just Barack Obama? That seems to be the only remotely plausible explanation. But it is a deeply disquieting one.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His next book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, is coming August 24.
-
:-o :-o :-o :x :x :x
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/
-
Can anyone confirm or deny?
======================================
The medieval way to cement an alliance. Send them the daughter of a lesser noble, one of the king's ministers perhaps.
Subject: Guess who's married to John Kerry's daughter - OH, how interesting! And It Seems To Deal With His Dealings With In-Laws, While In Official Capacity
Guess who's married to John Kerry's daughter - OH, how interesting!
Maybe you don’t know that in 2009 the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, married an Iranian physician named Dr. Brian Vale Nahed.
Well, No mainstream media reported this.
Guess who was the best man at the wedding? Mohammad Javad Zarif.
So who is Mr. Zarif?
Zarif is the current minister of foreign affairs for Iran. He was Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations just concluded.
Isn't this a lovely picture?
As Front Page Magazine pointed out several months ago, the nuclear talks with Iran were a tragic farce, choreographed and orchestrated by Iran.
And unfortunately, we’re going to have to live with the consequences.
When (not "if") the bomb blows.
Snopes:
http://m.snopes.com/john-kerry-iranian-son-law/
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/03/rumor-check-was-iranian-foreign-ministers-son-really-the-best-man-at-john-kerrys-daughters-wedding/
-
Thank you GM.
-
http://joeforamerica.com/2015/08/the-real-reason-why-dems-want-iran-nuke-deal/#
-
It is so frustrating to see the Iran deal go through and the Republicans handed Obama this too.
How outrageous!
Like Trump said everyone knows Schumer and Schulz would never have voted no if they didn't know it would go through.
Like he said "wink wink nod nod".
The joke is on Israel and us.
-
Now this REALLY chafes my ass! If this is true, it is truly despicable.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/090415-769842-obamadislike-of-mckinley-is-deep.htm?p=full (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/090415-769842-obamadislike-of-mckinley-is-deep.htm?p=full)
Obama Is Removing McKinley's Legacy From Hawaii, Not Just An Alaskan Mountain
There's been no Hawaiian nation since 1898, when President McKinley abolished the monarchy and annexed the islands as a U.S. territory. That may soon change, however, thanks to the Hawaiian sitting in the Oval Office.
As our first anti-colonialist president, Barack Obama is no fan of McKinley, who practically overnight turned America into a "colonial power." Winning the Spanish-American War, the Republican leader took control of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and effectively Cuba, which became a U.S. protectorate.
While none of these acquisitions sits well with Obama, he views McKinley's war-time overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom as unforgivable.
"As American soldiers and settlers moved steadily west and southwest, successive administrations described the annexation of territory in terms of 'manifest destiny' — the conviction that such expansion was preordained, part of God's plan," Obama wrote in his book, "The Audacity of Hope."
"Of course," he added, "manifest destiny also meant bloody and violent conquest — of Native American tribes forcibly removed from their lands. It was a conquest that, like slavery ... tended to be justified in explicitly racist terms."
After McKinley and other "imperialists" turned their attention overseas, "Hawaii was annexed, giving America a foothold in the Pacific," Obama lamented, comparing it to the "colonization" practiced by Europe. "The Spanish-American war delivered Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines into U.S. control."
In his 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father," Obama expressed his anti-colonial sentiment in angrier tones. He described McKinley's annexation of Hawaii as an "ugly conquest."
The resentment runs deep: McKinley represents everything Obama's anti-colonialist father, who met his mother at the University of Hawaii, and his anti-colonialist mentor, Hawaiian communist Frank Marshall Davis, told him was bad about America. And this anti-colonialist agenda explains Obama's mysterious decision last month to strip McKinley's name from America's tallest peak after more than 100 years there. Mount McKinley is now "Mount Denali," in deference to Native Americans.
But the president isn't just renaming McKinley's mountain; he's essentially de-annexing McKinley's islands.
Last month, the Obama administration took a major step toward "re-establishing a government-to-government relationship" with Hawaii. The Interior Department's spokeswoman has confirmed it is drafting a rule to help native Hawaiians create a separate and independently sovereign nation with rights to their own land and rule — while still maintaining federally tax-supported welfare benefits and other privileges, such as gaming rights afforded Indian tribal territories.
"The benefits of the government-to-government relationship have long been denied to one place in our nation, even though it is home to one of the world's largest indigenous communities: Hawaii," deputy Interior Secretary Michael Connor stated in a recent rule-making notice published in the Federal Register.
The rule is expected to be finalized next year. Meanwhile, a sovereign governing entity is being formed in Honolulu through the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. It's already registered some 100,000 native Hawaiians to vote on a "constitutional convention."
The separatist movement has quietly gained momentum since 2010, when then-Attorney General Eric Holder and then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signaled to Hawaiian officials they would stand behind the push. Since then, Hawaiian and Obama officials have shuttled between Washington and Honolulu privately meeting on the issue. (And you thought Obama was just body-surfing on those vacations in Honolulu!)
Crazy as it sounds, "they are moving forward on this," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton warns.
His Washington-based watchdog group is suing the Hawaiian commission to stop the separatist campaign, arguing its race-based voter registration is unconstitutional. Hans von Spakovsky, a former federal civil-rights attorney, agrees: "The administration has no constitutional basis for granting what would amount to secession for certain residents of Hawaii."
But as with executive amnesty, Obama doesn't care if he lacks legal authority. He won't let the Constitution get in the way of "social justice."
By undoing the statehood of our 50th state, the president hopes to return to the native Hawaiian people the islands he thinks McKinley stole from them. That's all the justification our Hawaiian king needs.
• Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is author of "The Great American Bank Robbery."
-
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
Hat tip to our Objectivist for this one:
OBAMA’S GENOCIDAL TREASON
Obama’s final legacy may be the death of millions of Americans.
September 24, 2015 Daniel Greenfield
No government has the blood of more American soldiers on its hands today than the government of Iran. From Lebanon to Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia to Iraq, Iran has been killing American soldiers for decades.
241 in Beirut. 19 at the Khobar Towers. Over 500 in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last time the United States officially fought Iran was under Reagan. But Iran has never stopped killing Americans. There is no reason to believe that it will stop once it has the nuclear weapons that Obama is helping its leaders obtain.
The last time left-wing radicals aided the nuclear program of an open enemy of the United States, they were put on trial for it. The sentencing judge at the time said that because “the nature of Russian terrorism is now self-evident” there was no further room for claims that no harm had been done.
“I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country,” Judge Kaufman stated.
These words of the Rosenberg verdict apply equally well to Obama’s betrayal on Iran. What the Rosenbergs did for Stalin, Obama did for the Ayatollah Khamenei.
Obama’s dirty nuclear deal with Iran has already sped along Iran’s aggression across the region. The more concessions Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry made, the more aggressive Iran became. It’s now involved in wars across the region that have already dragged the United States into its reach.
If Iran is allowed to go nuclear, these wars will become much worse and much more devastating.
This isn’t just Chamberlain. It’s Vidkun Quisling and Philippe Pétain. It’s not bad judgment. It’s treason. Obama has not merely appeased Iran out of fear; he sympathizes with its anti-American grievances. As he told his negotiators, Iran’s rulers feel “vulnerable” because of how America “meddled” in “their democracy” and that its anti-Americanism is a “defensive” reaction to “avoid repeats of the past.”
Obama identifies with the anti-American resentments of Muslim terrorists instead of the suffering of their victims. His foreign policy has been based on empowering the enemies of the United States to turn their grievances into a “defense” against American influence and intervention. He has done it from Cuba to Iran, backing Communist and Muslim Brotherhood tyrants. But his Iranian deal is his bloodiest crime.
The nuclear deal will empower Iran to act out its resentments by killing millions.
The nuclear bomb isn’t just a weapon. It’s an instrument of genocide. It’s an existential threat to our civilization and our way of life. The spies who helped the USSR go nuclear weren’t just passing along information about a weapon; they transformed a military conflict into a permanent global crisis in which the very fate of humanity rested on the greed and power of brutal aging ideologues in Moscow.
By clearing Iran’s path to the bomb, Obama has transformed the slow conflicts of conventional terrorism into a catastrophic civilizational crisis. An Iranian nuclear bomb will not sneak up on us the way that the demographic crisis of Muslim migration and its accompanying terrorism have. It will not be an incremental problem. A nuclear arms race between Sunnis and Shiites in which terrorists on both sides wield nuclear weapons will make the entire structure of Western civilization unsustainable.
9/11 saw a few jets used to devastate a city. The next wave of weapons will kill millions, not thousands.
The traitors who turned the USSR into a power capable of destroying the world were motivated by the same hidden agenda as the proponents of the Iran nuclear deal. They believed that an American nuclear monopoly would lead to arrogance and warmongering. They were convinced that American power had to be checked by seeing to it that the Soviet Union could match Uncle Sam, nuke for nuke.
Those who have opened the nuclear gates to Tehran today believe that a nuclear Iran will be a deterrent against American imperialism in the region. Their number includes Barack Obama.
After having failed with the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama intends to make Iranian power into a deterrent against future military interventions by a Republican successor. If he can get “Tehran Joe” Biden, a notorious sympathizer of the Iran Lobby, to watch the store while Iran goes nuclear, Iran will dominate the region the way that the Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe.
Obama’s terrorist treason gambles that Iran will be, “rational”, that its leaders will be Khrushchevs, willing to press where they sense weakness, rather than Stalins, who are willing to kill millions for power. Leftist appeasers of Iran, in and out of the administration, obsessively cling to the belief that the Islamic regime in Iran is rational because it allows them to evade the responsibility if the world burns.
They rationalize their treason by insisting that Iran’s leaders and fevered mobs don’t really mean it when they shriek, “Death to America”. If Iran’s leader did mean it, the Senate Democrats toeing the mad party line, the media leftists chattering White House talking points, the intellectuals who recall meeting Iranian diplomats at cocktail parties, and their leader, Obama, would all be accessories to genocide.
Obama’s Iran pathway rationalized treason at every step, made every compromise seem inevitable and reasonable, minimized the final catastrophic betrayal by presenting his version of a nuclear Iran as the only possible alternative to a nuclear Iran. Like Benedict Arnold, he had whittled away all other options except defeat or treason so as to make the latter seem like the sensible and even the patriotic option.
Stalin’s nuclear traitors used the same logic, negotiating each betrayal as the only alternative to war, only to inflict the Cold War and the terror of nuclear annihilation on entire generations. After having spent so long denouncing the Cold War they had caused with their diplomatic, political and even military support for Stalin’s ambitions, they have finally arranged to bring back the Cold War.
And if it all goes wrong, the blame is meant to fall on the “right-wing warmongers” who alienated Iran, just as their predecessors had done to the USSR, not the leftist sympathizers who had endowed the enemies of civilization with the power to destroy civilization.
Obama has betrayed America. He has betrayed the American victims of Iranian terror. He has betrayed the American soldiers who were murdered, maimed and tortured by Iran’s terrorist armies. He has betrayed hundreds of millions of Americans in the homeland who will be forced to raise their children under the shadow of Iran’s nuclear terror.
His nuclear treason isn’t just a betrayal of America. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, it makes the mass murder of millions of Americans by a vicious enemy possible once again.
Obama has impoverished millions of Americans, he has the blood of soldiers and police officers on his hands, but his final legacy may be collaboration in an act of mass murder that would rival Adolf Hitler.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/obama-squeezes-republicans-throats-defense-spending/
-
Sounds like someone was paid off. Of course any admission will be at best some mistakes were made Why is the IRS destroying HDs anyway?
Will anyone be held accountable. No. Hey they are life long government servants. Nothing evil going on here.
Look folks there is just not enough accountability in Federal government:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/again-irs-destroys-another-hard-184100221.html
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-seal-lawmaker-capture-of-sailors-doesnt-add-up/article/2581529
Would they lie to us?
-
Thanks for pointing this out GM
Yes we are lied to by Kerry and crew about what really happened.
We need not worry however. The media will get right on top of this. :x
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/report-navy-officer-who-fired-on-islamist-during-chattanooga-terror-attack-will-be-charged/
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/report-navy-officer-who-fired-on-islamist-during-chattanooga-terror-attack-will-be-charged/
He obviously acted stupidly and is suspected of bias towards jihadists of color.
-
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/blog/sen-diane-feinsteins-husband-wins-ca-rail-contract/
-
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/blog/sen-diane-feinsteins-husband-wins-ca-rail-contract/
Small world! Just lucky Democrats.
Reminds me of the Clintons, who haven't worked a minute outside of government since being dead broke, but are worth $80 million, and still increasing while neither is working.
The people who say they want government imposed equality for all end up taxing the little people and steering the government money to themselves. This is more like a Stalin, Chavez and Kim Jung Un kleptocracy than a Heritage Freedom Index top 10 country. (Oh, we aren't anymore!)
-
TOO BAD SOMEBODY DECIDED TO STORE GASOLINE AND OILY RAGS IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE SUBPOENAED HARD DRIVES. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN! IRS Building In Washington, D.C. Closed Today Due To Fire.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/04/irs-bulding-in-washington-dc-closed-today-due-to-fire.html
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/john-mccain-follows-hillarys-worst-examples-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
:x :x :x
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/19/pelosis-husband-invested-in-solar-firm-weeks-before-lucrative-expansion.html
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/19/pelosis-husband-invested-in-solar-firm-weeks-before-lucrative-expansion.html
This kind of luck happens to lots of politically connected people. Strange how this works out....
-
IIRC Sen. Feinstein's husband got lucky with a contract to build the Supertrain or something like that , , ,
-
IIRC Sen. Feinstein's husband got lucky with a contract to build the Supertrain or something like that , , ,
Right, "lucky".
When I started in sales they used to say, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
Now they say, the more you give to liberal politicians, the luckier you get.
-
IIRC Sen. Feinstein's husband got lucky with a contract to build the Supertrain or something like that , , ,
Right, "lucky".
When I started in sales they used to say, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
Now they say, the more you give to liberal politicians, the luckier you get.
A cynical person might question these transactions. I'm sure the US DOJ is cool though.
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/
-
Serious misconduct and cover up by the New Orleans police followed by misconduct of the Justice Department lawyers in the case. The judge excoriates in very strong language the conduct of gov’t prosecutors and their supervisors in Washington. The judge puts the blame on the supervisors of the civil rights division of the Justice Dept. and Thomas Perez, the current Secretary of Labor and head of the Civil Rights Division at the time, is specifically mentioned.
Perez is a possible Hillary VP choice and Loretta Lynch runs a Justice Department that still hasn't acted on Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, black Panthers voter interference or Hillary Clinton's security breaches. Also note the lack of coverage outside of that region. Does anyone here know more on this?
More here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/across-the-danziger-bridge.php
and here:
http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/neworleansnews/15568565-123/with-danziger-bridge-pleas-federal-judge-unloads-on-top-government-officials
-
Please post in Rule of Law as well. TIA
-
From what we read in the press the State has been not as forthcoming as they could or should be. Not totally like the IRS. Officials at these agencies need to be held more accountable in my armchair opinion:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/doj-hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-email-scandal/2016/05/11/id/728287/
-
From what we read in the press the State has been not as forthcoming as they could or should be. Not totally like the IRS. Officials at these agencies need to be held more accountable in my armchair opinion:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/doj-hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-email-scandal/2016/05/11/id/728287/
Laws are for the little people.
-
The US has entered into a contract with a real estate firm to sell 56 buildings that currently house U.S. Post Offices. All 56 were built, operated, and paid for by tax-paying American citizens. Now enjoy reading the rest: The government has decided it no longer needs these buildings, most of which are located on prime land in towns and cities across the country.
The sale of these properties will fetch about$19 billion!
A regular real estate commission will be paid to the company that was given the exclusive listing for handling the sales. That company is CRI and it belongs to a man named Richard Blum.
Richard Blum is the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein!(Most voters and many of the government people who approved the deal have not made the connection between the two because they have different last names).
Senator Feinstein and her husband stand to make a fortune, estimated at between $950 million and $1.1 BILLION from these transactions!
His company is the sole real estate agent on the sale!
CRI will be making a minimum of 2% and as much as 6% commission on each and every sale. All of the properties that are being sold are all fully paid for. They were purchased with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars.
The U.S.P.S. is allowed free and clear, tax exempt use. The only cost to keep them open is the cost to actually keep the doors open and the heat and lights on. The United States Postal Service doesn't even have to pay county property taxes on these subject properties. QUESTION? Would you put your house in foreclosure just because you couldn't afford to pay the electric bill?
Well, the folks in Washington have given the Post Office the OK to do it! Worse yet, most of the net proceeds of the sales will go back to the U.S.P.S, an organization that is so poorly managed that they have lost $117 billion dollars in the past 10 years!
No one in the mainstream media is even raising an eyebrow over the conflict of interest and on the possibility of corruption on the sale of billions of dollars worth of public assets.
How does a U.S. Senator from San Francisco manage to get away with organizing and lobbying such a sweet deal ? Has our government become so elitist that they have no fear of oversight?
It's no mere coincidence that these two public service crooks have different last names; a feeble attempt at avoiding transparency in these type of transactions.
Pass this info on before it's pulled from the Internet. You can verify it on TruthorFiction and Snopes:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/…/Blum-Post-Office-Sale-06101…
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp
-
http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/saudis-kept-two-jihad-terror-groups-tied-to-huma-abedin-off-u-s-list.html/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/254202/revived-questions-about-huma-abedin-matthew-vadum
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263183/huma-abedin-daughter-jihad-matthew-vadum
http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/saudis-kept-two-jihad-terror-groups-tied-to-huma-abedin-off-u-s-list.html/
-
http://conservativetribune.com/truth-about-huma-leaks/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=WesternJournalism&utm_content=2016-06-29&utm_campaign=manualpost
-
A California University's Troubling Terrorism Ties
by Cinnamon Stillwell
Independent Journal Review
July 1, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6102/sfsu-partnership-najah-university
Share:
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Originally published under the title "Why Is A San Francisco University Secretly Partnering With An Arab College That Promotes Jihad?"
SFSU President Leslie Wong has come under criticism for failing to take sufficient action against anti-Israel hate groups on campus.
San Francisco State University (SFSU), which has a well-deserved reputation as a breeding ground for anti-Israel radicalism, became national news in April. That's when campus police stood by as a hate-Israel group, the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), shouted down and disrupted a lecture by Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, prompting much criticism of SFSU's president, Leslie Wong.
But there's worse. As revealed by an investigation into SFSU by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, SFSU has partnered with a Palestinian university that's a hotbed of radicalization.
What our investigation turned up:
SFSU signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with An-Najah University of Hebron in 2014 at the behest of Rabab Abdulhadi, director of SFSU's Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative (AMED) and founding member of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
Najah states on its website that the MOU was signed on September 10, 2014 and Abdulhadi sang its praises at an April 2015 reception:
The memorandum of understanding that President Wong signed with An-Najah National University in Palestine ... is the first time that we have any agreement with any university in the Arab or Muslim world and we are very excited about that.
Wong also trumpeted the MOU at the 2015 reception, boasting of his role in helping bring it to fruition:
When I returned from Palestine two years ago, I said I want to be one of the first major universities to sign an agreement with An-Najah or any of the other Palestinian universities, or any of the universities in the Arab world.
Given this public preening, it is disturbing to learn that SFSU's administration officially only corroborates the MOU indirectly on its website. Worse, in an arrogant disregard for the public's right to know, Wong has refused to respond to repeated inquiries from Campus Watch about the agreement's specific contents. What are the terms? The duration? The financial arrangements? And so forth.
Supporters of Hamas and Fatah rally during the Najah University student council elections in 2006.
This reticence may be due to Najah U being lauded by Hamas itself as a "greenhouse for martyrs." Matthew Levitt, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says it's known for "terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and radicalization of students," while the Anti-Defamation League reports that its student council "glorifies suicide bombings and propagandizes for jihad against Israel."
For example, Najah student Maram Hassoneh was killed attempting her second knife attack on IDF soldiers in 2015. At the June 2014 graduation ceremony, students held up three fingers to represent Hamas's kidnapping of three Israeli teens. On another occasion, Najah students constructed a gruesome replica of the 2001 suicide bombing in a Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem.
Despite Najah's notoriety as a repository for terrorism, Abdulhadi singled it out as a desirable partner for SFSU. Little wonder that, after pledging to set up a student exchange program with Najah in November 2015, she added this disclaimer:
We do not want to ... teach students how to grow up and build bombs and destroy other people.
President Wong's silence following repeated inquiries is unacceptable. Californian taxpayers fund SFSU and they have a right to know the details of and the implications of its MOU with Najah.
The American public deserves to know the full truth about SFSU aligning itself with the enemy.
To that end, Campus Watch has prepared a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to SFSU to make public the MOU.
Campus Watch also calls on the chancellor of the California State University, Timothy P. White, to investigate SFSU's memorandum of understanding with Najah; and on the education committees of the California state legislature and U.S. Congress to hold hearings into this matter.
In a time of global jihad, the public deserves to know the full truth about one of its universities aligning itself with the enemy.
Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
-
(Photo: Twitter)
Appearing this week on CBN News, former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney gave an insider’s perspective on the Obama administration’s dedication to avoiding offending Muslims at the expense of national security.
Haney, who details his experience as a whistleblower in his new book “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” came to the realization in 2009 when his superiors made an odd request regarding valuable information he had gathered and entered into the DHS electronic database.
“They told me, we want you to eliminate – the word was ‘modify’ – all the linking information in about 850 records that I put into the system on guess what group? The Muslim Brotherhood,” Haney told CBN’s Jennifer Wishon.
Haney said the Obama administration did not wish to investigate Muslim Brotherhood members as terrorists because it relied on the Brotherhood and other Muslim groups with ties to terrorism to help form U.S. counter-terrorism policy.
Three years later, in 2012, the administration purged all 67 of Haney’s records dealing with Muslims associated with a movement known as Tablighi Jamaat.
“This time they didn’t just modify the information in the records; they completely eliminated them out of the system, erased them forever,” Haney explained. “And then they investigated me for putting that information into the system when that was exactly the job that I was supposed to be doing.”
This pattern continued after the recent terror attack in Orlando, when the Justice Department initially redacted all of shooter Omar Mateen’s references to Islam and ISIS from a transcript of his 9-1-1 call. In fact, Haney discovered immediately after the shooting that the Fort Pierce, Florida, mosque Mateen attended had ties to the Tablighi Jamaat case that the Obama/Clinton State Department shut down in 2012. If Haney’s information had not been eliminated, the Orlando massacre might have been prevented.
Get “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad” now at the WND Superstore!
“I can’t explain to you the ideology or the worldview of this administration that makes them so adamant to protect Islam from harm by addressing it in its true nature,” Haney said.
Islam, he noted, is not just a religion, but a system of laws – Shariah – that Muslims who adhere to fundamental teaching wish to establish over all the world.
“The power of Shariah is very difficult to exaggerate how much influence it has on the lives of Muslims around the world,” the whistleblower warned.
In fact, Haney believes America is presently locked in a battle between the U.S. Constitution and Shariah law.
“Are we going to submit to the influence of Shariah law and make it legal for one particular religion to have more than one wife?” he asked. “Or are we going to say, ‘No, you cannot implement those provisions as long as you want to be a citizen of United States’?”
The answer, according to Haney, is for Americans to become more familiar with the Constitution.
“If you become more familiar with the Constitution, you’ll be able to see more clearly the points of conflict between the U.S. Constitution and Shariah law, and then you can discuss it without fear of being called a racist or a bigot or an Islamophobe,” he advised.
Haney, who testified before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday, told CBN’s audience his Christian faith has helped him get through his long ordeal. In fact, only faith in God could help him overcome the dark forces he has faced.
“We’re talking about very, very high-level, malevolent kind of forces here at work, and it is very sobering to see these kinds of things operating,” he said. “These are biblical-level events that we’re talking about.”
Get “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad” now at the WND Superstore!
Click here for reuse options!
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/dhs-whistleblower-why-obama-is-so-adamant-to-protect-islam/#qAYeGFTzLb3PRG30.99
-
http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/u-s-accepts-record-number-of-syrian-refugees-in-june-despite-terrorist-screening-worries.html/
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ny-times-clinton-may-keep-lynch-as-attorney-general/article/2595580?custom_click=rss
-
Yup . Sure is.
But the response would be , "but can you prove it?". Though now it is even if one could prove it , it still doesn't matter to the Dems.
We all know the NYT is tight with the Clinton campaign. The piece was written in coordination with the Clinton people for sure.
Look at Sidney Blumenthal.
-
https://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/clinton-bush-covered-saudi-terror-network-us
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/bill-clinton-honorary-chairman-international-sharia-school-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
second post of day:
http://dennismichaellynch.com/bernie-sanders-supporter-who-served-dnc-legal-papers-found-dead/
http://dennismichaellynch.com/dc-conspiracy-death2/
http://dennismichaellynch.com/highlight-one/former-u-n-official-dies-before-testifying-in-bribe-scandal-with-clinton-donor/
-
More Obama Doublespeak on Iran
The Obama administration has instructed us that Obamacare’s tax is not a tax, that its policy of not enforcing immigration law is “prosecutorial discretion,” and that hundreds of American military personnel on the ground in Iraq and Syria are not “boots on the ground.” So it’s not surprising to hear from the President this week that money paid in exchange for hostages is not a “ransom”.
The administration insists that’s not what we should call the planeload of $400 million in cash that arrived in Iran at the same time as four American hostages were released in January.
Thankfully, the facts are in less dispute than the definition of the word.
In negotiations that led to the release of the hostages, the Wall Street Journal reports, “The Iranians were demanding the return of $400 million” sent to the U.S. in 1979, and “they also wanted billions of dollars as interest accrued since then.”
Since it would be a violation of U.S. law to pay the regime in U.S. dollars however, the Journal reports that the Treasury Department asked European central banks to change its payment into Euros and Swiss Francs before loading the notes on a plane and flying them to Iran. There, one of the hostages involved told Fox News, the Iranian captors told the Americans they were “waiting for another plane” before they would be released.
So to review: the Iranians made a demand for $400 million in exchange for releasing the hostages. The U.S. government went to extraordinary lengths to deliver $400 million to Iran. And as a result, the hostages were released. But this wasn’t a ransom situation?
“No, it was not,” says White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. “It is against the policy of the United States to pay ransom for hostages."
"We do not pay ransom,” President Obama echoed. “We didn't here, and we won't in the future.”
In his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell describes words for which “the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” Perhaps President Obama’s own private definition of “ransom” requires the use of a paper bag--or U.S. dollars.
Whatever the President’s beliefs about what he’s done, however, clearly he has sent a signal to Iran that the regime can take hostages and extract concessions. The $400 million in cash will likely endanger more Americans and result in more false imprisonments.
It is worth remembering that prisoners whose stories are known to the public had done absolutely nothing wrong, and should never have been imprisoned to begin with. No payment should have been required to secure their release. And yet the same administration that recently arrested a police officer who tried to send $245 to ISIS has now sent hundreds of millions to the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.
That Iran would take innocent Americans hostage for ransom is a reminder of how untrustworthy and dangerous a regime the Obama administration is dealing with on nuclear weapons. Such actions are one of the reasons there are sanctions on the country in the first place. Indeed, those restrictions made the $400 million in cash an even sweeter deal than it might seem. It solved a serious problem for the regime.
As a senior U.S. official explained to the Wall Street Journal, “Sometimes the Iranians want cash because it’s so hard for them to access things in the international financial system. They know it can take months just to figure out how to wire money from one place to another.”
In other words, Iran got more than its money’s worth out of the plane full of cash. And what did the regime do with it? As Bloomberg reported, the funds are going straight into their war chest: “Iran's Guardian Council approved the government's 2017 budget that instructed Iran's Central Bank to transfer the $1.7 billion [the ransom plus interest] to the military.”
So the Obama administration hasn’t just struck a deal with Iran that will allow it to obtain nuclear weapons. In paying the ransom money, the U.S. has also funded the military that could seek to use those weapons against us.
Your Friend,
Newt
-
http://counterjihad.com/exclusive-hillary-rubber-stamped-visas-record-number-saudi-visitors
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/08/hillary-state-dept-helped-jailed-clinton-foundation-donor-get-10-mil-u-s-failed-haiti-project/
-
second post
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/
-
CD,
ONe pollster pointed out we will see *this week* if any of the new released corruption news on Hillary will make ever a dent in her lead in the polls.
-
I guess the key to closing the evidential proof of crimes committed will be to prove that favors were returned to those who paid access. That will tough to prove. especially with the wall of liars and coverups with this mafia group.
-
What I am reading is that paying/donating for face time is legal.
However, I think this misses an important point. The right to petition one's elected representatives, and to support their efforts, is all well and good (and is limited to Americans, yes?) but the Secretary of State is a qualitatively different matter.
-
"What I am reading is that paying/donating for face time is legal."
It is illegal for foreign entities to give money to our campaigns. Making the donations one or two steps removed is a violation of at the least of the spirit of the law. Donations to the Foundation benefit the Clintons and the campaign. It is a revolving door of co-mingled funds including some employees who worked for both the State Dept and the Foundation at the time.
"However, I think this misses an important point. The right to petition one's elected representatives, and to support their efforts, is all well and good (and is limited to Americans, yes?) but the Secretary of State is a qualitatively different matter."
Good point, and what is the right of Persian Gulf Sheiks and Putin/Russia to petition our Secretary of State through her personal and power enrichment for quid pro quo US Government favors? What does $100 Billion buy in government favors these days?
To point out the obvious, the dispensing of that money empowers them also, in a perpetual motion way with 11% skimmed off before the other shenanigans even get started.
-
It does not stand to reason that all these sophisticated wealthy individuals, governments, business concerns and whatever else were just gving money for "face time".
Word HAD to be out (one the street) that Clintons were playing for pay.
-
http://freebeacon.com/issues/government-funds-mylan-spiked-sen-manchins-daughter-became-ceo/
-
However her father got her awarded one because he pulled strings and she was awarded a bogus one. Later rescinded and people resigned but now she is a multimillionaire .
MBA controversy
Main article: West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy
Bresch was an MBA student at West Virginia University.[8] In 2007, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Bresch had claimed to have an MBA degree from West Virginia University, but the university disputed that.[8] The university subsequently awarded her an EMBA despite the fact that she had not attained sufficient credits. Her father was governor of the state of West Virginia at the time.[9]
In the ensuing controversy, the university announced in April 2008 that it would rescind Bresch's degree. Michael Garrison, WVU President at the time, was reported to be "a family friend and former business associate of Bresch"[10] and a former consultant and lobbyist for Mylan.[8] After a faculty vote of no confidence, Garrison and several university officials subsequently resigned.[11][9]
-
A while ago, there was a discussion somewhere here about the accumulated wealth of Chavez, Sanders, Clinton, et al., whom are "magnates" of the "people."
I promised GM a list on this a while ago, but here is some of what I have come up with. Throwing it here, because I'm not sure where to put it. I'll admit that I have limited the list to Democrats, due to the fact that Republicans operate under a different philosophy and don't claim to be champions of the poor and oppressed. It bears mentioning, that several politicians, David Koch and Michael Bloomberg for example, either lean heavily left on social issues (as with the former) or in the latter case, started as a Democrat, and registered as a Republican in a traditionally blue state, just to be able to run, therefore, I have also included several RINOs and the sort.
Hillary Clinton $31.3-111 million - Methodist
John Kerry $193 million - Catholic
Al Gore $100 million - Baptist
Ted Kennedy $163 million - Catholic
Nelson Rockefeller $1 billion (deceased, Republican, stated as such on Wikipedia, the idea of any Rockefellers being considered Republican is a joke, but their influence cannot be left out of the discussion and they are widely considered liberals). In fact, Jay Rockefeller will be listed shortly as a Democrat. - Baptist (however they are listed on the list of Jewish Billionaires site)
Mark Dayton Minnesota $1.6 billion - Presbyterian
Jared Polis Colorado $388 million - Jewish
Mark Warner $243 million - Presbyterian
Nancy Pelosi $29 million - 101 million - stated wealth come from "consulting," (for what?) and public relations. - Catholic
Jon Corzine New Jersey $300 million - former Goldman Sachs CEO Comey worked for HSBC, HSBC is connected to the Clinton Foundation (James Comey is a board member of the Clinton Foundation) through a number of initiatives, including its “Building the Corporate Coalition,” “Scaling Rainwater Harvesting for 21st Century Mexico,” “Investing in Management and Leadership in Vietnam,” and other projects. Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and a number of transnational corporations, also participate. Clinton has given speeches at Goldman Sachs, refused to release the transcripts of speech. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/ He was charged by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in connection with MF Global's bankruptcy, due to his mismanagement, in 2011. - United Church of Christ
Michael Bloomberg $41.2 billion - Banking industry - A Democrat before seeking elective office, Mayor of New York City - Jewish
David Koch $44.2 billion - Republican/libertarian, but is an admitted social liberal, supporting every hot topic there is, including gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. - Donate to Catholic schools, many think are Jewish. Religion maintained private
Michael McCaul $294 million - NOTED Republican, 2nd wealthiest member of Congress, connected to Clear Channel Communications (as is the bush family), Bush connections to Clear Channel pushing war - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/medi-a17.html (there is a dead link in the article that was supposed to state where Bush made his money), which Clinton also endorsed "On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq," but a pattern is there, that perhaps all of the politicians are in bed together. An interesting point would be, how did Clinton manage to enrich herself from it? "Campaign 2016: Hillary Clinton Pitched Iraq As 'A Business Opportunity' For US Corporations" http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-pitched-iraq-business-opportunity-us-corporations-2121999
McCaul also voted in favor of the war "Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Michael_McCaul.htm
Point being, this guy is probably about as Republican as anyone, but it is still interesting to see what business ties (making money off of conflict right along with the Democrats) they all have in common (another subject altogether), getting back to Democrats... - Catholic
Rep. John Delaney Democratic Maryland $111.92 million - Made money off of the healthcare and banking industries - Catholic
Sen. Jay Rockefeller Democratic West Virginia $108.05 million - The name speaks for itself as far as involvement in finance and politics goes - Presbyterian - Jewish
Sen. Richard Blumenthal Democratic Connecticut $62.06 million - 80.1million - married to the daughter of Peter L. Malkin, and who's wife's brother has net worth of some $10 billion - Jewish.
Rep. Scott Peters Democratic California $45.04 million - "He served as an economist on the staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), then earned a law degree from the New York University School of Law. Peters served as a deputy city attorney in San Diego from 1991 to 1996. Prior to his election to the City Council, Peters worked as an attorney in private practice." How one amasses that much money in being a public servant and a lawyer, is beyond me. -Lutheran
Sen. Dianne Feinstein Democratic California $43.72 - 47.2 million - but is married to Richard Blum who is worth perhaps more than a $1 billion http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2015/07/16/sen-dianne-feinsteins-husband-richard-blum-grows-fortune-on-the-ruins-of-the-american-dream/ , much of which accumulated to the way his wife votes. At the age of 23 in 1958, Blum, who is currently 81, held a job working for Sutro & Co., becoming a partner 7 years later. In 1975, he formed his own business, Blum Capital, five years later, marrying Pelosi, who at the time was mayor of San Francisco. When attempting track down Blum's worth in 1980, it is difficult to peg. What is clear; however, is that there has been no shortage of scandals between the two, and that Blum has run his own business as well as chairing CBRE, collectively worth billions, and in no uncertain terms, has used his wife's position to his great advantage. ODDLY, Goldman Sachs pops up here as well. It's probably a coincidence. http://www.occupy.com/article/exposed-senator-dianne-feinsteins-husband-selling-post-offices-friends#sthash.2bZFK4Ff.dpbs
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/PROFILE-Richard-Blum-The-man-behind-URS-next-2617380.php -Jewish
Rep. Suzan DelBene Democratic Washington $37.89 million - self made, Microsoft. - Episcopalian
Rep. Chellie Pingree Democratic Maine $34.47 million - Pingree shot up the list this year after her marriage to hedge fund manager Donald Sussman. Sussman has been described as a billionaire by some sources. Sussman himself has donated more than 10 million, the majority to Democrats, 103K to Republicans http://influenceexplorer.com/individual/donald-sussman/30d5a1a570e544e0ace2ae3e08ce332e - Lutheran-Jewish
Rep. Alan Grayson Democratic Florida $26.18 million - Grayson worked as a law clerk at the Colorado Supreme Court in 1983, and at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from 1984 to 1985, where he worked with two judges who later joined the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. He was an associate at the Washington, D.C. firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson for five years, where he specialized in contract law. In 1991 he founded the law firm Grayson & Kubli, which concentrated on government contract law. - - Jewish
Rep. Joseph Kennedy III Democratic Massachusetts $20 million - Catholic
Sen. Claire McCaskill Democratic Missouri $18.38 million - Insurance and law - Catholic
Sen. Tom Harkin Democratic Iowa $11.85 million - Military, lawyer, politics - Catholic
Rep. Brad Schneider Democratic Illinois $11.71 million - Business and Insurance -Jewish
Rep. Lloyd Doggett Democratic Texas $11.51 million - Not unlike Sanders, he has only ever worked in politics, left school roughly 1970, since 1973 has been a politician ever since. - Methodist
Rep. Jim Cooper Democratic Tennessee $11.51 million - After getting his law degree, he spent two years working for the law firm Waller, Lansden, Dortch and Davis in Nashville, then ran for Congress in 1982 -Episcopalian
Rep. Nita M. Lowey Democratic New York $11.48 million - Life long career in government and public service - Jewish
Sen. Kay Hagan Democratic North Carolina $9.12 million - Law, Finance and since 1999, politics -Presbyterian
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney Democratic New York $7.73 million - she worked as a teacher and an administrator for the New York City Board of Education, In 1977, she obtained a job working for the New York State Legislature and held senior staff positions in both the State Assembly and the State Senate. She's basically, since being a teacher, worked in government since 1977. -Presbyterian
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (deceased 2013) Democrat New Jersey $56.9 million - Succeeded by his crony, Jon Corzine (mentioned above), Lautenberg entered office at the age of 58, and after founding ADP (one of the most used payroll services in the country). Though little is clear about any wrongdoing by Lautenberg, he was very much friends and working partners with Corzine, who has so much dirt on him, that even Liberal New Jerseyans, hate him. - Jewish
Digging into this, there are several relationships that are uncovered, for example, Goldman Sachs, who is primarily run by Democrats, many of whom, go on to become politicians, such as; Timothy Geithner - United States Secretary of the Treasury - up to $6 million per CNN, Bradley Abelow, Treasurer and Chief of Staff to Jon Corzine (his name just keeps coming up), Josh Bolton - Whitehouse Chief of Staff under G.W. Bush, William C. Dudley - president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York (who was preceded by Geithner by the way), Rahm Emanuel - Mayor of Chicago (who was preceded by Josh Bolton - listed just previous to this, with Emanual also serving as WH Chief of Staff previously), Judd Gregg (who's father also was governor of the same state)- Former New Hampshire governor and senator (listed as a Republican, but nominated by Obama to serve as Secretary of Commerce), Jim Himes - sitting Democratic Representative for Connecticut (net worth 4.5 million), Arthur Levitt (deceased 2001) - Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission under Bill Clinton, Evan McMullin - Independent Candidate for US President 2016 (former chief policy director for the House Republican Conference in the U.S. House of Representatives, former CIA operations officer), Henry Paulson - United States Secretary of the Treasury (preceded Geithner and was preceded by Corzine), Robert Rubin - Chairperson for the Council on Foreign Relations (which helps sitting politicians decide how they're going to make more money in foreign matters).
When seeing just the amount of interaction between politics and Goldman Sachs, there's no wonder why the banks weren't allowed to fail.
In fairness, even Trump's name come up in this with Stephen Bannon, a former Goldman Sachs employee being the former executive officer of Breitbart News and the CEO of Trump's presidential campaign, not to mention, he is the co-founder and executive chairman of the Government Accountability Institute (which touts itself to be a is a conservative nonprofit investigative research organization).... we'll just sit back while they all scratch each others backs. Bannon isn't the only one from Goldman Sachs to jump on board with Trump either. Steve Mnuchin joived even before Bannon did. http://fortune.com/2016/08/17/donald-trump-bannon-mnuchin-goldman/
Clinton connection to Goldman Sachs - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3584863/Chelsea-Clinton-s-husband-Marc-colleagues-Goldman-Sachs-shutter-25million-hedge-fund-losing-nearly-investors-money-good-thing-10million-apartment.html
-
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=8504
The Low-Trust State
Posted on September 7, 2016
Social trust is one of those things that we know is important to economic growth, sound government and social stability. When the people of a society generally trust one another and wish to be trusted by others, their society prospers. The question that always arises is over causality. Some would argue that altruism is a biological trait that scales up to social trust. Others would argue that good government and the rule of law encourages positive economic growth, which in turn increases social trust. It is one of those topics that keeps academics busy.
The distinguishing characteristic of low-trust societies is a near total lack of trust in the state by the people. Russians, during the old Soviet Union, understood that everything that was said by the state was a lie of some sort. In fact, the only thing they could trust from the Bolsheviks was that whatever they said was untrue. This amplified the natural distrust of Russians as they did not have an authority to which they could appeal in order to arbitrate disputes. Contracts have to be enforceable before anyone will enter into them.
The point here is that you can debate the causality of social trust, but a society with a corrupt and untrustworthy state is going to be a low-trust society. Alternatively, to use the language of the pseudo-sciences, social trust correlates with public corruption. The causal arrows may point one way or both ways, but public corruption is a good proxy for social trust. There are measures of public corruption and the most popular is from these guys, who publish downloadable statistics every year for the pseudo-sciences.
Trust in the state is always going to drift over time, but you can spot some trends. Just take a look at the US over the last few decades. In the 1980’s, the savings and loan crisis put a lot of people in prison. Even some politicians got dinged for getting too cozy with the crooked bankers. A decade later we had the dot-com bubble and the accounting scandals, but no one went to jail. They just lost money. Less than a decade later we had the mortgage crisis and the crooks got bailed out by the government with taxpayer funds. This is a trend worth noticing.
Now, look around at what we are seeing today. The Clinton e-mail scandal is so outlandish, it is now threatening the rule of law. In the 70’s, Nixon was run from office from 18 missing minutes of tape. Clinton erased 17,000 emails, some may have been under subpoena. It is blazingly obvious that she and her cronies violated Federal law by mishandling classified information. The most logical explanation for all of this is they were selling it for cash through that ridiculous charity they run. A charity that has systematically violated the law with regards to accounting for donations.
How is it possible that this woman and her flunkies are not in jumpsuits waddling around Danbury FCI?
The first problem is the head of state appears to be a pathological liar. This Iran story is the sort of thing that used to bring down governments. It was certainly the sort of thing that should have administration officials hiring lawyers in preparation for the FBI visit. That would require an FBI that is not equally corrupt. Of course, the FBI is a product of the political class and ours is proving to be astonishingly corrupt. Today we learn that the politicians are conspiring to rig public hearings, which are the bedrock of popular government.
A certain amount of public corruption is to be expected. Politics will always attract shady characters, but it should also attract honest characters too. These are the folks that enjoy the boring work of good government. They police the system, enforce the rules and make public appeals for cleaning up the problems. Today, those people either do not exist or they have become too afraid to speak up. The American political class looks a lot like a corrupt police precinct. The crooks are in charge and they have inverted morality so that the honest fear detection by the corrupt.
It is not unreasonable to think that we may have passed the point where the political class can be expected to reform itself. Their unwillingness to even try to thwart the rise of these vulgar grifters from the Ozarks suggests the the political elite has lost the capacity to feel shame. Anyone willing to defend Hillary Clinton to the public is someone, who will lie about anything, violate any law, violate any taboo. That is a person lacking in anything resembling a soul. A political class populated with such people is a ruling class at war with itself, the very definition of a low trust state.
The truly frightening thing is that the only institution the public trusts is the military. Take a look at what is happening with the sports ball players protesting during the national anthem. This coming Sunday is 9/11 and even the most reptilian of Progressives are saying such a protest on that day would be a slap in the face to the men and women who serve the country. When no one trusts the ruling class, and the military is the only institution in which the public has faith, there is always one result. It does not have to be that way, but that’s the way it has always been.
At some level, some portion of the public understands this. The Trump phenomenon is not about Trump in the conventional sense. There’s a lot not to like about the man, but he is honest, he loves his countrymen and he is not doing this for the money. Whether or not he understands his role and the movement he is leading is unknown. Maybe his election will just be a false dawn and what follows is what always follows the onset of a low-trust state. If things are going to turn out different for us, Trump will win and usher in an era of reform.
Otherwise, what comes next will be much worse.
-
Very interesting post with an uncommon and perceptive filter. Please post in American Creed as well.
-
http://nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook
-
as we all know Hillary was selling State favors when she was there and certainly the same when she was a Senator.
Mr Fitton said,
"“It’s outrageous but not surprising. Welcome to our world. This is what we put up with all the time from the agencies,”
This fits exactly what the Judicial Watch attorney said over 10 years ago when I explained the fraud at the Copyright Office. I told him what was going on and how copyrights were being switched around altered and made to disappear and applications were being held up and the Copyright Attorneys instead of wanting to get to the bottom of it (like little old naive me thought) just wanted it covered up. He laughed (sympathetically and with me, NOT at me) and said this is "typical" [of our Federal government]
Evidence it came from Obama as per Judicial Watch.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/02/ig-report-obama-operatives-impeded-foia-requests-punished-judicial-watch/
-
Rule of Law thread too please.
-
Yeah right . The most wanted man on the planet thought he would rape some girls while hanging out in Stockholm for a few days.
This reeks of a setup. Sounds like a European scam paid for by Brussels to set him up.
I wonder if Soros sent these ladies some cash:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341
-
laptop could be linked to the "One" and that accounts for collusion to cover it all up:
http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/did-the-fbi-chief-lie-to-congress-about-the-hillary-email-probe/
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/
2009
-
Listening to Mona Charen last night on John Batchelor she made a comment that Trump's anti-globalization pitch is basically anti-semitic. This disgruntled ex Breitbart empolyee echoes the same thing here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435527/anti-semitism-donald-trump-right-nationalism-white-supremacism
This is totally off the mark and nothing whatsoever to do with Jews in my opinion.
-
Oy vey, and better on the Anti-semitism thread anyway.
-
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/wikileaks-bill-clintons-1-million-dollar-birthday-check-from-qatar
-
Steps down and tries to blame the messenger and switch the subject. Caught red handed. So he steps down but we know there will be no real punishment and he will simply pop up in another Democrat mafia post. The "kicker" is this guy already served time.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/18/second-scalp-okeefe-video-democrat-operative-to-quit/
This is his wife:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Schakowsky
-
be the one playing ("bringing us together" and "bridges not walls") the Holy high ground here.
The following article is just so outrageous. And so Clintin/Obameasque. The crimes and coverup is so much worse than anything Nixon did and yet the MSM helps her over the Presidential finish line. They speak of Trump's character but what about the character of a criminal that has no integrity to drop out of any race for public office and POTUS who also helps her.
NO system is not rigged. :roll: No Trump should promise up front to accept the results of an election. :roll: And yes we should trust our government, and the media. :roll: :roll: :roll:
And the worst part is many Bush and Neocon Republicans agree by defacto voting against Trump. Did anyone see MEg Whitman running to shake Hillary's hand and tell her how wonderful she was after the 3 rd debate. What a loser she is. :x
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/ag-lynch-rails-against-corruption-undermines-citizens-belief-their-elected
-
be the one playing ("bringing us together" and "bridges not walls") the Holy high ground here.
The following article is just so outrageous. And so Clintin/Obameasque. The crimes and coverup is so much worse than anything Nixon did and yet the MSM helps her over the Presidential finish line. They speak of Trump's character but what about the character of a criminal that has no integrity to drop out of any race for public office and POTUS who also helps her.
NO system is not rigged. :roll: No Trump should promise up front to accept the results of an election. :roll: And yes we should trust our government, and the media. :roll: :roll: :roll:
And the worst part is many Bush and Neocon Republicans agree by defacto voting against Trump. Did anyone see MEg Whitman running to shake Hillary's hand and tell her how wonderful she was after the 3 rd debate. What a loser she is. :x
My brother and I grew up in Iowa. When our parents divorced, we moved to Los Angeles.
You see the guys on the streets playing the shell game. The best thing to do is not get involved. If the guys operating the shell game get to close.... you bash them right in their flipping nose... hard. Really hard. Repeatedly... this was a lesson I've learned in other places too, and it's always the same exact thing and process.
You don't play, because you already should know what you're going to get. If you have to play, you'd better win.
Once they've set their eyes on you, the only thing left to do is let them know that involving themselves with you was a mistake.
Sun Tzu---- 1 or 10,000... same thing.
That is what this election is.
Democratic-Socialists don't care what their leaders do. They care about achieving their means, the ends justifying the means.
Diplomacy? Mob rule. Foreigners allowed voices, so long as they favor the right side statistically.
We're already guessing which shell the ball is under, and soon, it will be time to cough up the $20 or punch the guy in the nose.
Sorry if that's over simplistic, but that is what it is.
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt10242016&utm_term=Jolt
-
http://theweek.com/speedreads/657421/obama-claimed-didnt-know-about-clintons-email-server-wikileaks-just-proved-thats-not-true
-
http://theweek.com/speedreads/657421/obama-claimed-didnt-know-about-clintons-email-server-wikileaks-just-proved-thats-not-true
Even though he lies and gets caught all the time, this one is a big deal. It explains why they didn't prosecute her.
His personal and political mis-use of the agencies, Fast and Furious - ATF, Attorney General, IRS targeting - IRS Commissioner, and now this, FBI, Dept of Justice, comprises RICO level crimes and impeachable acts.
To the Lois Lerner's in the agencies who know, you can come forward and tell us what you were directed to do and by whom or you can be prosecuted as part of the corruption conspiracy.
-
http://theweek.com/speedreads/657421/obama-claimed-didnt-know-about-clintons-email-server-wikileaks-just-proved-thats-not-true
Even though he lies and gets caught all the time, this one is a big deal. It explains why they didn't prosecute her.
His personal and political mis-use of the agencies, Fast and Furious - ATF, Attorney General, IRS targeting - IRS Commissioner, and now this, FBI, Dept of Justice, comprises RICO level crimes and impeachable acts.
To the Lois Lerner's in the agencies who know, you can come forward and tell us what you were directed to do and by whom or you can be prosecuted as part of the corruption conspiracy.
If it isn't treason, I'd like to know what is. The double standards are absurd. There are so many cases, of so many, doing so much less, and sentenced away for so long, that how any of this isn't a slap in the face to the entire country, is just incredible.
It seems, the Achilles heel of the United States has been found. It also points out that the founding fathers were correct... wise men, well beyond their time.
-
Wasn't Obama also guilty of exposing the White House IT system to attack through his emails to HildaBEAST? How do we know hackers didn't just trace back through his email up to the WH computer / communications system? The Right should be pounding the table on this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441430/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-more-evidence-president-lied
-
Wasn't Obama also guilty of exposing the White House IT system to attack through his emails to HildaBEAST? How do we know hackers didn't just trace back through his email up to the WH computer / communications system? The Right should be pounding the table on this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441430/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-more-evidence-president-lied
Should be. I doubt they will.
-
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason (Hillary Clinton... talking to you)
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
-
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason (Hillary Clinton... talking to you)
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
This is specific to aiding our enemies, applies to Hillary on the Uranium deal for example. The Obama crimes like IRS targeting are more internal to subverting our constitution and imploding our country. I would like to see the federal law applying to that. It might come down to simply violating his oath of office.
-
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason (Hillary Clinton... talking to you)
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
This is specific to aiding our enemies, applies to Hillary on the Uranium deal for example. The Obama crimes like IRS targeting are more internal to subverting our constitution and imploding our country. I would like to see the federal law applying to that. It might come down to simply violating his oath of office.
That is correct, and why I posted it.
Aiding enemies:
Obama - Cash to Iran... numerous times... and helping them obtain nuclear technology, and then even CNN printing this: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/ calling them state sponsors of terrorism.
"The State Department on Thursday released its annual report on global terrorist activity, listing Iran as the top state sponsor of terrorism and labeling ISIS "the greatest threat globally."
Clinton - Just as you've stated, but they're so much more.... the emails, servers, Benghazi, and we can keep going... it applies.
Lynch - purposely not bringing charges.
Comey - same as Lynch.
Holder - Fast and Furious, with "executive privilege" from Obama saving his bacon. Those weapons went directly to hostile enemies of both the Mexican and American governments and they'v been called "terrorist organizations... " by US politicians. We all know that there have been several accusations of ISIS slipping into the US from the southern border, with and without cartels helping.... and Holder sends them weapons.
If any of the above, isn't aiding American enemies or giving them comfort, what is?
-
Great list. The Iran example alone should do it.
Fast and Furious has elements of treason in it. Americans died as a direct result of it. Not even arguable as an unintended result. Isn't that what they hoped would happen? Mexican border gangs are enemies of the US, right? They violate our sovereignty, kill civilians and shoot border guards.
I'm not sure if general examples of weakening our country from the inside are enemy-specific enough to prosecute under the treason statute. The extreme examples of this like IRS targeting. Improper use (and non-use) of the FBI and DOJ are also be impeachable offenses, IMHO.
I do not support criminalizing political differences. From the true statement you make about Iran, I don't see how sending them massive planeloads of cash, as a hostage taking bonus, that the people had no idea we were doing, is a political difference. He was aiding and abetting an enemy. And now they are killing us (again). He should be prosecuted and removed. Instead they brag of "defeating" Iran without firing a single shot. Their theft of our language is a crime.
It takes two sides agreeing to impeach and remove from office. I wonder what a leader on their side could do, if not any or all of these, to rise to an impeachable offense for Democrats.
How is it we can't all agree what was done in these examples is wrong, is criminal, and justifies swift action to protect the country and keep future leaders from doing more of the same or worse?! I am astonished at how otherwise informed, intelligent, liberal friends know nothing about almost all of these scandals. The exposure is almost all in the right leaning media, not reaching the general public.
-
It takes two sides agreeing to impeach and remove from office. I wonder what a leader on their side could do, if not any or all of these, to rise to an impeachable offense for Democrats.
How is it we can't all agree what was done in these examples is wrong, is criminal, and justifies swift action to protect the country and keep future leaders from doing more of the same or worse?! I am astonished at how otherwise informed, intelligent, liberal friends know nothing about almost all of these scandals. The exposure is almost all in the right leaning media, not reaching the general public.
I wonder what a leader on their side could do... if it had been a Republican.
How is it we can't all agree what was done in these examples is wrong, is criminal, and justifies swift action to protect the country and keep future leaders from doing more of the same or worse?!... the ends justify the means. This is by far your more important question. The war (and there is one), in the States, isn't between the Right and the Left; it's between capitalism and socialism, between sovereignty (of any country - especially countries with high GDPs) and globalization.
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/27/judge-napolitano-what-happened-fbi-its-been-corrupted-obama-and-his-team
-
"“I'm livid, actually,” one Clinton surrogate told The Hill. “This has turned into malpractice. It's an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn't and now we're all paying the price.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303402-anger-disbelief-in-clinton-camp
Rather weird if you ask me. "Someone should have told her no". This person I guess means that "someone" should have refused to conspire with her to break the law, cover her lies and corruption, obstruction of evidence, open up national security secrets to hackers knowingly?
They are all complicit.
"now we're all paying the price.”
In other words you may not be able to cash in...........
dirt balls all of them as far as I am concerned
All that said she will still most likely win.
-
THIS TIME Comey did not fall for the DOJ manipulation it appears:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/29/report-james-comey-loretta-lynchs-advice-sending-letter-congress/
*Maybe* he will redeem himself and the FBI after all.
-
What a tangled web we weave when first we elect to deceive.
Very good article on all this in the WSJ today. There ARE good reasons, and policies to support them, to avoid acting in a way that messes with the electoral process-- but in calling upon them the Dems are like the man who killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/hillarys-two-official-favors-to-morocco-resulted-in-28-million-for-clinton-foundation/
-
Not only with Lynch but this goes directly to Bamster. She is a more subtle Eric Holder but otherwise the same handling of the DOJ :
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/total-political-hack-loretta-lynch-denies-grand-jury-request-from-fbi-clinton-investigators
If Trump wins he needs to clean house.
-
Thanks to Andrew McCarthy who points out that the Eastern District of NY is the US Attorney Office handling the Clinton Foundation investigation.
#1 Why is this the Office handling it? It should be the Northern Office of maybe one in DC!
#2 For those of us not aware, this was the exact District that none other then Loretta Lynch worked in before she was named Attorney General. What is also interesting is that Hildabeast has her campaign office in Brooklyn.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441815/clinton-foundation-investigation-district
Lynch is just as crooked as Holder. And no one can even entertain for one second she is not doing Obama's bidding.
-
Nepotism in American politics.
Families that have last names starting with the letter "A," represent 89 families with 275 people having served in politics, for almost 3 centuries.
When one removes the state distinction and inter-marital relationships, and differences in spelling that have occurred over the years, the number of families drops to 50, and dates back to 1717 AD on the American continent.
Surnames starting with the letter "B," account for 201 distinct surnames, with their members of there families, offering up 801 public servants, not counting the Breckenridge, Butler-Belmont, or Bush families, which are so large, that they have their own listings, dating back to 1686.
In the case of the Breckenridges, accounting for another 59 politicians throughout the centuries
the Butler-Belmont family dating back to 1759, with 17 members of their family serving throughout the years (not including the other Belmont family members already accounted for)
Bush family, which actually includes two family lines, Bush, and Bush-Davis-Walker, dating back to 1676, with 56 members of their family serving public office and as president twice.
The total number of people from the 201 families with surnames starting with "B" that have been politicians is at least 933 politicians.
Surnames with the letter "C," are represented 218 times or less.
Focusing on the Clintons, of whom, both Bill and Hillary have lineage tracing back to the original 13 colonies, and just between Bill, Hillary and Hillary's brother, have included one president, FOUR presidential candidacies, secretary of state, senator, attorney general, and failed senate and congressional candidacies as well.
If we include marital relationships of Bill, Hillary's brother, and Chelsea, it will include ties to Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressmen James A. Lockhart and US Representatives Edward Mezvinsky and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky.
Since the number of surnames in the United States is accumulative, accounting for everyone that has ever come to the country, and numbering at least 150,000 - 1,350,000 means that a fraction of the families in the US are ever included, and that those who are, overly so.
Leaving the Wikipedia list for a moment, others too, have made the same observation as noted here:
"My infatuation with political dynasties began in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1957, when, as a bored private in a peacetime army, I wandered into a library and discovered the "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress." Who were these Bayards, Muhlenbergs and Frelinghuysens, I wondered, with five or six names apiece in the directory? I counted 700 families in which two or more members had served in Congress. I eventually explored these questions in a book, "America's Political Dynasties," published more than four decades ago." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091101831.html
When one contemplates the numbers of households/families, in 2015 numbering 124,590,000, https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/), distinct surnames numbering between 150,000 to 1,350,000 (the date is still being counted and will be released in 2020), and the American population numbering 318,900,000, the fact that it is even possible to discuss dynasties existing in American politics should render the possibility of it occurring, out of reach, but it isn't. It happens frequently, which is concerning, when the amount of corruption perceived to exist happens, and given the roots of the United States having fought and defeated a monarchy in the name of freedom; yet, clearly, nepotism exists, and exists to a point, that given the references above, is too large to number, which even includes people such as discredited Sheriff Lee Baca, who has three relatives who have served public office, one of whom has served as senator, and Lee Baca isn't even included on the list I counted, when it i still a public office.
Some interesting notes:
The Kennedys:
1.) Arrived to the United States in 1849 from Ireland. Have had 12 members of their immediate bloodline serve public office since arriving.
2.) Two of them married men who would serve as governor, and another married to the mayor of Boston.
3.) Sargent Shriver, who never served, was the Democratic VP Nominee in 1972
4.) The first Kennedy took office in 1884, 35 years after their arrival, meaning that in 132 years, 17 people from their line, have either run, held, or been married to people holding public office.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-kennedy-political-dynasty-family-tree-infographic-2012-1
John Kerry :
1.) Distant blood relative to the Bush family.
2.) A member of the Forbes family.
3.) Husband to Teresa Heinz, who's family also includes prominent politicians and wealth.
4.) Direct family lineage includes at least one chief justice and a senator.
5.) Kerry himself served as senator for almost 30 years, before becoming Secretary of State, and has served as Lt. governor and congressman since 1972 (almost 45 years).
I've been reading this all day, and it's starting to sound like a skull and bones party before even the beginning of the States, and also having cross referenced this with lists from Forbes wealthiest... smh
"In 1848, for example, more than 16 percent of congressional seats were filled by someone whose relative had previously held the position [source: Kieley]. Moreover, a 2006 study found that Congress members who serve more than one term have a 40 percent chance of someone in their family later ending up in Congress [source: Alexander]. "
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-08-03-1Adynasties03_CV_N.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-dynasties-idUSN0332238720070304
-
Interesting and timely.
Please post in the American History thread on the SC&H forum as well.
-
I wonder is she is wearing a wire to the FBI or CIA:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pamela-anderson-visits-wikileaks-founder-192337693.html
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/congress-just-passed-watershed-human-214735854.html
-
With everything in the air about the purported Trump-Putin connection, we might want to remember what has been said and done by each side previously
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10/ted-kennedy-secretly-asked-the-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/business/imf-trial-christine-lagarde-france-verdict.html?emc=edit_th_20161220&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
-
"IMF's Lagarde's get out of jail free card"
"now is not the time to leave the IMF rudderless"
Hey it is for the good of humanity!!! :roll:
Too big to jail. Same as Hillary. :x
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?emc=edit_na_20170102&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?emc=edit_na_20170102&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, joined others who had worked to create the office in expressing outrage at the move and the secretive way it was orchestrated.
“Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp,’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement on Monday night. “Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/is_pelosis_husband_guilty_of_insider_trading.html
-
And because I am more of pessimist then ever I believe it doesn't just look bad but is bad. I think it portends bad things to come.
If Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch is against it then I am. OTOH this committee was established by Pelosi in 08 so how non partisan can it be? Perhaps Dems were just going to use it as a political weapon.
I think we are in for major scandals under Trump. There are just too many crooks and too few law enforcement types who are ethical. And this move by the Republicans makes it harder to investigate the crooks. As if it were not hard and almost impossible now........
https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=735
-
He is questioning this surprise as well. Maybe he will be a countermeasure to GOP corruption which is probably every bit as bad as the other side's:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-republicans-criticized-after-vote-to-gut-ethics-panel-115307034.html
-
Thank God this has been reversed-- but what a profoundly STUPID first move by the Rep Congress!!! :x :x :x We are already going to have a ton of suspicion and negativity over Trump's complex business affairs!
-
Thank God this has been reversed-- but what a profoundly STUPID first move by the Rep Congress!!! :x :x :x We are already going to have a ton of suspicion and negativity over Trump's complex business affairs!
Suspicion from whom? The same crowd utterly uninterested in the numerous Obama and Hillary related scandals? Funny how that works.
-
And well-meaning people who were also revolted by the serial criminality of the Clintons.
-
IF true, this is annoying. Aren't these people for some reason exempt from insider trading laws?
If so why?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-presses-democrats-obamacare-calls-bipartisan-fix-132820781.html
-
My understanding is that they are exempt-- which it should be noted, reveals the deep cynicism of Schumer's remarks :roll: :-P :x
As to why, I suspect the answer has something to do with greed.
-
IF true, this is annoying. Aren't these people for some reason exempt from insider trading laws?
If so why?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-presses-democrats-obamacare-calls-bipartisan-fix-132820781.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/print/
Insider Trading Rules That Don't Apply To Congress
You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top — with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can’t give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.
The general provision goes on to state that a member, officer or employee may accept from any other source virtually any gift valued below $50, with a limitation of less than $100 in gifts from any single source in a calendar year. Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.
Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby’s. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?
Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
As you might expect, those who work in the hallowed halls are not shy about availing themselves of the opportunity. A Wall Street Journal analysis published more than six months ago that has thus far provoked no particular sense of shame on Capitol Hill found that at least 72 Congressional aides in both parties had recently traded shares of companies that their bosses helped regulate. In 2009, while Senate Banking Committee member Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, was involved in discussing “stress tests” on banks such as Bank of America, his aide Karen Brown traded the company’s stock on several occasions in the weeks before May 7, 2009 — when BofA surged thanks to a press release on its stress-test result, assuring Ms. Brown a nifty profit.
Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain, Sen. Crapo’s office said the trades weren’t really made by Karen Brown but by her husband, who had no knowledge of what was going on in the banking committee. Would you go to your compliance officer, much less the SEC, with that line? True, these folks do need a good laugh now and again, and the SEC has to be in a jolly mood after the jury in the Galleon case all but repeated the verdict from The Producers: “We find the defendants incredibly guilty.”
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
In a surprising twist, the study found that there tended to be an inverse relationship between the lawmaker’s seniority and the insider-trading profits pocketed by him and his minions. The authors speculated that “Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.”
Doesn’t that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes – sorry, the needs of the Republic!– your financial success?
It’s not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
This is entirely beside the point: no one would object if lawmakers placed their assets in ETFs, in which case they’d still have an interest in the overall performance of the market. Or why not be simple and allow Congressional trading on everything except nonpublic information?
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored — it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn’t even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
-
"Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.)"
This further confirms what we already know - Democrats are more clever then stupid Republicans.
There are elites. Wanna be elites
and then everyone else.
Reminds me of a famous line from Elaine Stewart (alias Elsie Steinberg from NJ) from the movie the "bad and the beautiful" when whe says there are no "good men, only men".
I will apply that to politicians . There are no honest politicians, only politicians.
Another disappointment was about my home town mayor. I was telling a doctor friend of mine how Mayor Dunn of Elizabeth NJ was a rare Democrat who supported President Reagan. Most Dems wanted him dead. Not Dunn. Reagan was so impressed he came to our city and gave a speech at the church just across the street from my old high school. AFter telling my friend this story he seemed to know of mayor Dunn and stated he was "one of the honest ones". So recently I was reading about him on Wikipedia only to learn the FBI had him on tape taking a bag of cash from the Elizabeth mafia.
I guess there simply are no "honest ones".
But I can think of Elsie Sternberg. She was something in Playboy in the 50s . (and Jewish too!)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/us/politics/jared-kushner-trump-business.html?emc=edit_ta_20170107&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
Well like father like son.
I am not talking about his father in law.
The LEFT will be shoving this in our faces for the next four years. And I might add maybe rightly so if he has a "role " in the WH. They just bought a mansion in DC no?
And Ivanka seems to be the new expert who is tinkering with tax policy for single mothers .
I dunno.
What can I say? :cry:
-
From media thread, ccp: Media purposely distorts Trumps firing ambassadors. Obama fired all the Bush ambassadors and I don't remember hearing a single peep about. These are not lifetime appointments. Their shift is up. Go home. No controversy here. I don't know how we can defeat the msm CNN ha become the worst of bunch.
Bill Clinton fired all 50 US attorneys as he took offrice just to get at the Arkansas one without making too big a scene. There were no right wing websites then. There was one big radio show and the WSJ editorial page. Otherwise no one screamed and he eventually was reelected - before getting impeached, disbarred, shamed for other crimes.
-
DOJ - corrupt to BOs last day in office:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443825/hillary-clinton-e-mails-doj-investigation
Perhaps Sessions can put a stop to this. Since he said he would recuse himself from clinton email stuff who else can investigate the DOJ under Brock.
-
Want to drain a swamp. Start by getting rid of this corrupt DOJ IG. Stop this phoney investigation or replace it with real non partisan and include finding out the real reason DOJ refused to have grand jury on an obviously guilty clinton in the first place. Republicans hold power now - use it! for gods sake don't cave.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/167d5aec-f2bb-3c97-a51a-b5d599107b41/donald-trump-is-remarkably.html
-
Its ok because she is a Democrat.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-stock-insider-60minutes/2011/11/13/id/417848/
-
Starting to sound like Reid land deal scams or cattle futures trading; but then again there is nothing here; after all they are liberals:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/pelosi-subsidies-benefit-husbands-investment-in-dem-mega-donors-company/
-
Good to see Pelosi getting nailed.
In fairness, I thought I saw something on Sec HHS nominee Price in a similar regard. Anyone have anything on this?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-gary-cohn-285-million-departure-package.html?emc=edit_th_20170126&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
-
Can anyone explain why we always have to have GS people looking over the President's shoulder?
I though we were going to clean the swamp. Not replace it with different snakes.
-
Newsweek takes a stab at stirring things up
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-emails-rnc-reince-priebus-white-house-server-548191?rx=us
but it would appear that the facts intrude:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/my-advice-to-president-trump-keep-the-private-email-servers-ditch-the-android-phone-and-tweet-on/?utm_content=bufferb6776&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/anthony-scaramucci-business-white-house.html?emc=edit_th_20170201&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/anthony-scaramucci-business-white-house.html?emc=edit_th_20170201&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
new snakes in the swamp
-
Please note prior post :lol:
-
http://observer.com/2017/02/imran-awan-democrat-debbie-wasserman-schultz-criminal-investigation/
-
Of course I get the logic and of course there will be accusations of corruption that will linger like bad farts.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-pentagon-s-plans-to-move-into-trump-1486600296-htmlstory.html?utm_source=Today%27s+Headlines&utm_campaign=7911ef6d66-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b04355194f-7911ef6d66-80108809
-
second post of day
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conway-may-have-broken-key-ethics-rule-by-touting-ivanka-trumps-products-experts-say/2017/02/09/fd1cc64a-eeda-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.e0cf5f4a2cf7&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
Third post.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese-prime-ministers-visit-to-trump-resort-raises-ethics-concerns-1486599815
One suspects there will be a lot of these , , ,
-
Of course I get the logic and of course there will be accusations of corruption that will linger like bad farts.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-pentagon-s-plans-to-move-into-trump-1486600296-htmlstory.html?utm_source=Today%27s+Headlines&utm_campaign=7911ef6d66-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b04355194f-7911ef6d66-80108809
Looks bad but I think it was the Obama administration that awarded the contract to that developer to create usable space right in the middle of all the federal buildings.
When a congressman flies in a private plane, the expense reimbursement is supposed to be limited to what he or she would have otherwise had to pay for commercial/coach. It is the premium they pay to be at Trump hotel compared with where else they could lease that forms the potential for real controversy. MHO.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10/ted-kennedy-secretly-asked-the-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/#.WKTYg7C6JIQ.twitter
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/us/mar-a-lago-trump-ethics-winter-white-house.html?emc=edit_ta_20170218&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
http://conservative50.com/dianne-feinsteins-husband-wins-near-billion-dollar-california-high-speed-rail-contract/#
-
http://conservative50.com/dianne-feinsteins-husband-wins-near-billion-dollar-california-high-speed-rail-contract/#
Small world. I would have guessed Pelosi's husband. He must not have a rail company.
-
That just miraculously go up in value:
Gee where have we heard these windfalls the politicians or their families get rich from:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/10/pelosis-disclosure-belated-in-husbands-land-deal/
-
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/06/sen-feinsteins-husband-the-postal-service/
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#4da56aea3991
-
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/06/exclusive-dem-super-lobbyist-podesta-got-170k-to-end-us-sanctions-on-russian-bank/
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/did-the-attorney-general-commit-perjury.php
POSTED ON MARCH 7, 2017 BY JOHN HINDERAKER
DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMIT PERJURY?
No, not Jeff Sessions. Sessions was asked whether representatives of the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian officials on behalf of the campaign, and Sessions said he didn’t know anything about that. He hadn’t had such contact on behalf of the campaign. His answer was completely and fully accurate. No one asked Sessions whether he had ever met a Russian.
I am talking about Eric Holder, who almost certainly did commit perjury when testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee. We wrote about it here. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/perjury-may-not-be-such-a-tough-rap-to-prove-in-the-eric-holders-case.php The story is worth remembering. Holder was asked whether DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act:
Two weeks ago, testifying under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder was asked whether the Justice Department could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917. His response (emphasis added) was:
In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.
When he gave this testimony, Holder had personally signed a request to a court to authorize a wiretap on Fox News reporter James Rosen. The request stated that Rosen may have acted as “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” by obtaining national security materials from a government official also under investigation.
I followed up on this post, pointing out that the affidavit that Holder submitted in order to obtain a search warrant for James Rosen’s email accounts specifically said that Rosen was a potential criminal defendant:
As has been widely reported, the affidavit says repeatedly that there is probable cause to believe that Rosen is guilty of a crime, and that his email account will provide evidence of a crime, as well as “fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed.” But the affidavit goes even beyond that. It specifically says that the FBI is looking for evidence of both Kim’s and Rosen’s guilt:
Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence.
Emphasis added. But the real clincher is Paragraph 45, which states in part:
Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.
Emphasis added. Paragraph 46 sums up:
Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the _______@gmail.com account.
So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search warrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has “potential criminal liability in this matter.” It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction.
Either Eric Holder was suffering from acute memory loss at a young age, or he committed perjury. But, because the press was slavishly devoted to Barack Obama and his minions, no matter how corrupt or dishonest they may be, hardly anyone knows about this shameful episode.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/08/news/trump-china-trademarks/index.html
-
http://thedeclination.com/marxism-the-bug-wearing-an-edgar-suit/
Marxism: the Bug Wearing an Edgar Suit
by Dystopic | Mar 10, 2017 | Culture War, SJWs, Socialism | 44 comments
In the movie Men In Black, there’s a scene where an abusive farmer gets killed by the villain, some kind of giant alien cockroach. The alien then possesses his body and walks around in comic fashion, like some kind of rotting zombie. The farmer’s wife exclaims “like an Edgar suit.”
560db22fe14e951aea89980b21a9c598
This is pretty much what Worldcon looks like, these days.
Social Justice Marxists operate in the same manner. They take over institutions, groups, corporations, movements, whatever… and kill them. They then wear the skin of the destroyed, rotting institution like an Edgar suit, ambling around in comic fashion, expecting to be treated as if they were still the institution itself.
Only unlike the movie, there are a great many of these alien bugs on Earth. They are legion. And the thing is, most rightists suspect this is true, because the Edgar suit doesn’t act like Edgar. He acts like an alien cockroach. But they nonetheless give the benefit of the doubt, because they aren’t sure.
It is in that space of uncertainty that Marxism is permitted to spread, and infest every sizable organization. Once infected, forget bringing the organization back to life. It’s a rotting husk. It’s dead. You aren’t going to take it back, and even supposing you did, it’d still be a rotting sack of skin.
I think this is the greatest weakness of the political right. We permit Marxism to spread because we are not confident in our assessment that the people in question are Marxists. Most of them deny it, of course.
I remember when one leftist kept posting about how the border wall was racist, and how illegal immigrants ought to be able to come over, and how stopping them was bad. When I asked him why he was for open borders he denied it. Yet, his chosen policy would result in a de facto open border! Was he really that delusional… or was he a Marxist trying to say “I’m not a Marxist”?
One of the ways to tell if it’s really Edgar, or just an Edgar suit, is to prod the person with absolutes. Marxists are absolutists. A case in point. Another individual explained to me that healthcare ought to be a human right. Every human should have it upon need. I pointed out the usual inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, the long waiting lists, the poor quality of VA care, and the general lack of innovation and creativity in government-run healthcare.
The thing is, the guy agreed with me on many of those things. But he countered with “but if you don’t make it a right, somebody might not get the care they need, and I just can’t support that.” It doesn’t matter if the care would be better for 99.9% of everyone else. If one single person went without needed care, he would judge it a failure.
You see this kind of argument from Marxists all the time. You could destroy entire countries with mass immigration, but if one refugee child suffered, then too bad, too sad. You must do it. Get used to British citizens speaking Arabic, you racist.
It’s the same kind of argument you hear from gun control advocates.”If it saves the life of just one child,” they will say, “it will all be worth it.” Or, “even one shooting is too many.” Marxist absolutism, again. Somebody is wearing an Edgar suit.
MADD is a great case in point. Originally founded to combat drunk driving, an honorable pursuit, the founder wound up leaving a few years later, because the organization had become a group of tyrannical neo-prohibitionists, not merely a group concerned with reducing drunk driving offenses. Soon it was receiving government money, advocating for Traffic Safety Funds (more government cash), and arguing for everything from a rash of checkpoints, to mandatory interlock devices on all automobiles — not just those owned by those convicted of alcohol-related offenses.
MADD is an Edgar suit. Scratch the surface, and you’ll find a bunch of Marxists.
The thing is, if Marxists were open about their Marxism, that is to say if the giant alien cockroach were seen as a giant alien cockroach, every normie on the planet would be trying to squash it. It you saw the bodies of the Stalin regime, the starvation of Mao’s regime, the killings of Pol Pot… you would want to stamp this thing out with every fiber of your being.
Bug
Charming fellow, right?
But when attacked, when someone starts to suspect an organization is full of Marxists, they retreat into the Edgar suit. Hi. I’m Edgar. Nice to meet you. And my goal is just to try and help reduce drunk driving deaths!
Do you know why Marxists like absolutism so much? Why even a 99.9% success rate is not good enough for them? Because it gives them an excuse to continue to exist. No human society will ever reach 100% of anything. There will always be people who are poor, people who don’t get the care they need, people who die senselessly, idiots who get drunk and wreck someone’s life. Always.
Reducing the incidence of those things is a good and noble pursuit. But they can never be stopped completely. By saying that nothing is good enough unless it has a 100% success rate, the Marxist is giving himself power for life, and his organization power forever. Because so long as one person slips through the cracks, he can say “my work is not done yet.”
But the single-minded focus of Marxists on power politics is a good tell. Absolutism can tell you if someone is a Marxist, but so can an over-reliance on the language of political power. Normal people might talk politics for a while, even rant about it as I do here, but there are also times when they just don’t care about politics at all.
Marxists want to bring politics into everything. Are you eating a plate of Chinese takeout? Cultural Appropriation. Do you drive a nice car? Privilege! Do you like your hair a certain way? Racism! Everything must involve politics with them. They cannot stop thinking about their obsession for even the briefest of moments. At some point, a normie is likely to talk about his dog, or his kid, or how much he likes beer, or something totally unrelated to politics. The Marxist, on the other hand, will find a way to steer that back.
Another Edgar Suit tell is an obsession with personal bias. Like the 100% success rate demands, the Marxist demands absolute objectivity on the part of others (while displaying none himself). Unless you can demonstrate proof of moral perfection and a completely unbiased, objective viewpoint, you can be dismissed because you’re biased. The data underlying it is irrelevant, because the collector is biased. For instance, if you said that black people in the United States committed a greater per capita share of violent crimes than white people, that is a true statement. The Marxist would say that you are biased against black people, thus your conclusion (whatever it may be) can be dismissed on that basis. Forget the facts.
The same standard, of course, is never applied to them. But again, it makes an impossible demand so that a permanent political bludgeon is created, which they can beat you over the head with constantly.
There are probably many more such tells (if you’ve got one, drop it in the comments), but those are the ones I’ve seen most frequently, and most obviously. And it’s very important to identify which groups and institutions are SJW-converged, which ones are Edgar suits filled with Marxist cockroaches, and which ones are not. Rightists have permitted bad actors to continue to be treated like good actors merely because they skinned an organization of good actors alive, and wore them like a suit. It’s both stupid, and disservice to the memory of those who created the original, non-converged organization.
-
Please post that in the SJW thread.
-
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/03/09/the-connection-is-confirmed-overwhelming-evidence-shows-cash-payments-from-russian-banks-in-exchange-for-government-access/
-
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/03/09/the-connection-is-confirmed-overwhelming-evidence-shows-cash-payments-from-russian-banks-in-exchange-for-government-access/
I am sure the left will be outraged to see this!
-
http://nypost.com/2017/03/17/chelsea-clinton-lands-cushy-expedia-board-gig/
-
re Chelsea: White privilege! :lol:
======================
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/323964-crowley-registers-as-foreign-agent-for-ukranian-billionaire
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/us/flint-mayor-water-crisis-lawsuit/index.html
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-mike-flynn-and-turkish-officials-discussed-removal-of-erdogan-foe-from-u-s-1490380426
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/03/24/after-promising-not-donald-talk-business-with-father-eric-trump-says-president-give-him-financial-reports/#32e39f8a359a
-
Also, his brother was on Russki payroll too , , ,
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/26/exclusive-john-podesta-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-not-disclosing-75000-stock-shares/
-
Also, his brother was on Russki payroll too , , ,
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/26/exclusive-john-podesta-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-not-disclosing-75000-stock-shares/
:-D :-D :-D
-
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/228242/manafort-scandals-trump-russia?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=fd3c87465f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-fd3c87465f-207194629
-
This WILL be a big problem for Trump. And the DEMs will be watching this with an electron microscope:
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/03/30/schweizer-business-dealings-trumps-son-in-law-worrisome-should-be-monitored-great-intensity/
-
In charge of overseeing elections, etc.
More than 300 North Carolina notaries were illegal residents, records show
"A state representative is demanding the resignation of North Carolina's secretary of state after reviewing documents that show 320 people with no legal residency status were given notary positions for nearly a decade.
Rep. Christopher Millis voiced his concerns in an interview with Fox News over details found within documents provided by North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall’s office. Marshall told Fox News the Dept. of Homeland Security approved the notary authorizations.
VIDEO: DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKER TIPS OFF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO ICE RAIDS
“We found over 320 nonpermanent residents that her office commissioned as notaries. Including one that was slated for final deportation,” Millis said. “It’s very concerning not just the fact that these individuals will have the ability to affirm items like oath, but also the ability in our state for them to certify absentee ballots.”
Millis says these same documents show Marshall’s office regularly accepted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) cards as forms of identification which he claims on his website are not valid to prove residency. “A DACA card is a temporary employment authorization to facilitate safe and legitimate employment and income for otherwise undocumented aliens but does not confer legal immigration status.”
DACA RECIPIENT WITH ALLEGED GANG TIES FACES RELEASE FROM DETENTION CENTER
Millis stressed these same concerns in a nine-page letter written to Secretary Elaine Marshall on March 27th. He ended the letter by asking for her resignation.
“I make all of these implications very seriously and I’m not making any of this lightly,” Millis said. “Whenever I ask the Secretary to resign immediately or I made it clear to her that I will move through with a resolution for impeachment if she so chooses not to resign.”
In an email statement to Fox News, Marshall says Millis’ request for her resignation is a political attack by “an opponent in a recent election.”
“The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has authorized the specifically mentioned notaries to work here lawfully,” Marshall wrote. “That federally authorized status continues to be unchanged by the new Presidential administration.”
Millis also said a similar statement was made when this issue became public late last year.
“This being masked from the public and including a number of misleading and false statements made by the Secretary and her office since the article went out in September and all up until this point, its definitely clear it meets the allegations of her impeachment on malfeasance,” Millis said.
Fox News asked Millis what would happen to the notaries in question. His response: “We will see what happens with these notaries moving forward, but it’s definitely outside the letter of the law.”
Terace Garnier is a Fox News multimedia reporter based in Columbia, South Carolina. Follow her on twitter: @TeraceGarnier"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/29/more-than-300-north-carolina-notaries-were-illegal-residents-records-show.html
A Notary Public is an official of integrity appointed by state government —typically by the secretary of state — to serve the public as an impartial witness in performing a variety of official fraud-deterrent acts related to the signing of important documents.
Edit: A more important question is the fact that Marshall states, “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has authorized the specifically mentioned notaries to work here lawfully,” Marshall wrote. “That federally authorized status continues to be unchanged by the new Presidential administration.”
Does that mean that Obama was purposely undermining legal requirements of sovereign state governments as well as the Union?
-
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-department-official-supplied-information-chinese-intelligence-cash/
-
Before she calls for Bill OReilly to go to jail lets remember this. Just because she and Donna Brazille can get up on the stage and vehemently deny wrongdoing doesn't mean they are fooling anyone:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/113309-house-ethics-committee-charges-waters-on-three-counts
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/chinese-donor-linked-to-terry-mcauliffe-probe-also-caused-trouble-for-hillary.html
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-trump-adviser-flynn-likely-broke-law-russia-172353081.html
A touch of irony here , , ,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRSxw2KKYVE
-
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/uc-president-janet-napolitano-caught-with-her-hands-in-the-cookie-jar
-
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2017/05/12/cowards-fbi-comey/
The craven cowards at the FBI, starting at the top with Comey
MAY 12, 2017 BY BOOKWORM 12 COMMENTS
Comey pretended that his moral cowardice was a virtue, a dangerous attitude that empowers weak people and that permeates the entire FBI.
FBI Comey J. Edgar Hoover Building Federal Bureau of Investigation
As Comey’s firing as FBI director continues to roil the Left, all sorts of interesting things are emerging. For example, it was Comey who gave Bill Clinton a pass in 2002 following an investigation into Clinton’s Marc Rich pardon. Having been one of the Whitewater investigators, you’d think Comey would have figured out early that, where there’s a Clinton, there’s a rat to be smelled, but somehow . . . he didn’t.
Comey was also the one who authorized the FBI to spend $100,000 investigating Dinesh D’Souza’s $20,000 illegal campaign finance donation. One could say that keeping elections clean is so important that money is no object, but that’s not what the FBI and other government branches had said before they got D’Souza — a prominent Obama and Democrat Party critic — in their sights. Previously (and since then), for small dollar campaign finance violations, the government had handed out small punishments.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Dinesh D'Souza ✔ @DineshDSouza
WHY I'M SMILING TODAY: This capo James Comey allocated $100,000 to investigate my $20 K case--all to please his mob bosses Holder & Obama
3:35 PM - 9 May 2017
7,176 7,176 Retweets 13,708 13,708 likes
Kimberly Strassel has written a scathing article detailing Comey’s ongoing corrupt practices, made all the more damning by the fact that she pretends to take Comey at his word — namely, that he sees himself as a model of virtue and rectitude constantly saving the day:
. . . t seems the head of the FBI had lost confidence—even before TarmacGate—that the Justice Department was playing it anywhere near straight in the Clinton probe. So what should an honor-bound FBI director do in such a conflicted situation? Call it out. Demand that Ms. Lynch recuse herself and insist on an appropriate process to ensure public confidence. Resign, if need be. Instead Mr. Comey waited until the situation had become a crisis, and then he ignored all protocol to make himself investigator, attorney, judge and jury.
By the end of that 15-minute July press conference, Mr. Comey had infuriated both Republicans and Democrats, who were now universally convinced he was playing politics. He’d undermined his and his agency’s integrity. No matter his motives, an honor-bound director would have acknowledged that his decision jeopardized his ability to continue effectively leading the agency. He would have chosen in the following days—or at least after the election—to step down. Mr. Comey didn’t.
Which leads us to Mr. Comey’s most recent and obvious conflict of all—likely a primary reason he was fired: the leaks investigation (or rather non-investigation). So far the only crime that has come to light from this Russia probe is the rampant and felonious leaking of classified information to the press. Mr. Trump and the GOP rightly see this as a major risk to national security. While the National Security Agency has been cooperating with the House Intelligence Committee and allowing lawmakers to review documents that might show the source of the leaks, Mr. Comey’s FBI has resolutely refused to do the same.
And where is the rest of the FBI in all of this? Some agents are taking a “brave” and “virtuous” stand too. In true FBI tradition, showing the backbone and strength for which they’re known, they’re changing their Facebook pictures to show Comey’s face, rather than their own [that’s sarcasm, in case you wondered]:
FBI agents are reportedly changing their Facebook profile photos to pictures of James Comey — or pictures of them with Comey — to show their support for the sacked FBI director.
The Daily Beast reported that at least a dozen agents had changed their photos, a gesture usually reserved for fellow agents slain in the line of duty.
According to Gateway Pundit, though, some agents are thinking of going public about their disagreements with Comey. The link in that article is to an October 17, 2016 article in which anonymous FBI agents say they’re displeased with Comey’s handling of matters.
You know what? I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for those agents to go public. I think FBI agents’ courage is limited to Facebook profile pictures.
I say that for the reasons I stated back in April 2016, when I predicted (accurately) that Hillary would get a pass. The basis for this prediction is my unchanging belief that middle class civil servants crave job security and will not allow principles to get in their way. (Please note that I don’t give myself any moral high ground as I have the same cowardly, middle class mindset.)
No matter how principled they’d like to think they are, most middle-class people will turn a blind eye to corruption in their midst rather than run the risk of being unable to pay their mortgage or fund all of the other payments necessary to support a middle-class lifestyle. They don’t think of themselves as dishonest or complicit in dishonesty. They think of themselves as cautious people who aren’t going to risk their children’s future for some grand-standing that, rather than resulting in applause, could leave them unemployed and desperate.
This episode from my past makes me doubt very strongly that Hillary Clinton will be indicted. I know that the rumor mill keeps saying that FBI agents, from Comey on down, will quit if Loretta Lynch lets Hillary walk. Some of the FBI agents whispering this to friendly reporters may even believe that they’ll quit.
Mostly, though, this is a bluff. Why? Because the people talking about quitting are middle-class people with mortgages, and school fees, and insurance, and all the other expenses that keep us in the middle-class living up to our own expectations. If Hillary really does walk, 99% of those “I’ll quit if she’s not indicted” agents will manage, very quickly and easily, to convince themselves to stay in their jobs, and get their salaries and pensions.
[snip]
We middle-class people — the ones who collect paychecks for showing up and doing our job — are not paying the piper. We’re not entrepreneurs who get to make our own decisions. Instead, we are dependent on the good will of the very people who may stand accused of corruption. It’s the government, the high-level management, the business owner, who pay the piper and call the tune. We just dance. And if we miss a step, we’re out on our derrieres with nothing to show for all the skillful dancing we did for so many years before we alienated both piper and payor.
[snip]
Human nature is fixed. Those of us comfortable with our status are also trapped by our status. While there are people with sufficient moral courage or insufficient investment in their middle-class status who will take a stand, most of us will manage to tell ourselves a series of comfortable lies that enable us to live with the embezzler [and] the corrupt politician. . . .
Although I didn’t predict quite how Comey would ensure an outcome that protected Hillary, I was certainly right that a man craving both power and economic security would do what he did.
Ultimately, for all his public posturing, Comey is a coward — and, moreover, one who has managed to convince himself that his moral cowardice is a virtue. That’s a very dangerous mindset. The moment someone believes that about himself, he’s essentially anointed himself as King Rat. Moreover it’s been apparent for a while that this King Rat has been riding herd over a bunch of other cowardly, but morally superior, little rats.
Comey was a nascent J. Edgar Hoover, and those who work for him are either complicit because they support his methods and his ends or they’re complicit because they are too immersed in their delicately balanced middle class lifestyles to do anything that might harm them economically. Some will change their Facebook photos and some will murmur mutinously about “speaking out,” but that’s it. That’s all they’ll do.
The above is why those voters who pay taxes like President Trump. He’s not beholden to anybody and he reacts as a taxpayer would: This guy is doing a bad job, he’s abusing his power, and he shouldn’t be getting a salary. He needs to be fired.
No wonder Trump terrifies the resident rats in the D.C. Swamp.
-
Are you fg kidding me?!?!?!?!?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/21/1664578/-On-same-weekend-as-record-breaking-arms-deal-Saudis-announced-100-million-donation-to-Ivanka-fund?_=2017-05-21T06%3A47%3A07.354-07%3A00
-
Are you fg kidding me?!?!?!?!?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/21/1664578/-On-same-weekend-as-record-breaking-arms-deal-Saudis-announced-100-million-donation-to-Ivanka-fund?_=2017-05-21T06%3A47%3A07.354-07%3A00
From what I could find, the fund is Ivanka's idea, but is run by the World Bank. It's not a personal slush fund like the Clinton Crime's Family's foundation.
-
Citations on that? We need something specific to respond to the innuendo that is sure to come.
-
Citations on that? We need something specific to respond to the innuendo that is sure to come.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-u-a-e-pledge-100-million-to-world-banks-women-entrepreneurs-fund-1495339028
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Saudi Arabia, UAE pledge $100 million to Ivanka Trump-backed women's fund
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/22/saudi-arabia-uae-pledge-100-million-ivanka-trump-backed-womens-fund/22103654/
May 22nd 2017 11:47AM
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have pledged a combined $100 million to the World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund, a campaign that is the brainchild of Ivanka Trump.
The pledge comes during President Trump's first foreign trip, signaling the president's eldest daughter may have been instrumental in securing this significant contribution.
The World Bank announced the donation at an event on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reports. The goal of the Ivanka-inspired fund is to help female entrepreneurs start their own businesses.
During President Trump's visit, Ivanka spoke to young Muslims saying she has seen the entrepreneurial spirit in their country.
The fund itself is new. We first heard about it from the presidential assistant during the Women 20 summit in Berlin, when Ivanka Trump called for a worldwide investment in women.
Some, though, are calling the fund hypocritical for appearing similar to the Clinton Foundation.
President Trump had criticized the Clinton Foundation for accepting funds from countries with human rights concerns -- calling it pay-for-play. This women's fund, though, is exclusively run by the World Bank.
-
If Hillary had done this, or Chelsea their pictures would be on the cover of all the women's journals with God like adoration.
:wink:
The Huff compost would have a soundbite of glass shattering and a heroines welcome mat for Ivanka.
Seems like a good PR idea. IS the World Bank trustworthy with all this money?
-
If Hillary had done this, or Chelsea their pictures would be on the cover of all the women's journals with God like adoration.
:wink:
The Huff compost would have a soundbite of glass shattering and a heroines welcome mat for Ivanka.
Seems like a good PR idea. IS the World Bank trustworthy with all this money?
No, it's not.
-
Seems like high risk for bad optics.
-
Seems like high risk for bad optics.
No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, the MSM will spin it in the worst possible light.
-
So don't make it easy for them.
-
So don't make it easy for them.
Trump was Trump before the election. It isn't like he has changed. I am more concerned with him following through on his promises.
-
The Facts of the Seth Rich Murder That Don’t Support Conspiracy Theories
Our David French with what needs to be known and said about the murder of Seth Rich:
The conspiracy is based on a true event — the terrible and unsolved murder of Seth Rich, a young Democratic National Committee staffer. Early the morning on July 10, an unidentified assailant shot Rich in the back. The police haven’t solved the crime, and their current best theory is that the attack occurred as part of a botched or interrupted robbery. Rich’s valuables, however, were still on his body, and the police (so far as we know) have no leads…
For the theory to be true, its believers have to demonstrate that Rich leaked to WikiLeaks, that someone in the DNC (or the Clinton camp) in turn had Rich murdered, that the D.C. police are intentionally slow-walking the investigation, that the major intelligence agencies (namely the CIA, FBI, and NSA) are together either deliberately concocting a story about Russian interference or too stupid to recognize an inside job, and finally, that the remainder of official Washington is either oblivious to or colluding with conspirators who’ve damaged relations with Russia in hopes of bringing down a president. Oh, and did I mention that the family of the slain young man is also either in on the conspiracy or unaware of its existence?
Rich’s parents write in the Washington Post today:
The circumstances of what happened next are still unclear. We know that Seth was abruptly confronted on the street, that he had been on the phone and quickly ended the call. We also know that there were signs of a struggle, including a watchband torn when the assailants attempted to rip it off his wrist. Law-enforcement officials told us that Seth’s murder looked like a botched robbery attempt in which the assailants — after shooting our son — panicked, immediately ran and abandoned Seth’s personal belongings. We have seen no evidence, by any person at any time, that Seth’s murder had any connection to his job at the Democratic National Committee or his life in politics. Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.
… We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.
The fact that Rich’s valuables weren’t taken was indeed odd, but it’s hardly unthinkable that his assailant panicked and ran after the shooting. The Washington, D.C., police failing to generate leads is not the least bit surprising. In 2015, the D.C. police solved only 62 percent of the city’s homicides. The closure rate has been as high as 96 percent in 2011 and as low as 60.5 percent in 2003.
Then again, what makes someone believe in a conspiracy theory is not facts, but a need to believe.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334854-white-house-ethics-office-feud-escalates
-
"We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job."
How do we know this? Citation please.
-
*****"We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job."
How do we know this? Citation please.*****
Mr French contacted the DNC and they told him. Also the DC police sent him a personal communication so of course he knows all this to the truth.
For Gods sake we had the DC establishment let Hillary off though the proof of crimes is insurmountable. So now we are to believe whatever the DC establishment says about this?
I am not saying it ain't true but I remain skeptical.
-
In that Media Matters is going after Hannity's advertisers for supporting this "tin foil conspiracy", this may turn out to be an important point.
-
In that Media Matters is going after Hannity's advertisers for supporting this "tin foil conspiracy", this may turn out to be an important point.
Below you will find an actual conspiracy:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/judicial-watch-lois-lerner-doj-officials-and-fbi-met-to-plan-criminal-charges-for-obama-opponents/
Judicial Watch: Lois Lerner, DOJ Officials, and FBI Met to Plan Criminal Charges for Obama Opponents
BY: Chris Safran
July 7, 2015 4:57 pm
Newly obtained documents from the conservative educational foundation Judicial Watch detail an official memo from October 2010 of a meeting between Lois Lerner and officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI to plan for the prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations.
A lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act produced the documents which included the memo as well as revelations that the Justice Department wanted IRS employees to turn over sensitive documents before giving them to Congress, Judicial Watch said in a press release Tuesday.
In a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Issa said "this revelation likely means that the IRS—including possibly Lois Lerner—violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department."
An IRS document confirms that the organization supplied the FBI with 21 computer disks containing 1.25 million pages of confidential information from more than 113,000 tax returns.
"The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection, and this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information," Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in the release.
Lerner, a former IRS official, was at the center of past allegations that the agency had targeted conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) nonprofit status. More than 6,000 Lerner emails thought to be lost were turned over to the Senate Finance Committee in April.
The new documents shed light on the relationship between various agencies in the Obama administration and their plans to gain access to unredacted documents forbidden under federal tax law, according to Judicial Watch.
The memo followed an Oct. 8 meeting with representatives from the Justice Department and "one representative from the FBI" to discuss the prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activities.
"How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?" Fitton said in the release.
In his letter to Koskinen, Issa asked why information about the 1.25 million pages was withheld from the committee for a year. He also requested all documents relating to the information transfer between the IRS, the Justice Department, and the FBI.
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16831/wasserman-schultz-threatens-police-investigating-robert-kraychik
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16831/wasserman-schultz-threatens-police-investigating-robert-kraychik
Impossible! The dems would never politicize law enforcement!
-
http://circa.com/politics/declassified-memos-show-fbi-illegally-shared-spy-data-on-americans-with-private-parties
-
:-o :-o :-o :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
What 3rd parties?
Could this be why Comey would not investigate leaks?
-
http://freebeacon.com/politics/nearly-half-dem-rep-luis-gutierrezs-first-quarter-campaign-expenditures-went-wife/
-
http://americanlookout.com/john-kerry-scandal-update-he-knew-state-dept-was-funneling-cash-to-daughters-non-profit/?t=c
-
She needs jail time:
http://boingboing.net/2017/06/05/reality-leigh-winner-arrested.html
-
She needs jail time:
http://boingboing.net/2017/06/05/reality-leigh-winner-arrested.html
Mishandling classified materials is illegal? What if it was on a private server?
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#30f95ccc6b4a
-
At first glance I though "an honest Democrat?". But the next thought to me is this is just a ruse . This is just to justify her going after Trump. If he should not have "interfered" with Comey then how could she legitimately ignore what he said about Loretta Lynn?
Would Feinstein be calling for this if not for the obstruction of justice calls against Trump?
If she did it would be far more shocking then now.
http://nypost.com/2017/06/11/top-democrat-calls-for-investigation-of-loretta-lynchs-clinton-probe/
-
My God:
:-o :x:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-insider-pursuing-bid-fbi-building-contract-raising-112604633--abc-news-topstories.html
-
In that accusations will be made regardless of the facts, I post this here:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/338208-trumps-financial-disclosure-released
-
to Obama library:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/19/judicial-watch-susan-rice-unmasking-documents-moved-from-nsc-to-obama-library/
-
to Obama library:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/19/judicial-watch-susan-rice-unmasking-documents-moved-from-nsc-to-obama-library/
Yeah, not a smidgen of corruption!
-
Source unknown
http://www.youngcons.com/ariz-sen-john-mccains-foundation-funded-by-anti-american-leftist-billionaire-george-soros/?ref=FacebookPost
-
"McCain funded by Soros?"
I saw this too and am surprised.
From everything we have read about Soros it is not likely it is because Soros thinks of McCain as a hero or great American
It is because he thinks of him as a useful idiot!
Which he often is!
-
"McCain funded by Soros?"
I saw this too and am surprised.
From everything we have read about Soros it is not likely it is because Soros thinks of McCain as a hero or great American
It is because he thinks of him as a useful idiot!
Which he often is!
I can only think that to Soros, the alternative to McCain would be a more tea party like Republican challenger.
Soros money didn't successfully buy the Georgia election. )
-
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/06/trumps-hotel-and-tower-in-azerbaijan-is-ties-to-an-iranian-terrorist-group/
-
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/06/trumps-hotel-and-tower-in-azerbaijan-is-ties-to-an-iranian-terrorist-group/
How is Salon's coverage of the Clinton crime family's business dealings?
-
Non-existent I would imagine, but that affects me not at all. We search for Truth here and Trump's substantial international holdings present unique issues. Given Trump's willingness over the years to take chances with issues regarding integrity (e.g. the apparent grifting operation that was Trump U) it behooves us to keep an eye on things like this.
-
Non-existent I would imagine, but that affects me not at all. We search for Truth here and Trump's substantial international holdings present unique issues. Given Trump's willingness over the years to take chances with issues regarding integrity (e.g. the apparent grifting operation that was Trump U) it behooves us to keep an eye on things like this.
I'm sorry, I can't keep track of the left's narratives. Is it "Trump is pissing off everyone in the world, threatening national security"? or is it "Trump's global business dealings are threatening national security" today?
From the article, the project was never built. Gosh, let's compare and contrast that with the boatloads of cash Obama had directly shipped to IRAN.
-
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/28/6-trigger-points-how-the-conflict-between-the-united-states-and-iran-is-fast-escalating-toward-war_partner/
Obviously to cover up his business dealings with Iran, Trump is rushing us to war with Iran. Makes perfect sense!
-
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/07/08/military-judge-gives-bowe-bergdahl-lot-bad-news/
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2017/07/12/l-brent-bozell-iii-and-tim-graham-n2353596
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2017/07/12/l-brent-bozell-iii-and-tim-graham-n2353596
Twenty years ago this summer, Congress investigated this "Asiagate" plot while then-Sen. Fred Thompson's hearings produced one embarrassing detail after another about the Democrats. How did the press report these damning developments? They bad-mouthed the hearings as a waste of money and buried them under massive coverage of tabloid-ish stories of death -- first, the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace in July, and then the accidental death of Princess Diana in August.
*Collusion* <------ Shiny thing. Pay no attention to massive voter fraud.
-
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sheldon-silver-conviction-tossed-new-york/2017/07/13/id/801425/
-
Keep OPEC out of Wall Street
by Gal Luft
IAGS Journal of Energy Security
July 19, 2017
http://www.meforum.org/6829/keep-opec-out-of-wall-street
Share:
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Saudi Arabia is being wooed by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE) over the listing of Saudi Aramco in what would be the largest IPO in history.
For the past several months two of the world's leading stock exchanges – the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE) - have been competing over the listing of Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's national oil company, in what would be the largest IPO in history.
Delegations from both exchanges have traveled to Riyadh to woo government officials to select them. The LSE has even offered to bend its listing rules to accommodate the Saudi intention to float only five percent of Aramco as according to current rules a company qualifies for premium listing only if it offers at least 25 percent of its shares. Both President Donald Trump and British Prime Minster Theresa May recently visited Riyadh to bolster the relations with the Saudis in part to influence their decision on the matter.
But for the Saudis the choice between New York and London is not an easy one. Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, who was recently installed as the Kingdom's crown prince and who is considered the mastermind of the IPO, prefers an NYSE listing which would solidify US-Saudi relations even beyond the recent $350 billion arms deal between the two countries. Aramco executives on the other hand prefer London as there, they believe, the company would be more protected from shareholders lawsuits over not only the conduct of the company but also that of the Saudi government. To date no decision has been made.
No one can blame the owners of those exchanges for their eagerness. The same is true for the underwriters of the IPO like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan or the various consultancies and law firms benefiting from lucrative retainers and consulting fees associated with the offering. With an estimated valuation of $2 trillion the five percent Aramco will be offering the public are valued at $100 billion - more than the combined value of the top five largest IPOs ever floated in New York City. With such a bonanza every crumb is a mountain of cash. But from the broader public's perspective things look vastly different. The Aramco IPO is a test of the integrity of our financial system and under the current structure no democratic government which believes in free and open markets should expose its investors to such an offering.
It's not clear that Aramco is willing to remove the veil of secrecy from its books.
From the first time the idea of an IPO was announced it was fraught with serious questions. Taking public a company like Aramco would entail disclosures the company was never willing to make. For example, it would have to share with investors its detailed geological data, its well by well production costs, its precise financial relations with the Saudi government and its hiring and operating procedures. All of those have been closely guarded state secrets. But transparency and the equal availability of information to every investor are the bedrock of our financial market. This requires Aramco to remove the veil of secrecy from its books, and it is not clear that the Saudi government, which effectively runs Aramco, is genuinely ready to do so.
An even more troubling set of questions has to do with what can be called the five-versus-95- percent problem. While the Saudis sell five percent of Aramco to the public they keep the other 95 percent under tight government control. How will this work exactly? Which assets or business segments will fall within the five percent? What will be their interaction with the rest of the company? Will shareholders of the five percent be accountable to decisions made by the 95 percent? Who decides? The issue is particularly relevant since while the five percent will supposedly be governed by free market forces, the 95 percent will be effectively controlled by a price fixing cartel, OPEC – the complete antithesis of the free market.
The Saudis are only selling 5% of Aramco to the public. 95% will remain under government control.
OPEC members collectively own more than two thirds of the world's conventional crude reserves and they account for one third of global production. Over the past forty years non-OPEC production has doubled yet the cartel's production has barely changed and is around 32 million barrels per day. It can manipulate oil prices at will in ways no other player in the oil market can.
Saudi Arabia is not only the largest producer within OPEC, it is OPEC. Time and again it has been demonstrated that Saudi Arabia is the driving force behind the cartel's decisions, including the most recent one to extend oil production cuts in order to support prices. The other thirteen members are merely supporting actors. Since oil export is the main source of income for the Saudi government, OPEC's decisions will always be subservient to the Kingdom's budgetary needs. Once floated in New York, Aramco stock will be present in every portfolio of every pension fund, mutual fund and premium stock index. This means that one way or another most Americans will be invested in it and by extension most Americans will be forced to be in collusion with a cartel and at times benefit from its price fixing.
The US and British governments must take a firm stand against Saudi influence in our financial markets.
The association with OPEC will put in legal jeopardy any oil executive wishing to hold fiduciary responsibility in Aramco. Under US law, officers of companies engaged in price fixing go to jail, but executives of OPEC members are doing so in broad daylight every few months in Vienna. However, bringing Aramco under American or British securities law will change the rules for those executives and expose them – and possibly also the exchange that hosts the stock - to numerous lawsuits. This will deter western executives from assuming positions in Aramco, leading the company to be governed by a cabal of Saudi royals enjoying diplomatic immunity rather than seasoned oil professionals.
One of the most important roles of government in the economy is the elimination of cartels. Allowing the Aramco IPO while Saudi Arabia remains at the helm of OPEC would bring the most objectionable form of market distortion into the heart of our financial system. It is therefore necessary that both the US and British governments take a firm and unified stand and face Saudi Arabia with the stark choice: leave OPEC or stay out of our financial markets.
-
Did you see this today from Andrew McCarthy?
This is unbelievable.. The entired DNC was covering for this traitor, scoundrel , crook, and dangerous Pakistani national,
because obviously he has something on them!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449983/debbie-wasserman-schultz-pakistani-computer-guys-bank-fraud
This is also an unmet discussed problem WE HAVE. We have all these highly trained people born in other countries , many trained and schooled here, infiltrated at all levels of our academics , our politics out IT. CERTAINLY some of them are going to work for the other side while they play American. How the heck can we monitor these people?
This guy sounds like a spy for Pakistan. one should assume pakistan has Schultz'es and other Dems hard drive copied
no one Schutlz is ballistic trying to keep her computer out of hands of investigators and kept this guy working for her despite red flags all over the map!
-
so says JJ, no not the TV JJ from the 70s, but Obmam's JJ:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/24/audiotape-obama-dhs-secretary-caught-discussing-donald-trump-visa-case-with-controversial-chinese-billionaire/
-
How convenient for Obama:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450840/bob-menendez-democratic-scapegoat-becomes-crucial-vote-senate-minority
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/29/obama-still-running-the-fbi-says-lawyer-after-fbi-rejects-clinton-records-request/
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/trumps-real-estate-ambitions-in-moscow?mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20%2843%29&CNDID=50142053&spMailingID=11812145&spUserID=MjAxODUyNTc2OTUwS0&spJobID=1222740797&spReportId=MTIyMjc0MDc5NwS2
IF true, this is a fg disgrace. :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
" But, despite this failure, Trump’s pursuit of the deal while he was campaigning on a platform of friendlier relations with the Russian President—a foreign adversary who controlled the deal’s fate—is scandalous, "
IF true, this is a fg disgrace. angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry angry
Crafty ,
I could not agree more. Truthfully I don't doubt it .
Of course the the die hard Trump fans will simply say no big deal it was just a hotel blah blah blah ............... :x OTOH I don't agree with the Ryans et al who think we can simply wait this out and be able to push conservatism next time around.
Why is the only one who will really fight for the 'Right' have to be like this?
It must be fate. Someone is laughing somewhere.
-
With all the bullshit the Dems/Pravdas/Left have thrown at Trump, I do not understand why this Russian hotel thing has not become a big fg deal. Maybe they have just run out of gas on trying to take him down?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/magazine/how-to-get-rich-in-trumps-washington.html?emc=edit_ta_20170830&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
-
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/30/politics/former-fbi-agent-battling-deputy-director-mccabe-said-there-is-a-cancer-inside-the-fbi
A former FBI agent battling Deputy Director McCabe said there is a 'cancer' inside the FBI
By Sara A. Carter
When the FBI launched an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one of the bureau’s top former counterterrorism agents believed that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe would have to recuse himself from the investigation.
Former Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was one of the bureau’s top intelligence analysts and terrorism experts but resigned from the bureau five years ago after she said she was harassed and her career was blocked by top FBI management. She filed a formal sexual discrimination complaint against the bureau in 2013 and it was Flynn, among many others, who publicly came to her aide.
In her first on-camera interview she described the retaliation from McCabe and others in the bureau as “vicious.”
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, May 11, 2017, while testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on major threats facing the U.S. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
A 16-year veteran with outstanding work performance reviews and accomplishments, Gritz alleges McCabe, along with other senior management, made it impossible for her to do her job and obstructed her ability to move up the ranks.
She eventually filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint [EEOC] in 2013 for sexual discrimination and a hostile work environment against McCabe and other superiors. In 2012 she received the only negative review in her career with the FBI, and it was conducted by the same supervisor she had named in her EEOC.
She told Circa, current senior level management, including McCabe, created a “cancer like” bureaucracy striking fear into FBI agents and causing others to resign. She eventually resigned herself, but her case is still pending.
“They’ve poisoned the 7th floor,” said Gritz, referring to the actual floor where management is housed in the FBI’s Hoover Building. “There’s a cancer there of a group of people. You’ve seen it with some of the recent reports of leaks, conflicts of interest, you see it in my case. The level of integrity is lacking. I have never seen or heard of the amount of conflicts of interest, or leading by fear.”
McCabe, who is under three separate federal inquiries, did not respond to requests for comment.
Gritz, who at the time of her official complaint was on detail to the CIA, did not fight her battle alone. Many senior U.S. government officials who had worked with her throughout her career defended her openly. One of her biggest supporters was Flynn, who then was the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as first reported by Circa.
Earlier this year, a highly-classified phone conversation between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was leaked to the press, prompting his removal as top national security advisor for President Trump. The classified leak and the fact that McCabe plays a central role in the Russia investigation has left Gritz deeply concerned for Flynn.
Five years later she’s waiting for resolution to her pending case and now she believes that those who retaliated against her, including McCabe, may have also retaliated against Flynn for his unwavering support for her. Flynn gave a rare interview to NPR in 2015 defending Gritz against McCabe.
“When I heard Michael Flynn was being brought under investigation, I wondered if they would go after him,” said Gritz, recalling the letter Flynn wrote on his Department of Defense stationary. “I still believe McCabe should have recused himself from the investigation into Flynn.”
Flynn had worked with Gritz extensively during her tenure on joint terrorism related assignments between the DOD and FBI wrote a letter on Pentagon stationary testifying to her character and work ethic. Other top military officials also wrote letters of testimony on behalf of Gritz, including Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. Keith Alexander and retired Navy Rear Admiral B. L. Losey, who served both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama as the White House’s National Security Council Director for Combatting Terrorism, according to documents obtained by Circa.
The FBI’s attorney tried to block testimony from her supporters, including Flynn’s letter, in 2014, memos obtained by Circa show.
“They couldn’t block the testimony,” said Gritz, who smiled as she recalled the judge reprimanding the FBI for trying to block the testimony.
FBI agents’ concerns became more pronounced when a highly-classified piece of evidence -- an intercepted conversation between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- suddenly leaked to the news media and prompted Flynn’s resignation as Trump’s top security adviser.
“He thought what had been done to me was totally wrong at a time when we need counterterrorism expertise—to push out someone he considered a rising star was unacceptable.”
She said when FBI agents requested to write letters on her behalf they were stopped by their supervisors and coworkers who wanted to defend her were fearful.
“You could say my name, walking down the hall and if one of them hears it you’re in trouble,” she said, referencing McCabe and his close colleagues.
In June, a Circa investigation revealed that two weeks after Gritz filed her EEOC complaint, McCabe referred her for an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation for timecard irregularities.
Although the FBI claimed they had filed their OPR investigation prior to Gritz’s EEOC, McCabe’s own sworn testimony painted a much different picture. Gritz’s case, which is still pending, was required McCabe to submit to a sworn statement. In his testimony he recounted a conversation on June 19, 2012 in which he authorized the OPR investigation of Gritz after one of his deputies told him she was about to file a complaint, as reported by Circa.
And McCabe is also challenged with an Office of Special Counsel investigation.
The embattled former agent filed a complaint in April, alleging McCabe violated the Hatch Act, as reported by Circa in June.
The OSC is the government’s main whistle blower agency. The Hatch Act prohibits FBI employees from engaging "in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group." McCabe appeared to be participating in his wife’s unsuccessful bid for Virginia State Senate in 2015, according to Gritz and documents obtained by Circa.
The Justice Department Inspector General investigation is also investigating McCabe after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, alleged McCabe may not have properly disclosed the roughly $700,000 in campaign contributions to his Democratic wife on his ethics report and should have recused himself from the Clinton server case.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, joined at left by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, leads a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 26, 2017, on attempts to influence American elections, with a focus on Russian meddling in the last presidential race. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Gritz is hoping she will have resolution on her case soon but more importantly she said “I just want the bureau to get back to where it should be.”
As for McCabe, she said “I don’t feel that Andy McCabe was honest to me. The conflicts of interest many of agents see right away. A lot of agents, analysts, former, current, retired are appalled that if they did similar they would have already been fired or at least on leave without pay.”
Sara A. Carter is a national and international award-winning investigative reporter whose stories have ranged from national security, terrorism, immigration and front line coverage of the wars i...
-
Yeah I know. The development created jobs and revenue ............ :x
if this ain't stealing from the treasury then i don't know what is. Corker - AGAIN:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/20/law-firm-backing-luther-strange-set-up-sweetheart-deal-for-bob-corker-in-alabama-retail-development/
-
https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm
Iran:The USG has labeled it a state sponsor of terrorism.
https://www.fincen.gov/resources/law-enforcement/case-examples/post-911-sar-leads-guilty-plea-money-laundering-and-illegal
Send so much as a penny to Iran, and face serious criminal charges, see above example.
But totally cool when Obama did it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-administration-paid-iran-1.7-billion-in-cash/article/2004189http://
www.nationalreview.com/article/440121/obama-iran-cash-payments-terrorism
-
Hillary's husband sold a pardon to Marc Rich, pardoning him for doing business with Iran. (Future AG Eric Holder put the deal together IIRC).
-
Hillary's husband sold a pardon to Marc Rich, pardoning him for doing business with Iran. (Future AG Eric Holder put the deal together IIRC).
When even Slate is disgusted...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/02/marc_rich_presidential_pardon_how_eric_holder_facilitated_the_most_unjust.html
How Eric Holder Facilitated the Most Unjust Presidential Pardon in American History
By Justin Peters
51981192
Marc Rich
Photo by Guido Roeoesli/AFP/Getty Images
Crime is Slate’s crime blog. Like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter @slatecrime.
Justin Peters
JUSTIN PETERS
Justin Peters is a Slate correspondent and the author of The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet.
Marc Rich, the man who got away with it, died last week, and I would be remiss if I let his death pass without comment. Rich became internationally notorious in 2001, when, as a fugitive from justice, he was pardoned by Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration. What many don’t recall is that Attorney General Eric Holder, who was then a deputy attorney general, was instrumental in securing Rich’s pardon.
Rich was a pioneering commodities trader who made billions dealing in oil and other goods. He had a habit of dealing with nations with which trade was embargoed, like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and apartheid South Africa. Rich also had a habit of not paying his taxes, to the point where one observer said that “Marc Rich is to asset concealment what Babe Ruth was to baseball.” The United States indicted Rich in 1983, hitting him with charges—tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, trading with the enemy—that could’ve brought life in prison. Rich fled the country.
He remained at large for almost 20 years. (Rich’s obituaries have said that, for much of that time, he was on the FBI 10 Most Wanted List, a claim that I have not been able to independently verify. A Lexis-Nexis database search reveals nothing; a call to the FBI’s press office was not fruitful.) Rich lived in a big house in Switzerland and spent lots of money trying to make the charges against him go away, giving money to American politicians and to various Israeli causes, motivated at least partly in the latter case by the hope that officials in Israel might petition the United States on his behalf.
Finally, in 2000, he saw some return on his efforts. Eric Holder was the key man. As deputy AG, Holder was in charge of advising the president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.
Rich was an active fugitive, a man who had used his money to evade the law, and presidents do not generally pardon people like that. What’s more, the Justice Department opposed the pardon—or would’ve, if it had known about it. But Holder and Quinn did an end-around, bringing the pardon to Clinton directly and avoiding any chance that Justice colleagues might give negative input. As the House Government Reform Committee report later put it, “Holder failed to inform the prosecutors under him that the Rich pardon was under consideration, despite the fact that he was aware of the pardon effort for almost two months before it was granted.”
On Jan. 19, 2001, Holder advised the White House that he was “neutral leaning favorable” on pardoning Rich. But the U.S. pardon attorney, Roger Adams, needed to sign the pardon, too, and a background check needed to be done. The White House waited to contact Adams until slightly after midnight on Jan. 20, hours before Clinton would leave office. Here’s how a recent American Thinker piece described the scene:
Adams would be required to sign the pardons, and when he was informed by White House staff that night, a perfunctory check was done. Adams was stunned to learn that Rich and [Rich’s partner Pincus] Green were both fugitives. He tracked down Holder and called him at his home at 1 a.m. that morning.
Adams informed Holder that Clinton was giving serious consideration to pardoning the two fugitives. Holder told Adams that he was aware of that fact, and the conversation abruptly ended.
Later that day, Rich’s pardon went through.
Since then, Bill Clinton hasn’t stopped apologizing for the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. “It was terrible politics. It wasn't worth the damage to my reputation,” he told Newsweek in 2002—and, indeed, speculation was rampant that Rich (and his ex-wife) had bought the pardon by, in part, donating $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Clinton denied that the donations had anything to do with the pardon, instead claiming that he took Holder’s advice on the matter. Holder, for his part, has distanced himself from the pardons as well. As the House Government Reform Committee report put it, he claimed that his support for the pardon “was the result of poor judgment, initially not recognizing the seriousness of the Rich case, and then, by the time that he recognized that the pardon was being considered, being distracted by other matters.”
The excuses are weak. In the words of the committee report, “it is difficult to believe that Holder’s judgment would be so monumentally poor that he could not understand how he was being manipulated by Jack Quinn.” And presidential pardons don’t just slip through like this, especially not pardons of wanted fugitives. If Holder had followed protocols and made sure the Justice Department was looped in, there’s no way that Rich would have been pardoned. Hundreds of thousands of men sit in American prisons doing unconscionably long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. DNA tests routinely turn up cases of unjust convictions. But Marc Rich bought his pardon with money and access, and the committee’s response to that purchase is worth quoting in full:
The President abused one his most important powers, meant to free the unjustly convicted or provide forgiveness to those who have served their time and changed their lives. Instead, he offered it up to wealthy fugitives whose money had already enabled them to permanently escape American justice. Few other abuses could so thoroughly undermine public trust in government.
But there was no real lasting damage to trust in government, or to anyone’s reputation, really. Bill Clinton retired to wealth and adulation. Eric Holder got his wish and eventually became attorney general. And Marc Rich died a wealthy man in Switzerland. He never came back to the United States—if he had returned, he would have been subject to civil suits, which would have ended up costing him money—but he was able to live out the rest of his life without having to worry about being arrested, having bought his freedom from craven politicians who were only too willing to sell.
-
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/eric-holder-net-worth/
First appointed by Ronald Reagan !! :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder
-
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/eric-holder-net-worth/
First appointed by Ronald Reagan !! :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder
Funny how leftists who despise money end up with so much of it.
-
more "deep state" coverups ?
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/16/loretta-lynch-documents-deep-state-doesnt-want-release-damaging-records-tom-fitton
-
don't expect the MSM to report on THIS 24/7 like they do bashing Trump in every way the can dream up.
I first heard of this on Rush radio this afternoon:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/452776/russian-nuclear-scandal-what-did-hillary-clinton-know
-
Here's more:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/bombshell-revelations-about-russia-and-obamas-department-of-justice.php
-
"Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia. "
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
-
"Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia. "
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
Mueller and his crew are nothing but the sharp end of the deep state.
-
:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/bombshell-revelations-about-russia-and-obamas-department-of-justice.php
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hillary-clintons-russian-ghost-stories/
Gents:
Let's use the Hillbillary Clinton thread as the primary thread for the Uranium One story please.
-
gets 300 million dollar contract despite having 2 employees and almost no experience . This makes "War Dogs" movie seem tame:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453082/whitefish-puerto-rico-no-bid-contract-stinks
no corruption here... I first read Ryan Zinke had no connection .... ah but alas he does. His son did some once worked for the firm associated with this contract.
Zinke must be fired immediately IF this is true
This makes "War Dogs" movie seem tame:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Dogs_(2016_film)
-
Yes-- we need to stay on the Trump Administration too!
-
One of the defenses being proffered in defense of Hillary in the Uranium One deal runs something like this:
"She was only one of several departments/agencies that signed off on the deal, so therefore what she did was not inherently suspicious, nevermind the vast sums that went to the Clinton Slush Fund."
Here's the thing: My understanding is that the reason that several agencies/departments must sign off on something like this is that each one has unique expertise and criteria.
Allow me to give an example:
Working from memory: Back during President Clinton's administration, Loral Satellite had permission to do a deal with the Chinese. The Chinese rocket failed, and the satellite that Loral sold them was a total loss. So Loral wanted to help the Chinese with their rocket problem. Of course, this then would help the Chinese have better rockets for , , , other uses. IIRC the clearance for this would have to come from , , , drum roll , , , the State Department and State was not cooperating. So Bernie Schwatz, the presidentof Loral, made a large ($345,000? donation to Bill in some form or other) and Lo! Behold! the responsibility for making the clearance determination was moved from the State Department to the Commerce Department which had criteria devoid of national security implications.
Something to think about.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/top-obama-advisor-uranium-deal-islamic-activist-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Rolex watch? I am glad FBI employee has such good taste:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/us/politics/fbi-stolen-gun-stolen-charlotte.html
-
your much smarter then me if you can follow the very convoluted article. I have no idea what he talking about except Russia seemed to have played both sides by design or by default:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453634/fusion-gps-dossier-targeted-clinton-foundation-donors
-
your much smarter then me if you can follow the very convoluted article. I have no idea what he talking about except Russia seemed to have played both sides by design or by default:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453634/fusion-gps-dossier-targeted-clinton-foundation-donors
Russians played both sides, for sure. Maybe they wanted Trump to win, but then they would work to undermine whoever won. What they really wanted was chaos and they got it.
Don't they already have plenty on the Clintons, the Uranium affair? Or was that quid pro quo all really unspoken and unrecorded by people who want and sell that kind of thing?
"The Putin regime had sought to deflect its culpability in the fraud against Hermitage and the death of Magnitsky by framing Hermitage’s chief executive officer, Bill Browder (as Jay’s aforementioned posts detail).
Maybe investigations will expose something on Putin and this backfires on him.
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23599/watch-shep-smith-destroys-uranium-one-scandal-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=111517-news&utm_campaign=position1
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/03/new-documents-reveal-fbis-clinton-cover-up.html
-
The integrity of our FBI again comes up profoundly short in a matter of profound importance.
-
The integrity of our FBI again comes up profoundly short in a matter of profound importance.
Like the IRS, the FBI has become the dem's Ministry for State Security.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454387/john-conyers-resignation-royalism-replaces-democracy
-
"Yes, indeed. Let the sun shine in."
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/12/the-irs-scandal-day-1671-lois-lerners-secrets.html
American taxpayers who will fork out $3.5 million for Ms. Lerner’s actions have a right to hear how she justified what she did at the IRS.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lois-lerners-secrets-1512339850?tesla=y
-
Making overt threats:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/14/eric-holder-complains-bs-attacks-robert-mueller/
:x
-
This is from Newsweek!!!!
no lover of Trump:
http://www.newsweek.com/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-tarmac-meeting-details-comey-749995
Sounds like Comey was totally corrupt . As was Lynch (and of course OBamster)
-
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/26/turkish-government-hires-fbi-directors-longtime-friend-for-work-on-mystery-legal-matter/
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25190/humas-cousin-convicted-fraud-deleted-emails-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=122917-news&utm_campaign=position3
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-18/obama-s-alternative-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-18/obama-s-alternative-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal
Eli Lake is one of the best reporters on these topics and the accusation (among others) is that the Obama administration went soft on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah, with plenty to back up that claim.
Now what?
They ran up $8 trillion in debt in the interest of harming our economy and ran our foreign policy to harm our security, and if you read or believe the polls today, people want to give power back to them.
-
Sorry but this thread is where this belongs:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/one-amazons-hq2-candidates-looks-like-clear-frontrunner-150150989.html
The DC area is one of the most congested and one of the most expensive areas in the nation and one would think is not a good place for a giant second HQ.
There is only one reason for this choice and it is depraved and so obviously outrageous.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-22/whos-lying-fbi-says-5-months-texts-lost-yet-ig-horowitz-says-his-office-received
Nothing to see here, move along.
-
Please post in Rule of Law thread.
-
Not enough that twice he married widows worth over $100,000,000 each , , ,
https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-kerry-daughter-scandal-crosshairs/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=deepsix&utm_content=2018-02-24&utm_campaign=can
-
This on top of Jared Kushner is not looking good , , ,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/03/02/shortly-before-trump-announced-tariffs-his-former-adviser-dumped-millions-in-steel-related-stocks/?undefined=&utm_term=.ae39537eb5aa&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
"plugs" did not get rich but he got his son rich.
big time corruption:
https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/
reminds me of Pelosi family getting sweetheart deals.
They are all doing it. Problem is government favors are being given away and not in the national interest.
-
What perfect timing, I came here in this very moment to say that I had heard somewhere but forgot where about this!
-
well it was obvious this was going to happen: I doubt any of the doctors or lawyers or player making up claims will ever see justice for the fraud:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nfl-alleges-deep-and-widespread-fraud-in-concussion-settlement-1523641002
reminds of the widespread phen fen fraud with lawyers and doctor sending everyone through and assembly line making false claims .
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/nyregion/kushner-deal-qatar-666-5th.html?emc=edit_na_20180517&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193ing-news&ref=cta
-
rather mysteriously chosen to run the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation:
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/05/17/schweizer-media-gop-refuse-investigate-mcconnell-chao-family-ties-china/
-
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/390344-firm-discloses-more-epa-lobbying-by-advocate-with-ties-to-pruitt?userid=188403
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2018/06/trump-bashing-puerto-rican-mayor-under-federal-corruption-investigation/
mysteriously pays one contractor triple the rate for supplies
then silences whistle blower
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-irs-documents-revealing-mccains-subcommittee-staff-director-urged-irs-to-engage-in-financially-ruinous-targeting/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newswatch&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180627192108
-
Another thread crosses the 100,000 reads line!
Well done gents!
-
y James T. Areddy
June 29, 2018 5:13 p.m. ET
12 COMMENTS
SHANGHAI—A son of the American ambassador to Beijing used his connections to President Donald Trump this week to drum up business for his public-relations firm.
Eric Branstad, a son of Ambassador Terry Branstad, and the U.S. Commerce Department’s liaison to the White House until January, spoke on Thursday in Shanghai to more than 100 lawyers, bankers and advisers at a seminar titled “How to React To (Potential) US-China Trade War?”
Mr. Branstad highlighted his personal relationship with Mr. Trump and plans for his firm to open a China office, attendees said.
It isn’t unusual for former U.S. government officials to visit China dangling the keys to understanding Washington, and ethics rules don’t appear to bar Mr. Branstad from doing so. But such a move could raise the appearance of ethical conflicts, experts say.
Mr. Trump is upending longstanding U.S.-China ties that he has criticized as cozy and harmful to American interests. His administration imposed tariffs on Chinese goods that are set to begin on July 6; Beijing says it will retaliate.
Mr. Branstad endorsed Mr. Trump’s challenges to China while onstage with a colleague, but his efforts to build his own business in the country appeared to hinge on his personal connection to the president, the attendees said.
“It was this whole splash about how they met Donald Trump,” said Richard Chenel, a Shanghai-based private-equity investor who attended the presentation. Mr. Chenel said he had hoped to gain insight about how trade tensions might affect investment valuations. He said he was disappointed that Mr. Branstad’s primary message was that Mr. Trump supports the American worker.
The U.S. Embassy in Beijing didn’t respond to a request to comment. The White House didn’t immediately respond. Reached by email, Mr. Branstad declined to comment.
In his travels to Shanghai and Beijing this week, Mr. Branstad was representing Mercury Public Affairs LLC, a Washington communications firm he joined in February as managing director weeks after leaving U.S. government service. At his presentation, Mr. Branstad said Mercury plans to soon open an office in China, attendees said.
Mercury, a division of Omnicom Group Inc., recently began representing a Chinese telecommunications equipment maker that has been in the crosshairs of the U.S. government: ZTE Corp.
On May 13, Mr. Trump set in motion a reversal of a Commerce Department prohibition on ZTE’s access to U.S. suppliers because of allegations the company broke U.S. law. Mr. Trump in a tweet cited a determination to work with Chinese President Xi Jinping to get ZTE “back in business, fast.”
Mercury subsequently said in a filing with the U.S. Justice Department that as of May 14 it would act as a subcontractor to the global law firm Hogan Lovells on matters involving ZTE at a rate of $75,000 a month for three months.
In June, the U.S. Senate voted to reinstate the ZTE ban.
Hogan Lovells declined to comment. A Mercury spokeswoman said she couldn’t comment.
Scott D. Williams, a Shanghai investment broker and co-founder of the organization that sponsored Mr. Branstad’s presentation, said the event was intended to provide insight on the Trump administration’s China policy. The U.S. strategy has left businesspeople wondering whether tensions between Washington and Beijing will become a full-blown trade war.
Eric Branstad was an early fundraiser for Mr. Trump. He joined the administration as it began raising pressure on China. His father was a long-serving Iowa governor who first met China’s president, Mr. Xi, in 1985.
An earlier attempt by the family of a Trump administration official to promote business in China backfired.
When family members of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, visited Beijing and Shanghai in May 2017 offering chances to earn a U.S. visa by investing in New Jersey apartments that family-owned Kushner Cos. was developing the political backlash was swift.
The company later issued an apology for any suggestion it was benefiting from ties to the White House, and to cancel the participation of Mr. Kushner’s sister during the final leg of the China fundraising tour.
Mr. Branstad’s actions didn’t violate any ethics rules unless his father encouraged him to tout his ties to the U.S. government, said Walt Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics. But Mr. Shaub suggested the event didn’t look good.
“The culture of the federal government has always been that if you’re in a sensitive post like ambassador, particularly for a country as important to our national interest as China, you would strongly discourage your family members from going there for business purposes,” Mr. Shaub said.
In an invitation to the Shanghai event, Mr. Branstad’s bio suggests in both English and Chinese that he continues to have a role with the U.S. government. It describes him as “the main point of contact and chief aid” to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. The Commerce Department didn’t respond to a request to comment. The bio also says “he works as a partner and senior adviser directly with” the secretary and other officials.
Eric Branstad's LinkedIn profile shows him standing between President Donald Trump and his father Terry Branstad, the current U.S. ambassador to China.
Eric Branstad's LinkedIn profile shows him standing between President Donald Trump and his father Terry Branstad, the current U.S. ambassador to China.
Mr. Branstad, whose LinkedIn profile includes a photo of him squeezed in between Mr. Trump and his father, the ambassador, described at the Shanghai event how he and Mr. Trump had bonded over a discussion about tennis, attendees said.
Two organizations listed on an invitation for Mr. Branstad’s appearance distanced themselves from the event.
Organizers distributed the American Chamber of Commerce’s address as the event’s venue. But the chamber said it never agreed to host the talk. Organizers changed the address to an adjacent hotel.
Meanwhile, the logo of law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLC appeared on the invitation. The firm’s partner in charge, Ron Cai, said he had been asked to underwrite the event but declined. “I told the event organizer we were not interested in sponsoring. I personally have no interest in politics or government-relations work.”
Mr. Williams, the event sponsor, said the free-by-invitation but off-the-record event was planned on short notice after his organization learned Mr. Branstad would be in China.
—Rebecca Ballhaus and Brody Mullins in Washington and Zhang Chunying in Shanghai contributed to this article.
Write to James T. Areddy at james.areddy@wsj.com
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/378629-breitbart-editor-biden-and-kerrys-sons-inked-deal-with-chinese
-
Quite right and thank for having that for our record. Nonetheless, our idea is to not be that, yes?
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33500/coincidence-senators-husband-has-made-killing-ashe-schow?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
-
sounds like the cattle futures investment bonanza
MSM dead silent of course.
I am sure Josh Hawley is headlining this.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/03/sen-dianne-feinsteins-personal-driver-20-years-chinese-spy/
and check out her husband:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34069/report-dianne-feinstein-and-butchers-beijing-spyridon-mitsotakis
-
My first thought is he is making money somehow from China. He is like a shadow following his wife around investing in every thing he can from her inside position.
Same as the Pelosi and family:
"Her husband is a board member of COSCO [The PLA’s Chinese Overseas Shipping Corporation] and he has other investments in China."
Move along folks ; nothing here. It is a Democrat and not Trump either.
MSM will likely whisper this on 2 or 3 shows for a minute , invite some Crat lover on who will explain this away and why it has nothing on order with anything Trump and that will be the end of it - if even that.
-
Looks like it wasn't her driver, but a staffer:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/06/feinstein-chinese-spy/
Also see:
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/01/details-chinese-spy-dianne-feinstein-san-francisco/
Even Pravda on the Beach noticed the swampiness in 1997:
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-03-28/news/mn-43046_1_china-connections
2017: Wonder how the figured out who our people were? Maybe in those 30,000 emails there are some clues?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html
-
https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/sen-dianne-feinsteins-ties-china-go-way-deeper-alleged-office-spy/
-
file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/KPV810WH/ATT01644.htm
-
Not sure why the IRS would have the inside track on this, but FWIW:
https://nypost.com/2018/08/15/whistleblower-makes-shocking-irs-insider-trading-allegations/
-
" The IRS places its workers permanently inside many companies where they continually receive privileged information while doing audits. So there’s plenty of money-making tips to go around.
The whistleblower said a lot of people got rich from the scheme he was describing."
Assuming this is correct , and I feels far stronger that it is true then made up then
this is a great example of why the gentlemen from Judicial Watch who I called to ask if they could help me with copyrights tampering and stealing at the US Copyright office said to me,
"welcome to Washington".
When I told him the lawyers at CRO instead of being very interested to find who is and why someone(s) were stealing copyright material were only interested in covering it up or to ignore and deny it he just said par for the course.
We have inspector generals at these places but do they really ever uncover anything or get anything done about the corruption? If they do it is hushed up out of the public eye because I never hear about it.
Look at the IG report , Horowitz who offers "facts" but then makes a conclusion that baffles the mind. And in the end so what . Nothing came of it other then some footballs being tossed back by the pundits on TV.
-
The Geller Report hyperventilates not infrequently, but the list here is noteworthy:
https://gellerreport.com/2018/08/mueller-truth-hide.html/
-
what a con artist
anyone who gives him a cent is a fool:
https://freebeacon.com/politics/david-brock-seeks-2-million-new-anti-trump-project-midterms/
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-iran-business-ties-trump-didnt-disclose
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-iran-business-ties-trump-didnt-disclose
I guess we've hit Peak Russia then.
-
To be precise, published in 2017.
-
https://www.casewareanalytics.com/blog/crowdfunding-new-cover-money-laundering
-
Rush was talking about these go fund me pages today.
Like Deborah Katz is being funded by it and in a way that can be a form of money laundering for political purposes.
though he does admit it happens on both sides.
-
I feel like Achilles played by Brad Pitt in Troy who after slaying the enemy giant Bosgrius played by Nathan Jones
who yelled to the enemy army "IS THERE NO ONE ELSE"?
https://nypost.com/2018/10/11/whistleblowers-new-book-shares-secret-tapes-of-new-goldman-ceo/
wow this is a shock. :roll:
surely this HAS to be only the tip of a titanic sized iceberg of sleaze and corruption
-
for leaks to the press - this is as far as I know a first.
She is from US Treasury but she is not with the sympathies I would have expected . Something is missing. Did she leak or was she hacked . Is there money involved.
She is not a fan of Hillary or of the process of the Kavanaugh persecution . So what gives:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-official-charged-leaking-connection-russia-probe-162319262.html
already some of her politics are online:
https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/natalie-mayflower-sours-edwards/
-
President Trump, his family and many of the people he has hired are profiting from his presidency.CreditCreditSarah Silbiger/The New York Times
They don’t even try very hard to hide it.
President Trump, his family and more than a few of his appointees are using his presidency to enrich themselves. They are spending taxpayer dollars for their own benefit. They are accepting sweetheart deals from foreigners. And they are harnessing the power of the federal government on behalf of their businesses.
There’s a word for this: corruption.
Given how widespread Trumpian corruption has become, we thought it was time to make a list. It’s meant to be a definitive list of self-dealing by the president, his family, his staff or his friends — since he began running for president. To qualify, an incident needs to seem highly credible, even if it remains unresolved, and needs to involve making money.
Compiling the list made us understand why some historians believe Trump’s administration is the most corrupt since at least Warren Harding’s, of 1920s Teapot Dome fame. Trump administration officials and people close to them are brashly using power to amass perks and cash. They are betting that they can get away with it. So far, Congress has let them.
Here’s the list, sorted into thematic categories:
Trump and Family
Foreigners are paying the Trumps.
A few days after the 2016 election, the government of Kuwait canceleda planned event at the Four Seasons Hotel. It instead held the event — a celebration of Kuwait’s National Day — at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
Image
International and American businesses curry favor with President Trump by spending money at his properties.CreditAlex Wroblewski for The New York Times
That celebration fits a pattern. Officials from foreign governments have realized they can curry favor with Trump by spending money at his properties. The list of governments includes Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Turkey, China, India, Afghanistan and Qatar. Some may have done so even if he were not the president, but others are well aware of what they are doing.
The Constitution forbids federal officials from accepting gifts, known as emoluments, from foreign powers, unless they have received congressional approval. Congressional Democrats have sued Trump for violating this clause, and the case is now in federal court.
Americans are paying the Trumps.
American officials and business leaders have also spent money at Trump properties, sometimes in an apparent effort to please the president. Gov. Paul LePage of Maine last year stayed at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Other Republicans have held campaign fund-raisers and party events at the properties. So have corporate lobbyists.
“National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association Dinner at the Trump Hotel where I am drinking Trump coffee,” Senator Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, posted on Instagram last year.
Trump Inc. is expanding overseas.
During Trump’s presidency, his companies have pushed to expand overseas, with help from foreign governments. One example: In May, an Indonesian real-estate project that involves the Trump Organization reportedly received a $500 million loan from a company owned by the Chinese government. Two days later, Trump tweeted that he was working to lift sanctions on a Chinese telecommunications firm with close ties to the government — over the objections of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. He ultimately did lift the sanctions.
Image
Donald Trump Jr., taking the stage during the Global Business Summit in New Delhi, India.CreditMoney Sharma/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Image
Security officials outside a Trump Tower construction site in India.CreditDibyangshu Sarkar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Trump’s businesses have also moved to expand in India, the Dominican Republic and Indonesia, using deals directly with foreign governments.
Kushner Inc. is wooing foreign investment.
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a top aide, has also reportedly been using his position to help his family business — Kushner Companies, also a real-estate company. Kushner’s sister, Nicole Meyer, has bragged about the company’s high-level ties when trying to attract Chinese investment in a New Jersey apartment complex. The Kushners have wooed Chinese investors despite warnings from American counterintelligence officials that China is using the investments to sway Trump administration policy.
Image
Jared Kushner has reportedly been using his position to help his family business.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
The Kushner company also successfully lobbied the Qatari government to invest in 666 Fifth Avenue, a financially troubled luxury building. The company’s dealings with Middle Eastern countries are especially problematic because Jared Kushner is one of the administration’s top policymakers for the region and has played a central role in policy toward Qatar.
The presidency has become a branding opportunity.
The president has played golf at his properties dozens of times since taking office. He refers to his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, as the winter White House. Shortly after his election, he celebrated New Year’s along with 800 guests there, with tickets costing more than $500. And Kellyanne Conway, a top Trump adviser, once encouraged people to buy clothes from Ivanka Trump’s line — while Conway was giving a television interview from the White House.
These moves are intended, at least partly, to bring attention and ultimately customers to Trump’s businesses. Of course, some of Trump’s critics have responded in kind, refusing to stay at or live in a Trump-branded property since he won the election. But in other ways, the presidency has clearly helped his bottom line. One example: The Mar-a-Lago club has doubled its membership rates.
Taxpayers are subsidizing the Trumps.
Trump has visited or stayed at one of his properties almost one out of every three days that he has been president, according to both The Wall Street Journal and NBC News. Like previous presidents, Trump travels with a large group of staff and security personnel, and American taxpayers typically foot at least part of the bill for the trips. Unlike previous presidents, Trump is directing money to his own business on his trips.
In one three-month period last year, the Secret Service spent about $63,000 at Mar-a-Lago and more than $137,000 on golf carts at Trump’s Florida and New Jersey clubs.
President Trump heading to board Air Force One under the watchful eyes of his security staff.CreditTom Brenner for The New York Times
Trump Inc. gets special protection.
The president personally intervened in a plan to relocate the F.B.I.’s Washington headquarters, apparently to protect Trump International Hotel, which is about a block away. If the F.B.I. had moved, its current site would most likely have been turned into a commercial development, and the long construction process — as well as potential for a new hotel on the site — could have hurt the Trump hotel.
Trump stopped this plan, and the White House has instead decided to build a new F.B.I. headquarters on the current site. A report by the inspector general found that officials gave misleading answers to Congress about Trump’s role and the project’s cost.
Trump’s Cabinet, Aides and Allies
Friendly businesses also get special treatment.
The Education Department during the Obama administration aggressively regulated for-profit colleges — many of which have miserable records, often taking money from students without providing a useful education. Trump chose Betsy DeVos, a longtime advocate of these colleges and an investor in them, as his education secretary. She, not surprisingly, has gone easy on for-profit colleges. Among other moves, she has reassigned the members of an department team investigating potentially fraudulent activities at for-profit colleges.
DeVos is the most blatant example of administration officials protecting companies where they once worked, but there are many others. More than 164 former lobbyists work in the administration, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including several who regulate the industries that once paid their salaries. Geoff Burr, who pushed for more lax workplace safety laws when he was the chief lobbyist for a construction group, now works at the Department of Labor. Andrew Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was previously a lobbyist whose firm was paid millions of dollars by companies whose industries he now regulates.
Family, friends and donors get perks.
The president and his aides have repeatedly shown they are willing to use the government’s prestige and power to help their friends and relatives make money.
Image
Scott Pruitt's numerous scandals led him to resign his position as head of the E.P.A.CreditEric Thayer for The New York Times
Image
Betsy DeVos testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times
Among the examples:
Trump suggested to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in February 2017 that Abe grant a coveted operating license to a casino company owned by Sheldon Adelson, who donated at least $20 million to Trump’s presidential campaign.
Ben Carson, the housing and urban development secretary, let his sonhelp organize an official department event and invite people with whom the son had potential business dealings.
Scott Pruitt, the former E.P.A. head, asked his staff members to contact Republicans donors with the goal of helping his wife find a job. Pruitt also rented a condo on Capitol Hill for $50 a night, well below market value, from the wife of an energy lobbyist whose project the E.P.A. approved last March. Pruitt’s many scandals led to his resignation in July.
Elaine Chao, the transportation secretary, used interviews with Chinese and Chinese-American media to raise her father’s profile. He is a shipping magnate whose business transports goods between the United States and Asia, and he sat next to her during the interviews.
And although it doesn’t quite rise to the same level of the other examples here: White House staffers receive a discount of up to 70 percent on Trump-branded merchandise at the president’s Bedminster, N.J., golf club, reportedly at the president’s recommendation.
Image
White House staff members using Trump-branded umbrellas at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.CreditTom Brenner for The New York Times
Cabinet officials make unethical stock trades.
Several Trump officials — current and former — have traded stocks while serving in top government positions. In some cases, they appear to have made policy decisions benefiting the companies in which they owned a stake.
Tom Price, Trump’s first secretary of health and human services, epitomized this form of corruption. Trump chose him despite his history of using his seat in Congress to make money. Price had a long record of putting the interests of drug companies above those of taxpayers and patients — and then investing in those drug companies on the side.
Brenda Fitzgerald, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, committed a more mild version of this sin. She purchased shares in food, drug and tobacco companies after taking charge of an agency that regulates them — and that aims to reduce smoking. After her purchases became public, she resigned.
ADVERTISEMENT
Finally, Wilbur Ross, Trump’s commerce secretary, has mixed government business and his own business in multiple ways. He held on to investments — and then appears to have lied to government ethics officials about those investments. He shorted the stock of a company about which he appeared to have advance notice of bad news. He also met with the chief executive of Chevron, even though his wife owned a substantial investment — which, according to Forbes, “put himself at risk of violating a criminal conflict-of-interest law.”
Image
Tom Price during his nomination hearing.CreditAl Drago/The New York Times
Image
Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and fixer, after a court appearance in August.CreditAndres Kudacki for The New York Times
Trump’s orbit receives cash.
Michael Cohen — Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, who has since turned on him — received at least $1 million from AT&T, Novartis and Korea Aerospace Industries shortly after the 2016 election. They were supposedly paying for his insight into the Trump administration.
Corey Lewandowski, the former manager of Trump’s campaign, is paid for work that looks very much like lobbying — such as participating in a lobbying firm’s phone calls with clients and doing work on behalf of T-Mobile, the telecommunications company firm. But Lewandowski has not registered as a lobbyist and says he does not need to do so.
Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, reportedly used his position to offer private briefings to a Russian oligarch to whom he owed millions of dollars. Manafort saw the briefings as a way to “get whole.”
Cabinet officials take junkets.
Trump officials have made a habit of billing American taxpayers for their personal travel. Ryan Zinke, Trump’s secretary of the interior, chartered a $12,000 flight to fly out of Las Vegas, where he had given a 12-minute speech to a hockey team owned by a businessman who donated to his congressional campaign.
David Shulkin, the secretary of veterans affairs, charged taxpayers for a trip to Europe that included stopovers at Wimbledon and Westminster Abbey, plus a river cruise for him and his wife. The resulting outcry appears to have played a role in his departure.
Pruitt, the former head of the E.P.A., chartered flights for questionable travel, among many other things. He also pushed to fly Delta rather than the government’s contract carrier, to accrue frequent flier miles. He flew first class and stayed in hotels that were more expensive than those allowed by government standards. And he let lobbyists help arrange foreign trips for him.
Brock Long, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, spent $151,000 on government vehicles without authorization, including to travel to his North Carolina home. He was ordered to repay the government.
Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, looked into whether he could use a military plane to fly him to Europe for his honeymoon. Later, he used military planes for several trips. The Treasury Department’s inspector general concluded that Mnuchin broke no laws by doing so, but criticized Mnuchin’s insufficient explanation for why he needed to spend $800,000 on the trips.
And Price, the former health secretary, spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on private planes. His history of unethical stock trading didn’t keep Trump from naming Price to the cabinet. But the private-plane scandal received enough attention that the White House eventually forced Price to resign.
Trump’s team enjoys interior decorating.
The pettiest kind of Trumpian corruption takes the form of interior decorating.
Zinke, the interior secretary, spent $139,000 in taxpayer money on new doors for his office. Carson, the secretary of health and human services, picked out a dining set for his office that cost $31,000 — and then gave Congress contradictory explanations for the purchase and blamed it on his wife. Pruitt ordered a $43,000 soundproof phone booth installed in his office and appears to have violated federal law by failing to inform Congress about it.
ADVERTISEMENT
Where is Congress?
It has shirked its constitutional duty.
The biggest scandal of all, however, is not even the corruption of the Trump administration. It’s the inaction of Congress.
Image
President Trump's motorcade driving to dinner last month at the Trump International Hotel in Washington.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
The founders were well aware that the government they were creating could end up with corrupt or unethical leaders, all the way up to the president. That’s why the Constitution gives Congress tremendous power to investigate and even remove officials in the executive branch.
Yet the current congressional leaders — the Republican leaders — have refused to do so. They have shirked their duty to act as a check on the president and his appointees. They have instead defended Trump and made excuses on his behalf. They have enabled the most corrupt administration of our lifetimes.
What’s missing from this list? If you think there are other examples that should appear on this list, email us at leonhardt@nytimes.com.
-
All of that and not a word about the expanding economy benefiting everyone.
-
Which is a completely separate point, yes?
I've yet to give the piece a proper read, and given that it is Pravda on the Hudson it is likely to be full of smears, but in our Search for Truth we need to be aware of these things.
-
Which is a completely separate point, yes?
I've yet to give the piece a proper read, and given that it is Pravda on the Hudson it is likely to be full of smears, but in our Search for Truth we need to be aware of these things.
Fair question. I also haven't given it a proper read, but browsed through it and didn't see anything, new, unusual or illegal. I didn't see anything there that would have earned an NYT headline if a Dem did it.
They lost me on the last smear, the Fred Trump estate where line 9999 admits no laws were broken.
My understanding is that Trump industries is making less now than before he was a candidate or President. True? If true, that is a very important rebuttal to nearly all of this.
On their first point, an event was moved to a Trump property. Aren't events moved even when players aren't involved in politics? Before they move on with the old logic string, 'and another thing', shouldn't they demonstrate the first point involved corruption, not just bad optics?
Devos isn't tough enough on for-profits? Trust me, that isn't why they hate her. Pruitt already left; his transgressions were minor, he rented a room in a house. Tom Price acted like he worked for Obama, took private flights. He also got booted.
Did he spend more than Michelle Obama did with he entourage to Spain, or Bernie Sanders to Rome? Obama did not purge the perps of his scandals, Holder on Fast and Furious, Treasury Sec of IRS commissioner on targeting and this newspaper never called him out on that nor give Trump credit when he did for far less transgression.
The point with the flawed and biased source is that, well ... they are flawed and biased. Less reliable than Breitbart in my experience. When Sparta Report turns on Trump and his ethics, then maybe I'll sit up and take notice.
-
So bored with the “Trump left the toilet seat up”! journalism.
:roll:
-
So bored with the “Trump left the toilet seat up”! journalism.
:roll:
Funniest post in a long time.
Meanwhile they missed the last 289 accomplishments.
Strange that the fewer the years one has in Leftist indoctrination classes and also the longer it has been since they had you as a captive audience member, the easier it is to discern their drivel.
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/shock-video-beto-orourke-campaign-schemes-to-assist-illegal-caravan-with-campaign-from/
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/shock-video-beto-orourke-campaign-schemes-to-assist-illegal-caravan-with-campaign-from/
wait, I thought all the liars at CNN told us this caravan (as well as others was NOT receiving funds or other help ("free" legal) by American crats?) hint the lawyers I bet are getting paid afterall
from donations etc.
Lemon Mario's kid Wolfman , White hair , women who smirk and make faces about anything Trump or Conservative and the rest of the crew including fake news Zucker .
-
Judicial Watch
Maxine Waters Unfit to Chair House Financial Services Committee
Considering her record and documented history of poor ethical and moral fitness, it’s outrageous that Maxine Waters is up for chair of the ultra-powerful House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the country’s banking system, economy, housing, and insurance.
With Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives, come January the 14-term California congresswoman is expected to head the committee, which also has jurisdiction over monetary policy, international finance, and efforts to combat terrorist financing.
Throughout her storied political career, Waters has been embroiled in numerous controversies, including abusing her power to enrich family members, getting a communist dictator to harbor a cop-murdering Black Panther fugitive still wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and accusing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of selling crack cocaine in black neighborhoods.
A few months ago, the 80-year-old Democrat from Los Angeles encouraged violence against Trump administration cabinet members. “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere,” Waters said at a summer rally in Los Angeles. Judicial Watch filed a House ethics complaint against Waters for encouraging violence against Trump Cabinet members.
Among her most corrupt acts as a federal legislator is steering millions of federal bailout dollars to her husband’s failing bank, OneUnited. Waters allocated $12 million to the Massachusetts bank in which she and her board member husband held shares. OneUnited subsequently got shut down by the government and American taxpayers got stiffed for the millions.
Judicial Watch investigated the scandal and obtained documents from the U.S. Treasury related to the controversial bailout. The famously remiss House Ethics Committee, which is charged with investigating and punishing corrupt lawmakers like Waters, found that she committed no wrongdoing. The panel bought Waters’ absurd story that she allocated the money as part of her longtime work to promote opportunity for minority-owned businesses and lending in underserved communities even though her husband’s bank was located thousands of miles away from the south Los Angeles neighborhoods she represents in Congress.
The reality is that without intervention by Waters OneUnited was an extremely unlikely candidate for a government bailout through the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Treasury Department warned that it would only provide bailout funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending and OneUnited clearly didn’t meet that criteria.
Documents uncovered by Judicial Watch detail the deplorable financial condition of OneUnited at the time of the government cash infusion. The records also show that, prior to the bailout, the bank received a “less than satisfactory rating.” Incredibly, after that scandal Waters was chosen by her colleagues to hold a ranking position on the House Financial Services Committee she will soon chair. The only consequence for blowing $12 million on her husband’s failing bank was a slap on the hand to Waters’ chief of staff (her grandson) for violating House standards of conduct to help OneUnited.
Waters, who represents some of Los Angeles’ poorest inner-city neighborhoods, has also helped family members make more than $1 million through business ventures with companies and causes that she has helped, according to her hometown newspaper. While she and her relatives get richer (she lives in a $4.5 million Los Angeles mansion), her constituents get poorer.
The congresswoman was also embroiled in a fundraising scandal for skirting federal election rules with a shady gimmick that allows unlimited donations from certain contributors. Instead of raising most of her campaign funds from individuals or political action committees, Waters sells her endorsement to other politicians and political causes for as much as $45,000 a pop.
It wouldn’t be right to part without also noting some of Waters’ international accolades. She has made worldwide headlines for her frequent trips to communist Cuba to visit her convicted cop-assassin friend, Joanne Chesimard, who appears on the FBI’s most wanted list and is also known by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur.
Chesimard was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted by a jury of the 1979 murder of a New Jersey State Trooper. With the help of fellow cult members, she escaped from jail and fled to Cuba. Outraged U.S. lawmakers insisted she be extradited but Waters always stood by her side, likening the cop-assassin to civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
In fact, Waters wrote Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro a letter to assure him that she was not part of the group of U.S. legislators who voted for a resolution to extradite the cop murderer. Waters told Castro that she opposed extradition because Chesimard was “politically persecuted” in the U.S. and simply seeking political asylum in Havana, where she still lives.
In the 1980s Waters accused the CIA of selling crack cocaine to blacks in her south-central Los Angeles district to raise millions of dollars to support clandestine operations in Latin America, including a guerrilla army. During the infamous 1992 Los Angeles riots the congresswoman repeatedly excused the violent behavior that ironically destroyed the areas she represents in the House. She dismissed the severe beating of a white truck driver by saying the anger in her district was righteous. She also excused looters who stole from stores by saying they were simply mothers capitalizing on an opportunity to take some milk, bread, and shoes.
Should this ethically and morally challenged individual, who has repeatedly displayed behavior unbecoming of a federal lawmaker, be at the helm of an influential congressional committee that oversees the financial sector?
-
"Maxine Waters Unfit to Chair House Financial Services Committee "
There are Black Panthers in high up places now.
-
in DC now than there was 150 yrs ago when Zach Taylor succumbed to the sewage:
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/how-raising-congressional-staff-pay-could-help-drain-the-swamp/
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/01/17/multiple-obama-state-dept-officials-must-answer-judicial-watchs-questions-about-n2539185
-
Outstanding!
-
I guess I should not be surprised but just that he has enough material to even turn this into a book.
And who would listen to him? He has no credibility .
The Left who hated him might throw him a job at CNN now though:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/chris-christie-tears-donald-trump-093605345.html
-
Frankly, I suspect he is right-- most certainly including the part about Princeling Jared having a hard on for him because he put his daddy in jail.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/20/should-the-fbi-run-the-country/
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-detail-nancy-pelosis-185000-codel-to-italy-and-ukraine-in-2015/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190129000840
-
http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/02/fusion-gpss-anti-trump-researcher-avoid-surveillance-ham-radio-license/?fbclid=IwAR1MpmwWNB_OO-oWgOMRhrwaN_detsvtWh4_ZgvU5YSud7c6Uq0s9CCAacQ
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/judicial-watchs-weekly-update-another-clinton-cover-up/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190225212511
Hillary Clinton has Russia Collusion Problem
All of the huffing and puffing about President Trump and Russia these past two years effectively took the spotlight off Hillary Clinton and her foundation’s activities. That, I suspect, is the purpose of the Mueller/Comey/Rosenstein/McCabe farce. Our chief investigative reporter, Micah Morrison, updates us in his latest Investigative Bulletin.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign dominates the news, but behind the scenes another bombshell story is coming together piece by piece. Was the Clinton network knee-deep in Russians, and did the FBI shut down an investigation that would have provided answers about Clinton collusion?
Judicial Watch is one of the few organizations in pursuit of the story. We filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department after it failed to respond to our request for “all communications” related to “the closure or possible closure of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation” in 2016. Last week, in a separate lawsuit, we uncovered evidence pointing to undisclosed documents related to controversial FBI official Andrew McCabe and potential charges against Mrs. Clinton.
We sued for records of a meeting between a top FBI official and an attorney for a Clinton-connected law firm related to then-candidate Trump and Russia, a story first reported by Fox News. And we’ve taken a skeptical look at the appointment by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions of U.S. Attorney John Huber to “evaluate certain issues” rising from the 2016 election.
One of those issues is the Uranium One controversy. Russia’s Rosatom atomic energy corporation in 2010 received U.S. permission, including a sign-off from Hillary Clinton’s State Department, to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company that owned significant American uranium assets. Was the Russian purchase of Uranium One connected to payments to the Clinton network and improper actions by Secretary of State Clinton?
Judicial Watch is lonely on the story but not alone. The Hill’s indefatigable John Solomon a year ago broke the news that the Clinton Foundation was under FBI investigation. “The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state,” Solomon reported.
Earlier this month, Solomon was at it again. Revisiting an episode that has “escaped significant attention,” Solomon reports that there is “clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefitting Russia.”
The episode centers around the Skolkovo Innovation Center, a high-tech business center launched in Moscow in 2009. Five years later, as Skolkovo entities expanded in the U.S., the FBI issued an extraordinary public warning, saying that the Skolkovo connection “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies.”
Solomon notes that Secretary of State Clinton’s “handprint was everywhere” on the Skolkovo project, part of an attempt by the U.S. to reboot Russia relations. Leading the Russian side of the project was oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin-connected billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor. Firms connected to the oligarch donated at least $75,000 to the foundation. As the Skolkovo collaboration got underway, Solomon reminds us, Bill Clinton made his way to Moscow and was paid a jaw-dropping $500,000 for a speech to a Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital.
Solomon reports that Bill Clinton sought permission from the State Department to meet with Vekselberg and “Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom,” during the Moscow trip. This was at the time Rostom was “seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One.” The Washington Examiner notes that the Clintons’ “relationship to Vekselberg continued throughout Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department.”
Solomon adds additional details on possible Clinton collusion with the Russians—read his full report here. And Viktor Vekselberg certainly is a busy man, making a cameo in the Mueller probe and turning up in various other sketchy endeavors. Not everything in the Russia story comes up as collusion, cover-up or crime, but Solomon correctly notes that evidence related to Skolkovo, Rosatom and Uranium One “shows that the Clintons financially benefitted from Russia—personally and inside their charity—at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.”
-
From above JW article:
"That, I suspect, is the purpose of the Mueller/Comey/Rosenstein/McCabe farce."
I love these guys ! :-D
-
https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/de-blasio-and-co-mayor-wife-have-wasted-1-8b-of-taxpayer-money/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&sr_share=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow&fbclid=IwAR3AblHdaBU6i3T-dZmmhq21-KhWaBh-2n4cMsPrN4G4tVlsSudKsNO5jPw
-
https://www.puppetstringnews.com/blog/prosecutor-kim-foxx-who-let-jussie-smollett-walk-had-408000-pay-day-from-george-soros?fbclid=IwAR0JbWJyudEmM-Axz8wX-ByxA2x2CFwdhs9VFl_XxK3eNcQHa6HN_nx2zdw
-
When a county prosecutor's office is corrupt
who investigates ?
The state I would think but of course good luck with expecting that in Democrat controlled Illinois
I wonder if the DOJ can look into this . Of course they have their hands full.
I don't know if JW could look into this with FOA or if it would even matter.
The deal is sealed which is apparently legal .
Again it is Obama's people behind the scenes exerting their influence most likely from the phony one or first lady phony one using their connections
This whole smacks of racism
From the initial phony allegations to the coverup and everyone involved.
And I read that Smollet's volunteer work (not described as "community service")
is at a Jesse Jackson library for a weekend
signing autographs for his racist fans I presume (not stuffing envelopes)
-
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/62015-crony-state-obamas-chicago-fixer-tina-tchen?fbclid=IwAR2PtbrkMHAn0-wUIhvbMeBLbKk37xXTPA69BWpVbumKqxmxxAkWSOIzgz4
-
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/protecting-the-capital-of-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR1hW6E-JYx2A_bm1nE6lbgsvegrCxqdbFyHnyKgzS9HpLfqDPOqkUNNpVM
-
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/protecting-the-capital-of-the-world/?fbclid=IwAR1hW6E-JYx2A_bm1nE6lbgsvegrCxqdbFyHnyKgzS9HpLfqDPOqkUNNpVM
A very important read!
-
Tucker Carlson has been making this point with great consistency and eloquence for quite some time now.
-
https://michaelsavage.com/wall-street-critic-waters-rakes-in-corporate-campaign-money/
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/17/company-co-founded-nancy-pelosis-son-charged-secur/?fbclid=IwAR29BHYAW-RYQpgnG1AoRtyuo2F9KxtCaMeuByd1tmN7RyGc0fPz1FlwaIw
-
Can't find that mother nancy referred government contracts to the son's company - yet
like she does with her husband.
-
https://nypost.com/2019/04/25/baltimore-mayor-flees-state-after-feds-raid-her-home-report/?fbclid=IwAR2oC8vIbzC_pl1KJRT3g-faNgc6EN_M__di4oJiaUDo6nfMALpgrk92qac
-
https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/peter-schweizer-joe-biden-is-the-most-corrupt-vice-president-of-our-lifetime?utm_content=buffer8aaf8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=glennbeck&fbclid=IwAR2SjG7RFYcurRgVVNG0qgeG-4Iv2tUCi4E4s_1cGCoVGFLeBYIMMT2GIsU
BTW note that the Heinz family investment firm is the Heinz of ketchup fame-- with the heiress being the second of gigolo John Kerry's nine digit ($100M+) scores and that Kerry son was also a beneficiary in these schemes.
-
another politician scam
claim you are not rich. just get all the cash bribes to family members instead.
like pelosi and her husband
like Podesta and his family
on and on. so many we have no clue
-
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/elaine-chao-vulcan-materials-stock/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1aIZY5MHcoGLzBwet1h0DOfMBlCe_MSzkvFo9nsUS6BZBlazvo7HZHzpI
-
https://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2019/05/guest-post-from-glorious-karl.html
Lost Trust, by Karl Ushanka
I’d like to think I have a good poker face. It has worked for me the few times I’ve sat across from Cappy. But if you pick up a copy of the second edition of my book, Trade the Ratio, you’ll see right through me. In Chapter Two I list, in 56 pages, the many old and several new reasons for considering an investment in precious metals. Thirty-nine of those pages are on the subject of lost trust. Want to guess what motivates my financial planning, including my silver and gold purchases?
I have lost trust in institutions that should never have lost my trust. From corporations, to all levels of government to quasi-government entities, these organizations have accelerated their race to the bottom in recent years. I have been reduced to only trusting friends and family, and to trusting the one-ounce silver American Eagle coin I’ve been carrying in my pocket for the past six years still weighs one ounce.
One could chalk this attitude of mine up to age-induced cynicism. No doubt that is a factor. But the degree with which these institutions have fallen is only lost on those within, and those blissfully ignorant. Unfortunately for us, they make up the majority of voters and they will win once they nominate a viable presidential candidate. Is there a bottom? If so, what will it look like when we reach it? Specifically, what can we do now to protect our assets when the looters take over?
I’m not the first to explore this concept. Aaron was out in front with this topic six years ago with Enjoy the Decline. He presented the topic of Non-traditional Retirement Plans in Chapter Five:
“While they may not provide benefits like matching, tax deductions, and an absence of capital gains, non-traditional investments may still prove to be the wiser investment. They are harder to confiscate, they will keep their value during an economic melt-down, they will have higher rates of return than any kind of “Solyndra,” and even if an economic doomsday scenario doesn’t play out, they at least serve the function of insurance.”
The Captain started his list of nine non-traditional retirement investment options with gold and silver. In Trade the Ratio I show how one can both hold these preferred assets and achieve a modest ROI by trading the silver-to-gold ratio. Loss of trust is the constant in these books, as is the realization that our world is not what it once was.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MVP2B8D
Instead of rehashing the examples from my book, here are two trust-losing events that have happened in the four months since I published my second edition: Mueller and the NRA.
We now know that the Mueller investigation lasted two years and was led by one of the most trusted investigators in DC. We know it cost the tax-payers over $25 million. We know that not a single FBI agent, of the 40 FBI agents who participated in the investigation, resigned in protest. The investigation risked the legitimacy of an elected president. We know it factored in the level of cooperation from the other side of every domestic and foreign policy debate and negotiation – all at a cost to us. And, as of last week, we now know that every person involved knew in October 2016 that the investigation was based on a politically motivated lie – a dossier paid for by the opposing political party.
We now know the FISA judge accepted the phony dossier without asking for independent verification, and authorized the FBI to run surveillance on an incoming president and his team. Every FISA warrant with any political nuance is now questionable. The integrity of every FISA judge is forever in question. To regain its standing, the FISA Court must be reorganized, starting with a full purge of existing personnel.
We now know the media had access to the dossier and knowledge of the investigation from the start. We now know the media would leak details of this classified information in order to then run stories on these leaks on their networks 24/7. Not that we would ever assume journalistic integrity exists, but now those on the other side have even lost trust in the media.
There is no one in the FBI that can restore trust in that organization. It is full of posers and quota-hires who put politics and pension above oath and duty. It must be dissolved. To save the FBI, to save us, we must burn it and scatter its ashes.
Because no congressional investigation will right this wrong, we suffer the realization that our representatives do not represent us. Because no attorney general’s investigation will right this wrong, we now realize the rule of law is optional. Jail time, if any is ever ordered, will not right this wrong because the participants all chose the risks and are proud of their efforts. Nor will it deter their fans from trying it themselves. To them it was a noble calling.
No FBI agent will ever command the same respect a Bureau agent received during the Cold War. Every FISA court decision, no matter how important it is to our national security, will be in question. And now even leftists will join us in suspecting the media is a tool of the elites rather than a so-called fourth pillar of democracy. In fact, the only positive from this investigation is the undeniable fact that President Trump is, by far, the purest man to ever hold the office.
Trust these clowns? Nah. I’ll just keep clinging to my Bible, my guns and my bullion.
The NRA is rotten to its core. A few weeks ago, then-NRA President Col. Oliver North announced he was leaving the organization. This week we find out why - the organization is in financial trouble and has a serious leadership problem.
At least part of the NRA’s financial problems have been caused by the CEO and long-time face of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre. He racked-up $542k in stupid expenses. These include $39k in a single trip to a clothing store, and more than $200k in one month of air travel. We wouldn’t know this if an NRA insider hadn’t leaked the expense reports.
But it is not just LaPierre. NRA President, Carolyn Meadows, says the “entire board is fully aware of these issues. We have full confidence in Wayne LaPierre.” But Meadows doesn’t stop embarrassing herself there. Like the untrustworthy fraud that she is, she is upset “some people would resort to leaking information to advance their agendas.” Fuck her.
Previously a member, I always bragged that that NRA was the only lobbying group in the United States whose members didn’t view themselves as victims. It has had the largest membership of lobbying firms, now at five million. It has its shortcomings, the primary one being their priority of hunting and marksmanship over other forms of shooting sports and activism. But now their behavior has attracted the attention of the NY Attorney General’s office, which is looking into the NRA’s tax-exempt status. Thanks Wayne. Thanks Carolyn.
What bothers me is the NRA’s mission. It is the most noble: To protect the Second Amendment. It is no secret that the Second Amendment protects, and makes possible, all the other parts of the Constitution. Which makes LaPierre’s actions, and the rest of the management team’s callousness, unforgivable. They were trusted and supported by American patriots, and they discarded that trust. Their mismanagement might not qualify as a crime, but their actions have betrayed many, and perhaps given the gun-grabbers the edge in the next gun-control debate.
Betrayal is as old as man, but the pace and severity seems to be accelerating. It hasn’t touched you or me yet, but someday soon we will be told to “be patient, as we restore your account balance,” or “the FBI will not allow this to happen again,” or “we’ve made some mistakes in the past but we (the same people) will do better going forward.” Ya, thanks. But as part of enjoying the decline I’ve decided to sit here with my cigar and my poker face, and remove part of my life from a system that looks more fragile and more corrupt than ever before.
-
Lost trust
What Mueller did was akin to a sucker punch
He lost a close battle in the ring for 15 rounds and like a disgruntled loser (couldn't GET Trump) . he on the way out of the ring runs up to Trump, whose back is turned and slugs and then before anyone can do anything he steps out of ring puts on his robe and goes into locker room to retire.
Hopefully Barr will not let him and the rest get away with this. Not holding my breath though.
DEms taking daily polls and as soon if the public goes over 50% in favor for impeachment they will do so.
As far as I am concerned just get it over with and do now.
They are such "f"in cowards screaming the " RULE OF LAW" while at the same time afraid to impeach because of political hit back
they refuse to even do anything about THEIR phony rule of law.
-
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/elijah-cummings-wife-hiding-millions-given-potential-bribes?fbclid=IwAR3_LD7kghqk4ZEB9Bjhn1BqYxpMtd57LhMZj6cXlT6qF2LjtQiP4JvaFs0
-
odd how the family members of the DC politicians are frequently involved in money making deals that are not legal
or smell of quid pro quo
-
https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2019/06/americas-managerial-elite-has-failed.html
Read it all!
-
Noted for the record:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/10/jared-kushner-real-estate-cadre-goldman-sachs?fbclid=IwAR3ritJclmgzYG6xpg9LmyJW2D4OGlKxSWvQDW4Xa5TRAR1fu52JgL9zgi8
-
Why do I get the sense that this investigation is somehow part of the get Trump swamp.
I am not for getting Epstein but somehow this occurs and we see prominently a video of Trump speaking about Epstein and women .
Then on top of it we have SDNY and Comey's kid now leading the charge?
Just smells very fishy :
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/guess-whose-daughter-is-reportedly-a-prosecutor-in-jeffrey-epstein-case/
I wonder if this should be under the Russian collusion etc thread
-
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-07-10.html#read_more
he is a Democrat as is Epstein
and Clinton was a Dem favorite .
and of course the MSM cover for all good democrats so we hear nothing from them about this except for Acosta......
:x
From the Daily Beast 2010 :
"So when State Attorney Barry Krischer, who also ran Florida’s Crimes Against Children Unit, proved reluctant to mount a vigorous prosecution of Epstein, saying the local victims were not credible witnesses, Chief Reiter wrote the attorney a letter complaining of the state’s “highly unusual” conduct and asking him to remove himself from the case. He did not, and the evidence his office presented to a state grand jury produced only a single count of soliciting prostitution. (Krischer has since retired and would not comment for this article.)"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-billionaire-pedophile-goes-free
Barry the Democrat's statement:
" https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3763117/posts"
While he may be right about Acosta it certainly sounds like Kircher is also re writing history about himself.
-
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/26/conservative-majority-fund-political-fundraising-pac-kelley-rogers-1428260
Be careful who you donate too.
-
to keep loaning brother Jim loan after loan for a losing night club venture
despite his claiming he had no more than 10 G to his name.
should have had older brother come to the nightclub and give a speech which would have filled the seats with people looking for good night of humor and comedy:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/02/joe-bidens-brother-scored-generous-loans-during-banking-committee-tenure/
nothing here folks . wink nod wink nod.
sleepy Joe could be changed to sleazy Joe
-
Someone I know with security clearance and someone whom I respect greatly tells me we should be keeping an eye on this:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1154426961646649345.html
-
Someone I know with security clearance and someone whom I respect greatly tells me we should be keeping an eye on this:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1154426961646649345.html
Interesting.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/08/08/top-doj-official-knew-trump-dossier-was-unverified-and-biased-but-still-used-it-to-secure-spy-warrants-against-trump-campaign-n2551439
I think we all know the answer to this:
zero
and coverage limited to Sean Tucker Laura Rush Mark Ben Andrew and VDH.
-
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/60466.html
Jeffrey Epstein’s Death in Federal Custody, the Suicide of Federal Government Credibility
Posted by Trent Telenko on August 10th, 2019 (All posts by Trent Telenko)
The announced “death by suicide” of Pedo-Pimp to the Powerful Jeffrey Epstein in Federal government custody while;
On a 24/7 suicide watch,
After his first “suicide attempt,” in late July, and
Before there was any time for a real autopsy…
…is such utter horse manure as to utterly destroy any shred of credibility of the Federal government.
That Federal Attorney General Barr first called for an FBI investigation of Epstein’s death — to deafening loud round of public rasp-berry’s.
Then he followed that credibility destroying knee jerk response near seconds later by saying the Department of Justice Inspector General would conduct the investigation — given the non-prosecution of so many in the DoJ & FBI after the IG caught them red handed leaking FISA surveillance sources and methods to the press — amounts to an “Eff-U” slap in the face to the General Public.
This is pure “Pravda Reporting on Chernobyl” territory. It’s all about elite posturing and “Face” while the radioactive pile burns.
America functions on the consent of the governed. This requires the government be credible through elite replacement by elections as well as the fair administration and enforcement of justice for both the powerful as well as the least of us.
The circumstances of Mr Epstein’s death are such that I’ve completely lost any faith in the concept of “Justice” that in any way involves the institutional FBI or Department of Justice.
I hate saying that because it leaves us here:
“Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”
That Rubicon has now been crossed. G-d help the people of these United States.
Please comment and tell me I’m wrong. I’m in the mood to be lied too.
-
Does the article say that there will be no autopsy? Is that actually true?
Is the article saying the AG Barr is coming up short? On what basis? That he announced an IG investigation? What was he supposed to do-- NOT investigate?
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/11/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-jail-site-draws-complaints/1981132001/
-
They are doing an autopsy.
-
Does the article say that there will be no autopsy? Is that actually true?
Is the article saying the AG Barr is coming up short? On what basis? That he announced an IG investigation? What was he supposed to do-- NOT investigate?
It has been declared a suicide in the media prior to an autopsy and investigation. The accurate way to describe it would be that Epstein was found dead in his cell. Standard law enforcement procedure is to treat a death such as this as a homicide until proven otherwise.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/08/11/david-brocks-shareblue-allegedly-sharing-epstein-talking-points-with-press-stalwarts-according-to-leaked-email-screenshot/
-
https://nypost.com/2014/07/09/mayor-during-katrina-gets-10-years-for-corruption/amp/?fbclid=IwAR3W0TPih-hyXNY2wMf1d19hpLehd_jzSZ9mLF4Ajq_yeirqKddI-UIhF4w
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=xOKOfvDYpVk
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/flashback-on-this-day-in-2001-bush-officials-announced-that-2-3-trillion-went-missing-at-the-pentagon/
-
"While the documents are incomplete, original government sources indicate $21 trillion in unsupported adjustments have been reported for the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the years 1998-2015."
holly manure!!
how can this be?
yet we have defense contractors running over budget nearly 100% of time and Pentagon stuck with cost over runs
and we can't divert more than few billion for a wall
which has yet to have one extra foot built.
:-o :-(
-
Taking a rickety fence and replacing it with a real wall with proper support system should not be minimized.
-
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/anne-burke-named-chief-justice-of-illinois-supreme-court-while-husband-faces-corruption-charges/
-
interesting announced on Dems big night .
don't imagine CNN will spend a second on this though.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/461604-house-committee-launches-investigation-into-chao
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/19/us-senators-investments-conflict-of-interest?fbclid=IwAR2a1aGeLBpqFZ-FZA2yPYcDFk-935c76esCIMHLNfp0m2IKNyrEhNPtCUw
-
why is it we never have a say:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/19/sen-mike-lees-green-card-giveaway-for-big-tech-blocked-in-senate-for-now/
-
That involves organized crime, unions, Democrat Party and city employees judician system and one true hero who fought and for a moment won fighting this :
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/mayor-william-odwyer-new-york-city-mob-180973078/
Naturally this goes on today but to what degree and how it occurs is not clear to me.
-
Lots of fascinating name dropping in this piece
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/?utm_term=2019-09-27T14%3A11%3A00&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR03OG5ZgsaFVqoFpJmA_4sQqpd1jAxCiQ0ueYfltSh1b5cL8C3n2cLeNPQ
-
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/scandals-at-state-how-clinton-kerry-used-office-to-enrich-their-families/?fbclid=IwAR2yOh0QpJJuiNynSKYqQGRMqPCuRMHEi1YZwNRfbOmw-32NFRSMe62Cx0U
-
so abusing whistleblower laws is the new method of the day for the democrats to attack political enemies:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/another-whistleblower-apparently-come-forward-053527744.html
-
Please post that in the Lawfare thread as well. TY
-
NYT just reporting that fake whistleblower coordinated and colluded with Schiff and his staff for several weeks before his complaint became public.
So, now, we may have an impeachment inquiry that could constitute an obstruction of the Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion hoax.
I am starting to see a grand jury subpoena in Congressman Schiff's future. Remember, no elected official is above the law. And members of Congress are only immune for actions and statements made on the floor of Congress.
-
What a fascinating notion!
That said, in the interest of thread coherence I will post it on Biden-Ukraine thread.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/irs-whistleblower-said-to-report-treasury-political-appointee-might-have-tried-to-interfere-in-audit-of-trump-or-pence/ar-AAIfxB0?q=3
just find a democrat government employee who wants to get rich and help his party when opposing party has the White House and this is what we get.
The Dems control this too as , of course the vast majority of Fed employees are crats.
another political scam.
-
https://www.theunion.com/news/nancy-pelosi-and-husband-involved-in-some-fishy-business/?fbclid=IwAR1UFEQA70cWgYIkOFZL1GcKl5J0nkHnzQAdJGzwKxUxjFondndXTLH3ae4
-
https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/politicians/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/
I am sure no nepotism here
I wonder about her kids too who are certainly raking it in
but no political will to look into this - unless one is named Trump
why ? we all know why.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043282/Nancy-Pelosis-brother-law-given-loan-bigger-Solyndra-solar-plant.html?fbclid=IwAR0IHQn1-C8mIGg0Ben5NiPtBYDV5a0tL7JET9iC6t9zvU2AgjcLoBzoO9E
-
More sleaze from Nancy and a number of other Dems thrown in for good measure:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pelosi-corzine-visa-scandal/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=BDWr3oRaDIA
-
https://freebeacon.com/politics/hunter-bidens-china-deal-partners-include-mobster-whitey-bulgers-nephew-john-kerrys-stepson/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=24af3cfb1e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_27_02_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-24af3cfb1e-46538357&fbclid=IwAR3p2NGn_P2bC3lxZPK1MeUAiA2vi8mHey2E93n4BZov9wGssVPyPSl1FME
This true or horse turds?
-
https://freebeacon.com/politics/hunter-bidens-china-deal-partners-include-mobster-whitey-bulgers-nephew-john-kerrys-stepson/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=24af3cfb1e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_27_02_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-24af3cfb1e-46538357&fbclid=IwAR3p2NGn_P2bC3lxZPK1MeUAiA2vi8mHey2E93n4BZov9wGssVPyPSl1FME
This true or horse turds?
https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/
-
And here I was thinking only about monetary payoffs under the table for at least some, if not most of the leaks.
I had not been thinking about sex from jurnolisters:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/09/sex-leaks-lies-and-spies-trump-takes-down-intelligence-community-leakers/
Just finished watching (on Newmax TV) the episode of JFK and his affairs well know to CIA, and how he slept with at least 3 spies , one Dutch women who worked with the KGB, another one Chinese, and a third who was East German.
The press in those days ignored it even when word leaked out.
Now I read members of intelligence are doing the opposite.
-
And here I was thinking only about monetary payoffs under the table for at least some, if not most of the leaks.
I had not been thinking about sex from jurnolisters:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/09/sex-leaks-lies-and-spies-trump-takes-down-intelligence-community-leakers/
...
"Henry Kyle Frese, an employee with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was charged with two counts of leaking classified information to two journalists identified... as CNBC’s Amanda Macias... Frese and Macias were romantically involved."
- This kind of behavior can hurt the reputation of all news whores.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465311-five-things-to-know-about-arrest-of-giuliani-associates
-
investment banker and
Diane Feinstein's husband
sounds like the crooked Pelosi family:
from Wikipedia:
Blum's wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein, has received scrutiny due to her husband's government contracts and extensive business dealings with China and her past votes on trade issues with the country. Blum has denied any wrongdoing.[13] URS Corp, which Blum had a substantial stake in, bought EG&G, a leading provider of technical services and management to the U.S. military, from The Carlyle Group in 2002; EG&G subsequently won a $600m defense contract.[3]
Blum and his wife have also received significant scrutiny and criticism due to his 75% stake in contractor Tutor Perini which received hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan during the US occupation of those countries.[14][15] Critics have argued that business contracts with the US government awarded to a company controlled by Blum raise a potential conflict-of-interest issue with the voting and policy activities of his wife.[16]
In 2009, Feinstein introduced legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, a government agency that had recently awarded her husband's real estate firm, CB Richard Ellis, what the Washington Times called "a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms."[17]
The United States Postal Service has entered into an exclusive contract with CB Richard Ellis to sell buildings that currently house post offices.[18]"
-
McConnel's wife and her family have big business with China too, yes?
-
McConnel's wife and her family have big business with China too, yes?
Yes
-
I though career government officials were above "cover ups"
So we have Democrat . partisans currying favor to Clinton and zero coverage in MSM yet when we have Democrats who do the opposite and leak anonymously as "whistle felationists " against a Republican President they are hailed as righteous heros who as "career diplomats " are serving the people.
"According to Judicial Watch, "The Clinton email finally released this month was first identified by the State Department in September, 2014 but was withheld from Judicial Watch despite it specifically referencing talking points. After it was specifically described in an Office of the Inspector General report, the court ordered its production. It was only after Judicial Watch informed the State Department it was prepared to file a motion with the court to compel production of the records that the Department relented and produced the 2012 email in question."
https://pjmedia.com/trending/judicial-watch-benghazi-emails-confirm-clinton-email-cover-up/
OFf topic but related DC government official from personal experience
If only I had the hard evidence to expose that career crook at the Library of Congress .......
My one idiot lawyer who kept warning me, oh but you are accusing a career Federal official........
I don't know if my own lawyer was part of the scheme or simply naive. He later did admit couple yrs later , after having more experience, that he has seen very crazy things happening in the music business.....
When I told someone at JW about this they replied , "welcome to DC "
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/public-university-gives-chinese-communists-funding-exclusive-rights-to-intellectual-concepts-trademarks-inventions/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=corruption+chronicles&utm_term=members&utm_content=20191023195455
-
https://spectator.org/russian-asset-number-one-hillary-not-tulsi/
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/steven-mnuchin-may-gone-against-181231072.html
endless.....
-
We shall see , , , It is not like it is implausible nor is it implausible that Pravda on the Hudson slime someone on Trump's team.
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2019/10/the-12-days-of-corrupt-democratic-politicians-day-5/
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2019/10/the-12-days-of-corrupt-democratic-politicians-day-9/
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2019/10/the-12-days-of-corrupt-democratic-politicians-day-7/
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2019/10/the-12-days-of-corrupt-democratic-politicians-day-6/
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2019/10/the-12-days-of-corrupt-democratic-politicians-day-3/
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2019/10/the-12-days-of-corrupt-democrat-politicians-day-2/
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-burisma-cited-biden-lobbied-government-reverse-corruption-charges/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=deepsix&utm_content=2018-11-05&utm_campaign=can
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384165.php
-
Hat tip to our GM!
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/10/04/amazing-coincidence-nancy-pelosis-son-also-business-connections-ukraine/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/john-kerrys-son-cut-business-ties-with-hunter-biden-over-ukrainian-oil-deal
https://nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/10/us-intel-figure-joined-board-of-ukraine-gas-company-burisma/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHihyFsgJGc
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/hunter-biden-comprehensive-timeline/
-
https://www.libertybell.com/media-cover-up-the-8-mueller-witnesses-that-were-just-indicted-for-funneling-money-to-clintons-and-schiff-this-is-huge/
-
Video Clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLkF6zLxg_U&feature=share
Text found at URL
===============
The connections date back at least 80 years, to when Jerry Brown’s father, Pat Brown, ran for San Francisco district attorney, losing in 1939 but winning in 1943, with the help of his close friend and Gavin Newsom’s grandfather, businessman William Newsom.
As mayor, Newsom became nationally recognized for ordering the distribution of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And the shop with the mop sink upstairs, PlumpJack Wines, grew into a line of successful restaurants, hotels, and wineries managed by Newsom’s sister, Hilary.
A Times review of campaign finance records identified eight of San Francisco’s best-known families as being among Newsom’s most loyal and long-term contributors. Among those patrons are the Gettys, the Pritzkers and the Fishers, whose families made their respective fortunes in oil, hotels and fashion. They first backed him when he was a restaurateur and winery owner running for a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1998, and have continued their support through the governor’s race.
They are not Newsom’s largest donors: The families in total have given about $2 million of the $61 million that donors have contributed to his campaigns and independent committees backing those bids. But they gave while he was a relative unknown, providing crucial support to a political newcomer in the years before his campaign accounts piled high with cash from labor unions, Hollywood honchos, tech billionaires and donors up and down the state.
Gavin Newsom is succeeding someone who could be considered his quasi-uncle, since his inauguration continues the decades-long saga of four San Francisco families intertwined by blood, by marriage, by money, by culture and, of course, by politics – the Browns, the Newsoms, the Pelosi's and the Gettys.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) defeated businessman John Cox (R) in the general election on November 6, 2018, for governor of California.
President Donald Trump (R) endorsed Cox and former President Barack Obama (D) endorsed Newsom in the race. The forecasting outlets Ballotpedia covered rated the race either Safe Democratic or Solid Democratic in the month leading up to election day.
Fast forward two decades. Gov. Pat Brown’s administration developed Squaw Valley for the 1960s winter Olympics and afterward awarded a concession to operate it to William Newsom and his partner, John Pelosi.
The Squaw Valley concession was controversial at the time and created something of a rupture between the two old friends.
William Newsom wanted to make significant improvements to the ski complex, including a convention center, but Brown’s Department of Parks and Recreation balked. Newsom and his son, an attorney also named William, held a series of contentious meetings with officials over the issue.
An eight-page memo about those 1966 meetings from the department’s director, Fred Jones, buried in the Pat Brown archives, describes the Newsoms as being embittered and the senior Newsom threatening to “hurt the governor politically” as Brown ran for a third term that year against Ronald Reagan.
After Newsom retired from the bench in 1995, he became administrator of Gordon Getty’s own trust, telling one interviewer, “I make my living working for Gordon Getty.” The trust provided seed money for the Plump Jack chain of restaurants and wine shops that Newson’s son, Gavin, and Gordon Getty’s son, Billy, developed, the first being in a Squaw Valley hotel.
Yet the early hand he received in politics and business continues to form the basis of criticism against him. Newsom’s opponents in the mayor’s race painted him as privileged and out of touch. In the gubernatorial contest, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Treasurer John Chiang, both Democrats, are beginning to do the same.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/09/new-lawsuit-claims-rod-rosenstein-led-task-force-that-spied-on-sharyl-attkissons-computers/
New Lawsuit Claims Rod Rosenstein Led Task Force that Spied on Sharyl Attkisson’s Computers
Debra Heine - January 9th, 2020
In a federal lawsuit filed this week, Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein has been implicated in yet another improper government spy operation.
In the new complaint, Attkisson v. Rosenstein et.al., investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson names former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein and four other Justice Department officials as the government agents who of illegally survielled her electronic devices.
According to the complaint—filed in United States District Court in Baltimore, Maryland—Rosenstein led “a multi-agency task force in Baltimore that conducted surveillance of the Attkissons’ computer systems” and “used USPS IP addresses on other occasions to conduct operations.”
The complaint states that all of the defendants “were agents and/or employees of the United States Government working with Rosenstein” to conduct “the unlawful surveillance and hacking of the computer systems of the Plaintiffs.”
In June of 2017, Rosenstein signed off on the fourth and final application for the improper FISA warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. A month earlier, he offered to wear a wire to spy on President Trump when he visited the Oval Office, although he later claimed that he was just joking.
Attkisson took to Twitter Thursday to explain in a video update about her case that she had just filed a new lawsuit in her years long fight “to hold the government agents accountable for the intrusions into my computer.”
In a comprehensive summary of the case at sharylattkisson.com, the reporter alleges that the intrusions began in 2011 while she was reporting at CBS on the massive government gunwalking scandal “Fast and Furious.” The government continued to spy on her computers while she was reporting on the Benghazi scandal.
Multiple forensic exams show that numerous electronic devices used by Attkisson and her family during this time frame were hacked or remotely compromised. Unauthorized parties used government Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to access Attkisson’s computers; placed government surveillance spyware on her devices; and illegally accessed her professional and personal information over an extended period of time.
The summary states that in March of 2019, an appellate panel of three judges determined the former Attorney General Eric Holder had immunity from Attkisson’s claims.
Two of the three judges ruled Attkisson’s claims should be dismissed because she took too long, three years— and without success—to determine the names of the “John Doe” federal agents involved in the intrusions of her computers.
A third judge rightly dissented, understanding that Attkisson consistently attempted to identify the John Does but the Department of Justice continuously blocked discovery, filed protective orders and filed motions to dismiss in an attempt to obstruct. The government did not turn over a single piece of paper in response to more than a dozen subpoenas.
The dissenting judge called the government’s actions “Kafkaesque” for obstructing Attkisson and then blaming her for “taking too long.”
“We have just filed a new complaint which I hope satisfies one of the issues a judge had that we’ve not been able to name the actual names of the government agents involved in the intrusion,” Attkison announced in her video. “Of course we argued we could not name the names because the government and courts would not permit us discovery to learn the names!”
She added: “We did some additional detective work. We have five names to present to the court—names based on our information that were directly involved in the surveillance of my computers. One of them is Rod Rosenstein, then U.S. Attorney in Baltimore, a former Department of Justice official.”
"Fmr. govt. agent admits illegally spying on Attkisson, implicates Rosenstein & colleagues."
"Fmr. FBI Unit Chief confirms he initiated forensics that proved govt. computer intrusion."
More at https://t.co/3duSZQk8eO@TheJusticeDept @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/FQwxpFdkhN pic.twitter.com/dDZQDgkXFp
— Sharyl Attkisson🕵️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) January 9, 2020
Besides Attkisson, the other plaintiffs in the case are her husband and daughter who were also subjected to the illegal surveillance.
Besides Rosenstein, the other defendants named in the complaint are Shawn Henry, Sean Wesley Bridges, Robert Clarke, and Ryan White.
In 2010, then FBI Director Robert Mueller named Shawn Henry as the executive assistant director (EAD) of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch (CCRSB).
Henry left the FBI in 2012 and now is president of CrowdStrike Services, the cybersecurity firm hired by Democratic National Committee to examine its computer network in 2016 after it had been hacked. Crowdstrike ultimately determined Russia had hacked the DNC emails.
Shaun Wesley Bridges served as a Special Agent with the U.S. Secret Service for approximately six years, according to the complaint.
Between 2012 and 2014, he was assigned to the Baltimore Silk Road Task Force, a multi-agency group investigating illegal activity on the Silk Road, a covert online marketplace for illicit goods, including drugs.
In 2015 and 2017, Bridges was convicted of corruption related to his government work, and is now serving a prison sentence.
Defendant Robert Clarke was also a member of the Silk Road Task Force and Ryan White worked as an undercover informant for the DOJ.
White also worked as a contractor operating out of the Baltimore office under a group supervised by Rosenstein, according to the complaint.
In this capacity, White conducted work for the FBI, United States Secret Service, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, where he and others were ordered to illegally hack into computer systems, servers, emails and phones.
“These defendants, as Government-officials, agents or employees, violated the Constitution as shown herein through their own individual actions,” the complaint states.
As part of the lawsuit, former FBI Unit Chief Les Szwajkowski confirms that he facilitated a forensic exam in January of 2013 that revealed government surveillance spyware in Attkisson’s computer. Szwajkowski signed a sworn Affidavit confirming the government intrusion into Attkisson’s computers.
The specialist quickly identified spyware proprietary to the federal government in Attkisson’s computer, according to Szwajkowski. He advised Attkisson that he and his intel associates were “shocked” that the government had used covert surveillance on a national journalist and he said they thought it was “outrageous.”
Szwajkowski says he reported to Attkisson that the analysis showed clear evidence that her computer was infiltrated with government spyware proprietary to the CIA, FBI or National Security Agency (NSA). Forensics indicated the particular intrusion uncovered by the analysis was accomplished through software attached to an otherwise innocuous email sent to Attkisson in February 2012.
Attkisson alleges that “numerous other Americans” were also targeted by Rosenstein’s unit while he was the U.S. Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/justice-dept-winds-down-clinton-related-inquiry-once-championed-by-trump-it-found-nothing-of-consequence/ar-BBYObjg?li=BBU4PL8
-
Not sure, but it could be that Huber's investigation was limited to the Clinton Slush Fund, not matters thrown by Comey and Mueller.
-
Not sure, but it could be that Huber's investigation was limited to the Clinton Slush Fund, not matters thrown by Comey and Mueller.
The DOJ can indict a ham sandwich, and does when it wants to. Funny how often it doesn't want to when it's the Clintons and their minions.
-
https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/sen-dianne-feinsteins-ties-china-go-way-deeper-alleged-office-spy/#.XhFxoXJbmx5.facebook
-
to pay the price:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/now-do-the-other-side-of-the-aisle-ny-republican-chris-collins-gets-two-years-in-the-slammer-for-insider-trading/
-
Oct 2019
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/corrupt_senators_took_ukraine_cash.html
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-exclusive-woman-says-trump-170617692.html
ok so I am supposed to believe Trump raped her in a public department store dressing room where all she had to do was scream bloody murder.
plus I am supposed to believe the LEFT would not go to the trouble of getting a sample of Trump's DNA .
place on this dress she supposedly wore in the 1990s
and this proves rape
:-(
-
https://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/2019/11/22/smoking-gun-adam-schiff-directly-connected-to-7-4-billion-burisma-corruption-scandal-details-developing/
-
https://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/2019/11/22/smoking-gun-adam-schiff-directly-connected-to-7-4-billion-burisma-corruption-scandal-details-developing/
I think we need it investigated!
-
of course Kalifornia gives away lottery tickets to some politically correct TV show so while people who pay out of pocket are competing with those who don't :
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/whistleblower-takes-ellen-degeneres-california-lottery-to-task-for-lottery-giveaway
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/12/nolte-good-riddance-to-muellers-monstrous-roger-stone-prosecutors/
unless they are Republicans
and God forgive anyone who is a Trump supporter
they deserve to be locked up for life and the key dumped in the swamp somewhere
but everyone else in jail should be let out.
no bail
and if one is illegal just do not bother to enforce the law
-
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227102269017071617
-
second
==========================
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china
=======================================
In a related vein:
Education Department Investigating Harvard, Yale Over Foreign Funding
Officials accuse schools across U.S. of soliciting funds from foreign governments, companies known to be hostile to the country
Harvard University is one of the schools being investigated by the Education Department over its disclosure of foreign funding.
PHOTO: KAYANA SZYMCZAK FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By Kate O’Keeffe
Feb. 12, 2020 3:24 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
35
The Education Department opened investigations into Harvard and Yale as part of a continuing review that has found U.S. universities failed to report at least $6.5 billion in foreign funding from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, according to department materials viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The investigations into the Ivy League schools are the latest in a clash between U.S. universities and a coalition of federal officials including law enforcement, research funders such as the National Institutes of Health and Defense and Energy Departments, and a bipartisan group in Congress that has raised concerns about the reliance of higher-education institutions on foreign money, particularly from China.
A Harvard spokesman said the university is working on a response. A Yale spokeswoman didn’t immediately have a comment.
The Education Department described higher-education institutions in the U.S., in a document viewed by the Journal, as “multi-billion dollar, multi-national enterprises using opaque foundations, foreign campuses, and other sophisticated legal structures to generate revenue.”
Officials accused schools of actively soliciting money from foreign governments, companies and nationals known to be hostile to the U.S. and potentially in search of opportunities to steal research and “spread propaganda benefitting foreign governments,” according to the document.
In addition, while the department said it has found foreign money generally flows to the country’s richest universities, “such money apparently does not reduce or otherwise offset American students’ tuition costs,” the document said.
U.S. officials say China uses a variety of means to target academia, including government-funded talent recruitment programs such as the Thousand Talents Plan. The arrest last month of the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department on federal charges of lying about receiving millions of dollars in Chinese funding through the program while the U.S. shelled out more than $15 million to fund his research group catapulted the issue into the spotlight.
In a letter to Harvard dated Feb. 11 and posted on the Education Department website, officials cited the recent Justice Department case and asked the school to disclose records of gifts or contracts involving the governments of China, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. It also requested records regarding telecommunications giants Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. of China; the Kaspersky Lab and Skolkovo Foundation of Russia; and the Alavi Foundation of Iran, among others.
The Education Department said Yale had failed to disclose at least $375 million in foreign funding after filing no reports from 2014-17, according to a document viewed by the Journal. The department, in a Feb. 11 letter to the university, sought records regarding contributions from Saudi Arabia, China and its telecom giants, Peking University’s Yenching Academy, the National University of Singapore, Qatar and others. It also asked the university to detail foreign funding of Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center and the new Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs.
If the schools refuse to disclose the information, the Education Department can refer the matter to the Justice Department, which could pursue civil or criminal actions.
Write to Kate O’Keeffe at kathryn.okeeffe@wsj.com
-
https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/01/pelosi-crime-family.jpg
https://www.theunion.com/news/nancy-pelosi-and-husband-involved-in-some-fishy-business/
book written about her corruption:
https://www.writersreps.com/Shes-the-Boss
-
Haney didn't kill himself.
https://datechguyblog.com/2020/02/29/they-tell-no-tales/
-
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/03/04/defense-department-linguist-charged-with-leaking-classified-information-to-terrorist-organization/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ARM%20DNR%203.4.20&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Army%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup
-
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=14473
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/us/politics/erik-prince-project-veritas.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes
-
and win in a heartbeat:
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/03/13/andrew-gillum-found-in-miami-beach-hotel-room-with-suspected-drugs-police-say/
-
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/insider-trading
-
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/03/21/schumer-there-will-be-ethics-investigation-into-burr-loeffler/
notice whose name is distinctly missing?
-
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/insider-trading
I agree. I sure looks bad but I wanted out at that time not because of the virus coming but because of my fear of other people's panic just from seeing the Chinese market take a big hit. Very rational I think to want to sit out this turmoil at age 65, in Sen Burr's case, and also not want to be a part of telling other people to panic and sell. One of them sold individual stocks to buy mutual funds, which is not getting out of the market. OTOH, they may pay a political price for this.
In hindsight, should have gotten out while entering office or stayed in through thick and thin.
-
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source
-
https://nypost.com/2016/09/22/cuomos-solarcity-disaster-could-become-a-monument-to-corruption/
-
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/lee-smith-china-coronavirus-1
-
the family members are the conduits for insider deals and bribes
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/lee-smith-china-coronavirus-1
who is looking at pelosi
and her family?
-
The FBI Can’t Be Trusted With the Surveillance of Americans
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-31/fbi-inspector-general-report-shows-agency-cannot-be-trusted?srnd=opinion
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a new report that found systematic errors of fact in the FBI’s applications for warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The memo does not speak to the materiality or significance of those errors — but they are startling nonetheless.
Out of 42 applications, the report says, 39 included major defects. All told, the inspector general uncovered 390 deficiencies, including “unverified, inaccurate, or inadequately supported facts, as well as typographical errors.”
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf
-
Please post in Rule of Law as well.
-
' bout time:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/04/26/one-of-the-dems-most-influential-political-operatives-is-under-investigation-n2567631
-
' bout time:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/04/26/one-of-the-dems-most-influential-political-operatives-is-under-investigation-n2567631
Don't get your hopes up.
-
https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/gavin-newsom-wont-share-details-on-1b-mask-deal-with-china/
-
https://nypost.com/2020/04/21/gavin-newsom-wont-share-details-on-1b-mask-deal-with-china/
Well, it's not like it's the public's money...
-
Refresh my memory, didn't we post something recently about the CA pension fund investing in China's military or something like that?
-
Refresh my memory, didn't we post something recently about the CA pension fund investing in China's military or something like that?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/white-house-california-pension-fund-subsidizing-chinese-plans-to-overmatch-us-military
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/70455-newsoms-$1b-shady-mask-deal-with-china?mailing_id=5034&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5034&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
-
https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/06/obamas-homeland-security-ig-indicted-on-fraud-theft-charges/
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pompeos-elite-taxpayer-funded-dinners-020500176.html
know Pompeo is our guy but this does sound swampy to me
for all I know they all do it though not clear
I hate country music mobs getting in on politics now
they are mostly all dealing in stolen property - reba mcentire too.
If I see that scumbag John Rich on Fox again ........lying little prick
-
https://www.wbur.org/artery/2020/04/14/michele-mcphee-mayhem-boston-marathon-bombing
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/635147/mayhem-by-michele--r-mcphee/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/27/exclusive-canceled-contact-tracing-contract-reveals-michigan-authorized-democrat-firm-for-400-activists-to-collect-medical-information/#
what the hell is this guy doing?
It should be health department officials not a Democrat Party machine operative:
https://www.gvsu.edu/polisci/module-spotlight-view.htm?entryId=CB732B48-A67C-A825-9BD3F165F0469CC4&siteModuleId=1A23BB84-005B-C1A8-262FE8D6EC18DEA0
-
https://www.bitchute.com/video/UYfz8ekFILW8/
-
https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/06/08/social-justice-warrior-ing-a-class-soon-to-be-taught-at-the-fbi-academy/
(https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/iowahawk_skin_suit_5-28-16-1-600x406.jpg)
-
"https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/06/08/social-justice-warrior-ing-a-class-soon-to-be-taught-at-the-fbi-academy/"
When the military starts to do this we know its check mate
-
:x
https://deadline.com/2020/06/john-bolton-abc-news-donald-trump-martha-raddatz-1202959216/
and I liked this guy once.
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-niece-reveals-she-leaked-tax-documents-to-new-york-times
-
Saw that about the niece, but Bolton could be really bad for us.
-
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action/
-
https://national-justice.com/fbi-agents-tortured-humiliated-and-threatened-national-guardsmen-his-political-beliefs-he-now
Almost like they are on the same team.
-
https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/virginia-defense-contractor-facing-federal-indictment-maryland-selling-chinese-made-body
-
" VA contractor charged with selling us Chinese body armor. "
have you seen the movie 'War Dogs'?
-
https://national-justice.com/trove-leaked-fbi-fusion-center-and-dhs-documents-provide-insight-antifa-charlottesville-political
Trove of Leaked FBI, Fusion Center and DHS Documents Provide Insight Into Antifa, Charlottesville, Political Bias, and the Erosion of Civil Liberties
Eric StrikerJul 10, 2020 | 2200 words 7,322
MORE:CURRENT EVENTS
fedskneeling2.jpg
On June 22nd, a group of anarchist hackers called DDoSecrets dumped 270 gigabytes worth of internal documents belonging to regional police fusion centers, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The documents provide interesting insight into state surveillance tactics, political bias and dynamics, and how "threats" are prioritized.
The files -- dated from 2015 to 2020 in the sample National Justice looked at -- show a massive contradiction between the FBI's ideologically selective priorities and the actual intelligence being provided to them by regional police centers, which often stress the role of "antifa" as instigators of violence.
Police Know Anarchist Extremists Always Instigate Violence At Rallies
Law enforcement is fully aware of who provokes the fighting and rioting at riots: the left. The documents from fusion centers across the country (intelligence provided by local police departments) repeatedly report this.
An intelligencePDF iconassessment by the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center regarding the Berkeley Riots of Spring 2017, where anarchists and free speech activists faced off, painstakingly details the various criminal tactics "antifa" groups used to disrupt and physically injure lawful protesters and police officers.
The anarchist extremist groups in question continue to use the same tactics to this day, yet rarely face any criminal charges. The FBI is fully informed on the matter, including where the anarchists in California train in paramilitary tactics, yet refuses to investigate or prosecute any anarchist group for conspiring to commit acts of violence.
The Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC)PDF iconreported similar information in its investigation of the Boston Free Speech Rally on August 19th, 2017. BRIC noted that the nationalist and free speech demonstrators, about 60 of them in total, had a permit for the event, while the anarchist groups that showed up to heckle-veto them were there illegally.
The leftist rioters began attacking the protesters, and later, began engaging in gratuitous yet apparently coordinated violence against police officers attempting to intervene, causing multiple injuries.
The most interesting document of all is an intelligence assessment by DHS in the run up to the now famous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which starkly contradicts the mainstream media and FBI's narrative.
In aPDF icondocument dated August 9th, 2017, DHS wrote "We assess that anarchist extremists’ use of violence as a means to oppose racism and white supremacist extremists’ preparations to counterattack anarchist extremists are the principal drivers of violence at recent white supremacist rallies."
In other words, the DHS accurately predicted, through its intelligence gathering resources, that the nationalist groups in Charlottesville would only engage in self-defense if attacked. The Charlottesville Police Department, Mayor, and Governor were all warned in advance that Unite the Right had the potential to be the most violent rally to date, yet according to the Heaphy investigation, they -- either through incompetence but most likely through malice -- enabled the carnage by ordering the police not to intervene when the anarchists attacked the nationalists.
DHS' Ulterior Motive For Placing Russian Nationalist Group on Terror Watch List
Both the FBI and to a lesser extent the Department of Homeland Security are far more concerned with political ideology and creating propaganda than upholding the law.
A pair of documents outlining the rationale behind the seemingly random designation of the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) as an international terrorist group demonstrates this.
According to a DHS internal release dated May 15th, 2020, adding RIM to the list of global terrorists is more of a pilot program to test the ability of nations to share intelligence on such groups and their willingness to engage in surveillance against their own law-abiding citizens.
The federal government admits in between the lines that it is breaking new ground in attempts to violate civil liberties of citizens using counter-terrorism powers intended to combat Islamic extremism: "This is the first ever US designation of RMVE (Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist) terrorists and the United States joins a short but growing list of Western countries who over the last year have applied counterterrorism authorities to designate RMVEs and white supremacist extremists.
Such designations will enable formalized information sharing on RIM affiliates and other RMVE actors through HSPD-6 and PCSC agreements, dependent upon the foreign partner and their level of sharing. Information sharing between counties on RMVE groups and identities is often difficult as this issue is still in its infancy stages, so the designation provides an opportunity to share and collect information on its leaders, thereby giving us previously unknown insights as to its members and their associated networks."
An earlier report on RIM from the National Counterterrorism Center dated April 2020 shows that the Russian-based organization's designation is purely political.
In a section labeled "Threat to the Homeland and US Interests," the NCTC states that RIM does not pose any threat to the United States or its interest abroad, but merely has in the past reached out to nationalists in Europe and North America for ideological discussion. The document notes that the groups who have had contact with RIM are generally not violent.
The sole instance of potential contact in recent memory between Americans and RIM -- which is an above ground ultraconservative organization rather than a racialist one -- is likely the 2015 International Russian Conservative Forum in St Petersburg. The conference attracted numerous above-ground, mainstream political parties, intellectuals and Christian organizations from around the world, ranging from Marine Le Pen's Front National to Jared Taylor. The RIM terrorist designation is likely little more than an attempt to force right-wing populists in Europe to stay loyal to Washington.
FBI Prioritizes Ideology Over Fighting Crime
One particularly laughable bulletin from the FBI provided to regional police departments is warnings about "incels" (men who are involuntarily celibate) and something called "clowncels" (incels who are fans of the movie Joker).
In the memo, the FBI admits that it "has no information indicating specific, credible threats to particular locations or venues," yet commands police departments to pay special attention to this community.
The FBI's obsession with incels in lieu of any intelligence regarding credible threats reveals that the FBI is allowing Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League to set its investigatory priorities. Last year the ADL arbitrarily declared men incapable of procuring romantic partners a domestic terror threat.
Another document dated October 16th, 2018 on "voter suppression" demonstrates the FBI's lack of respect for free speech. The FBI declared that it would begin investigating memes posted on Twitter intended to satirize low civic education by telling people to vote for Hillary Clinton via text message as a "Conspiracy Against Rights Provided by the Constitution and Laws of the United States" -- a federal crime written to prevent physical violence or threats at the ballot box that can get a prosecuted person years in prison.
As for tech censorship and surveillance, the NCTC released an outline of the various social media platforms that should be watched. They distinguish between mainstream social media platforms (Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Twitch, etc), chat apps (Telegram, Wire and Discord) and alternative-audience platforms (Daily Stormer, Gab, 4chan, Fascist Forge, 8Kun, and Stormfront).
In recent months, people have been reporting an explosion in the presence of undercover federal agents and informants desperately trying to entrap users on Telegram, Discord, Gab, the Chans and Fascist Forge.
For mainstream platforms, the NCTC notes that tech companies are eager to pursue "terrorist activity online," but often lack the resources to do it completely: "Technology companies that are willing to counter terrorist activity online but lack extensive resources to monitor content or automated takedown mechanisms would probably benefit from expanded US Government and NGO information-sharing to identify how RMVEs are using their platforms."
The close working relationship between mainstream social media companies, the FBI and "NGOs" (the ADL and SPLC) is clear and assumed, adding a new layer of understanding when it comes to tech censorship and the power of privately run organizations that are not subject general ethics or government accountability.
Ideological uniformity is important in the FBI's relationship with local law enforcement, aPDF iconflyer sent to law enforcement personnel in Texas shows.
The event, hosted by the FBI for local cops, featured lectures on "hate" (which is not a crime) from a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church and the ex-lead singer of a skinhead rock band. The conference was hosted in December 2017, so one can only imagine this indoctrination has gotten more intense since then.
Ultimately, we can gather from these documents a climate of incompetence, rejection of facts for political reasons, and a culture of selective prosecution. Those who post memes making fun of the election are treated as conspirators against the Constitutional rights of others, while anarchists who actively conspire in the open to do the same are rarely prosecuted by the FBI.
The most disturbing aspect of all this is how groups like the Anti-Defamation League appear to have more sway over the FBI's investigative priorities than intelligence provided to them by local fusion centers.
It appears that in defense of their power, our elites are willing to do away with all liberal pretenses and take on "emergency orders" that ultimately punishes peaceful dissent while allowing real criminals to go free.
-
Is this true?
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/05/20/trump-just-removed-ig-investigating-elaine-chao-chaos-husband-mitch-mcconnell?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook
-
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/draining-the-swamp1/
-
2018
Pasting this in this thread as well:
https://www.insidesources.com/dianne-feinstein-growing-rich-off-of-chinese-interests/
-
no one is above the "rule of law" or ethical violations in the House:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/07/house-ethics-committee-rules-rashida-tlaib-violated-campaign-finance-laws/
she can pay it off with the money she paid her husband (or brother) for (campaign) work.
-
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nancy-pelosi-buys-tesla-calls-191017279.html
oh but "perfectly legal!!!"
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/kamala-harriss-stepdaughter-ella-emhoff-gets-modeling-gig-img-models-inauguration/
YMBFKM!
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/29/nancy-pelosis-big-tesla-stock-buy-raises-ethics-qu/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=QQZeVv9uGdKhUpTqfptdmllb2ABPgobrAiOJwwYsxhfVnDyJOiA7dNT0xwgIBFrl&bt_ts=1611932237475
-
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/01/30/systemic-contingencies-they-all-knew-lessons-from-spygate-about-severity-of-dc-corruption/
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/29/nancy-pelosis-big-tesla-stock-buy-raises-ethics-qu/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=QQZeVv9uGdKhUpTqfptdmllb2ABPgobrAiOJwwYsxhfVnDyJOiA7dNT0xwgIBFrl&bt_ts=1611932237475
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/064/041/218/original/2d971c20be0da6ce.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/064/041/218/original/2d971c20be0da6ce.jpg)
-
It doesn't raise questions, it answers the question, are these people all crooks? Yes.
Imagine shoe on other foot. See Georgia Senators fully investigated for just a general stock sell with covid impending [public information]. Both put under a cloud with the investigation. Both defeated. IIRC
If all Democrats are not crooks, then separate yourselves from the corrupt Speaker. Call for her resignation.
Pelosi is in a position of major power and major league inside information to power.
From the article:
"Last month, Paul Pelosi, a wealthy venture capitalist and husband of the California Democrat, bought up to $1 million worth of Tesla stock when the price was roughly $640.34 a share."
Who does that? Who looks at Tesla at 640, worth far more than Ford, General Motors or Chrysler, with a fraction of the sales, goes all in with a buy with THAT timing??!! Right before it went up more than 30% with the crazy announcement of Biden, from an already sky high level? Answer: Someone who knows the future. Who knows the future? Someone who controls the future with major league inside ties. This reeks of elite advantage, insider trading. Democrats used to HATE this. Investigate the communications between the incoming administration's inner circle which includes Biden and all aides with Pelosi and all her top aides. How do you NOT demand an investigation? What is Mueller doing? Call him back in. Load up his staff with major Trump supporters, fair is fair.
Try this defense, a million dollar buy is a small move by the hugely rich leader of the people's house, something you might do before breakfast or while on the treadmill, so her husband maybe never told her about it. We did it because we can. We made more in a month on one move than you make in four years. Screw you little people who think a million is a lot anyway. It's chump change. Crumbs: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pelosi-tax-cuts-crumbs-stimulus-significant
-
Ask your dem associates about this. They don't care.
It doesn't raise questions, it answers the question, are these people all crooks? Yes.
Imagine shoe on other foot. More on that, see Georgia Senators fully investigated for just a general stock sell with covid impending. Both put under a cloud. Both defeated. IIRC
If all Democrats are not crooks, then separate yourselves from the corrupt Speaker. Call for her resignation.
Pelosi is in a position of major power and major league inside information to power.
From the article:
"Last month, Paul Pelosi, a wealthy venture capitalist and husband of the California Democrat, bought up to $1 million worth of Tesla stock when the price was roughly $640.34 a share."
Who does that? Who looks at Tesla at 640, worth far more than Ford, General Motors or Chrysler, and goes all in with a buy with a fraction of the sales, with THAT timing??!! Right before it went up more than 30% from an already sky high level? Answer: Someone who knows the future. Who knows the future? Someone who controls the future or has major league inside ties. This reeks of elite advantage, insider trading. Investigate the communications between the incoming administration's inner circle which includes Biden and all aides with Pelosi and all her top aides. How do you NOT demand an investigation? What is Mueller doing? Call him back in. Load up his staff with major Trump supporters, fair is fair.
-
Oh, look at that, the local paper didn't find reason to cover it:
https://www.startribune.com/search/?q=pelosi+tesla
ALL SECTIONS SEARCH STAR TRIBUNE
Results: pelosi tesla
Sorry, your search for 'pelosi tesla' did not match any documents
Oops, nothing at NYT either: https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=pelosi+tesla
Hard to discuss news when one side has a blackout.
Like ccp says, nothing to see here folks, move along.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zh30lm7aSQ&fbclid=IwAR3M0xM95Bq3knbt0ZZADpTwyHG5fhvr-GO1On19sk_sculrN_OhkBRZDCE
-
I bet now Dems are in power he and Warren will be silent about this :
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/microsoft-certification-biden-donations/2021/02/05/id/1008861/
these guys like gates etc
spent there entire lives ruthlessly getting as rich as they can
then turn around and tell us what to do
yes he admirably gives a lot to charity
but keep out of our politics
and yes I know he is not head of MSFT anymore technically
-
I bet now Dems are in power he and Warren will be silent about this :
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/microsoft-certification-biden-donations/2021/02/05/id/1008861/
these guys like gates etc
spent there entire lives ruthlessly getting as rich as they can
then turn around and tell us what to do
yes he admirably gives a lot to charity
but keep out of our politics
and yes I know he is not head of MSFT anymore technically
Time to start canceling the cancelers.
-
Pres Clinton fired all 50 US Attorneys in order to get the one in Little Rock fired. Here we go again.
Federal prosecutor is a political post. Who knew?
https://m.startribune.com/minnesota-s-top-federal-prosecutor-to-heed-biden-s-call-for-resignation/600021061/
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/us-attorney-justice-department-trump.html
including jilted because he didn't keep his job - Preet Bharara
who now appears on CNN to undercut anything Trump
-
https://www.theblaze.com/news/more-than-100-billion-stolen-from-coronavirus-aid
-
https://www.theblaze.com/news/more-than-100-billion-stolen-from-coronavirus-aid
Like not that much vote fraud, same people will tell us it's not that much money lost $100 Billion, bound to happen.
In a real world, everyone involved should be fired and ALL programs halted until we truly get to the bottom of it. Same for just one fraudulent vote.
-
Don't worry, we'll vote out the vote fraudsters in 2022/2024!
:roll:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/more-than-100-billion-stolen-from-coronavirus-aid
Like not that much vote fraud, same people will tell us it's not that much money lost $100 Billion, bound to happen.
In a real world, everyone involved should be fired and ALL programs halted until we truly get to the bottom of it. Same for just one fraudulent vote.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/feb/21/john-kerry-held-backchannel-talks-iran-javad-zarif/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=AzLFZ5y61hP6wa8qTcTC4Fu8sIFnq1rubzKtBBiMg2K6jVf7abO9OvXPDT986QQ7&bt_ts=1613953185222
-
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-andrew-cuomo-will-get-through-this-20210220-nugb47zwbzhv3fr66xurmaws3e-story.html
appears she got $700 home as some sort of gift
https://thecapitolist.com/nikki-frieds-new-700000-luxury-home-appears-to-violate-gift-ban-law/
other controversies from Wikipedia:
*****Controversies
Shortly after entering office in 2019, Fried's office redesigned the Department of Agricultures certified gas-pump stickers, which verify to customers the gas pump has been approved by the state. Previous Agriculture Commissioners had put their own names on the stickers for decades, but Fried was the first to put a color photograph of herself smiling on the sticker. The decision sparked allegations by the Florida GOP, who accused Fried of using taxpayer funds to increase her political exposure. The Florida legislature quickly passed a law limiting the taxpayer-funded stickers to only “a combination of lettering, numbering, words, or the department logo.” The stickers then began to be replaced with a new design that does not have her photograph.[20][21]
In August 2019, the department appointed two registered lobbyists for the Florida Sugar Cane League to consult on the Lake Okeechobee System Operating Manual Project Delivery Team, which was set to advise the United States Army Corps of Engineers on procedures for lake levels. Environmentalists have called for lake levels to be lowered to prevent harmful discharges, while the sugar industry has advocated for keeping levels high to avoid the threat of low water supply for farmers and municipalities. U.S. Congressman Brian Mast (FL-18) sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers seeking the lobbyists removal, alleging the appointments were an attempt to force sugar industry influence into the process.[22] Seven Florida environmental groups, including Friends of the Everglades and Everglades Trust, called for the members to be removed and criticized their appointment.[23] While Fried originally defended the appointments as expert consultants, she later fired their consulting firm and removed them from working on the project.[24]
In December 2019, Fried abstained from a cabinet vote on the nominee for state Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) Commissioner, in apparent contravention of Florida state law. Florida law states cabinet officials "may not abstain" from cabinet votes unless there is a conflict of interest. Fried said she had concerns over the transparency of the nomination and said her interpretation of the law did not mandate her to vote yes or no. Two experts contacted by the Tampa Bay Times found her argument legally "shaky" and contrary to the purpose of Florida's open government laws.[25][26]****
Finally she only won the position by 6,700 votes out of over 8 million cast
-
Born to a Jewish family in Miami, Fried graduated from the University of Florida, where she was student body president and a member of Florida Blue Key.[2][3][4] She graduated from the University of Florida Frederic G. Levin College of Law.[3] Fried also earned a master's degree in political campaigning from the University of Florida.[5]
She got degree in political campaigning ??? :-o
she ain't going anywhere.
probably the next debbie wasserman schultz
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/time_to_impeach_our_government.html
-
I do not trust Americans today to improve upon what our Founding Fathers wrote.
-
This from a pleasant left of center friend:
====================================
Mitchell–
In a huge victory for progressives and the culmination of years of grassroots organizing, a slate of progressive candidates just swept the elections for the Nevada Democratic Party’s five leadership positions.
In response, the entire staff of the Nevada Democratic Party quit.
And on their way out the door, they moved nearly half a million dollars from the state party’s campaign coffers to a national Senate campaign fund, while giving themselves generous severance payments. Every consultant severed their contract, and we don’t yet know what kind of money changed hands when that happened.
I’ve never seen anything quite like this. Establishment Democrats and their lobbyist and consultant allies want this story to quietly fade away, but we will not let that happen.
This story is developing rapidly, and we’re digging deep to uncover how it happened, what interests were behind it, where the money is going, and how the progressive-led Nevada Democratic Party in the state plans to forge ahead. The new regime will need investigative reporters keeping a close eye on them, too, to hold them accountable to the promises they’ve made.
Will you make an additional donation to The Intercept and help investigate the unfolding story of the establishment resistance to progressive insurgents?
If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:
DONATE $15 →
DONATE $25 →
DONATE $50 →
DONATE $100 →
DONATE ANOTHER AMOUNT →
Nevada is one of the Democratic Party’s success stories in recent years. After voting Republican in 8 out of 10 presidential elections from 1968 to 2004, Nevada has now gone blue four times in a row while electing Democrats for governor and both U.S. Senate seats.
But the margins of these victories remain narrow. Last November, Joe Biden won with just 50.6% of the vote, and a competitive U.S. Senate election is coming up next year.
The organizing work of progressive Democrats, led by Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America, has played a role in shifting the state away from the Republican Party, so you wouldn’t think the staff of the Democratic Party would be looking to blow up the party from the inside.
It’s a stunning example of how much power entrenched interests have over the inner workings of the state party — and how far they will go to undermine progressives and protect their power.
The Intercept broke the news of the party staff walkout, and we intend to stay on this story as it continues to develop, shining a bright light on the corporate rot and corruption eroding the Democratic Party from within that threatens the integrity of our entire democracy.
Will you make an additional donation to The Intercept to help support our hard-hitting investigative journalism?
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/14/department-of-homeland-security-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-joe-biden/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2360&pnespid=k.Jss.VJAFSNN59cjGFKquoTHcTRW_CZsYDYik.T
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/14/department-of-homeland-security-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-joe-biden/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2360&pnespid=k.Jss.VJAFSNN59cjGFKquoTHcTRW_CZsYDYik.T
This is how it always works.
-
there is even a
"gay" detention unit
I sick and tired of these scams
a freaken gay unit :roll:
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/06/19/transgender-group-in-nm-defends-work-with-ice/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=beaff0e4e55383104ac3f67308f27732c4517f8c-1618435706-0-AZKcg26RsI0L4lxRtpbBiQBi5F3pXccZW4RGNc8nxi6SOk-lsLn6CrXJeodL-IBSgtxSaRLgg0RxAc6uj1Msc-0veQ-QAnUKK-FwbjrTYQvLN_zTlM0JvtIHciI46hKfd6WJm8VnFLvGZvaQ7bLdaA9eSAf5JwMbKsT_mlbkPl0mDvRR7QBFVP7Cjw49UX3dqqUVWVyO94wLsgnWIfDu50VDjk2wGg7_TzHfY7h_amlLB878UAzm7v-O_6LfcAD6k3Fy26xDI0dtm9cQ5wey3unI6-5BZmsJovWcr4dOnsXXGQHdewOglFtucO4wPfDr9QommXGO88cgAoVZtGlFOu-FV7peGQraItm7NizW7QEcppuL-983VeCug-fCJD9d57WmheldDe7YVb6Tsf_B_5MuntvjssGUy3605ceVYCTfl27Y-XzDEtGf9o1MI5mpbFyqDD4pZ7BX9RNlPBBAcD8
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/nancy-pelosis-husband-uses-call-options-buy-microsoft-ahead-big-govt-contract?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter
-
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/04/24/report-border-czar-kamala-harriss-book-is-purchased-with-us-tax-dollars-and-given-as-welcome-gift-to-illegal-aliens-n1442572
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iran-foreign-minister-john-kerry-javad-zarif-israel
-
I would love to send Anton Chighur to go up to John Kerry
and ask him how he got into Heinz
go to 2 minute mark part of this scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLCL6OYbSTw
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iran-foreign-minister-john-kerry-javad-zarif-israel
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/393578.php
The FBI-DNC will get right on it after they arrest Hunter Biden for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
-
Kerry the Rat:
https://patriotpost.us/articles/79465-john-kerry-anti-american-snitch-2021-04-27?mailing_id=5803&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5803&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
-
Kerry the Rat:
https://patriotpost.us/articles/79465-john-kerry-anti-american-snitch-2021-04-27?mailing_id=5803&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5803&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
"This never happened", and 'this was public knowledge', together sound like a non-denial denial.
Kerry is lying or the Iranians are lying. Either way we shouldn't be doing business with them.
-
https://aclj.org/government-corruption/breaking-aclj-secures-big-win-against-the-deep-state-in-federal-court?view=original%3Futm_source%3DFacebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=d-04282021_top-GC_seg-jayfb_con-psakirecap_typ-AR&fbclid=IwAR2iu6pwvQ3Y12qRsehZLxoBqxTXhPf9PmsEKKKSlbbQPawmBgqIWEpypyc
-
Not familiar about this org. Sounds like Judicial Watch which uses Freedom of Information Act t
get the behind the scenes mud that flows around DC and elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Center_for_Law_%26_Justice
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/2/nyt-washington-post-retract-stories-giuliani-warne/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=%2BkpECHwPbnMSOsAU0GYkhfHX%2BvaNyM%2FkPmCx7UhtuK25QmONg495lcFJTzHxExHE&bt_ts=1619983947477
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/fbi-spied-on-giuliani-trump-icloud-communications-during-impeachment-push-giuliani_3799121.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-05-03&mktids=dde638cfc42810e3fba4696359a6485a&est=b7s1WpUuvHu2dol%2BHSJIHohR5Z2s3rj44FUn3Wq3ESWDI7GUNsNHEQIsQNrG2FbN38ei
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/fbi-spied-on-giuliani-trump-icloud-communications-during-impeachment-push-giuliani_3799121.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-05-03&mktids=dde638cfc42810e3fba4696359a6485a&est=b7s1WpUuvHu2dol%2BHSJIHohR5Z2s3rj44FUn3Wq3ESWDI7GUNsNHEQIsQNrG2FbN38ei
Someone should raid the FBI with a search warrant, seize their electronic devices and review their internal communications. They have been in the middle of way too many crimes of government abuse lately.
-
"Someone should raid the FBI with a search warrant, seize their electronic devices and review their internal communications. They have been in the middle of way too many crimes of government abuse lately."
Funny , Barr did not seem to have a problem with them.
I am sure Merrick will get right on it
disgusted in NJ
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9571753/Former-FBI-director-Louis-Freeh-gave-100-000-private-trust-Joe-Bidens-grandchildren.html
-
Whoa , , ,
-
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
-
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
-
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
Tucker went into this in depth tonight. He had on a very strong and well informed woman, well worth tracking down.
-
Tucker went into this in depth tonight. He had on a very strong and well informed woman, well worth tracking down.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nsa-claims-no-spying-tucker-carlson-laughable-denial
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/01/tucker-carlson-pushing-back-against-nsa-surveillance-however-the-intelligence-branch-of-government-is-much-larger-than-most-consider/
Again, read it all.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sham-surveillance-safeguards-vs-tucker-carlson/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/01/tucker-carlson-pushing-back-against-nsa-surveillance-however-the-intelligence-branch-of-government-is-much-larger-than-most-consider/
Again, read it all.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/01/defund-the-fbi/
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/01/defund-the-fbi/
Who would investigate THIS:
https://notthebee.com/article/the-fbi-is-investigating-87-people-who-are-connected-to-an-illegal-coupon-ring
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/01/defund-the-fbi/
Who would investigate THIS:
https://notthebee.com/article/the-fbi-is-investigating-87-people-who-are-connected-to-an-illegal-coupon-ring
Don't forget the vital NASCAR rope pull investigations.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/01/defund-the-fbi/
Who would investigate THIS:
https://notthebee.com/article/the-fbi-is-investigating-87-people-who-are-connected-to-an-illegal-coupon-ring
Don't forget the vital NASCAR rope pull investigations.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-17-at-1.57.19-PM-600x433.png
(https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-17-at-1.57.19-PM-600x433.png)
Funny how all the dems connected to Fang Fang avoided any legal issues.
-
https://summit.news/2021/07/05/cnn-says-tucker-carlson-is-the-new-alex-jones/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sham-surveillance-safeguards-vs-tucker-carlson/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/01/tucker-carlson-pushing-back-against-nsa-surveillance-however-the-intelligence-branch-of-government-is-much-larger-than-most-consider/
Again, read it all.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394630.php
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sham-surveillance-safeguards-vs-tucker-carlson/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/01/tucker-carlson-pushing-back-against-nsa-surveillance-however-the-intelligence-branch-of-government-is-much-larger-than-most-consider/
Again, read it all.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
I'm so old, I remember when this was a conspiracy theory!
"For the theory to be true, its believers have to demonstrate that Rich leaked to WikiLeaks, that someone in the DNC (or the Clinton camp) in turn had Rich murdered, that the D.C. police are intentionally slow-walking the investigation, that the major intelligence agencies (namely the CIA, FBI, and NSA) are together either deliberately concocting a story about Russian interference or too stupid to recognize an inside job, and finally, that the remainder of official Washington is either oblivious to or colluding with conspirators who’ve damaged relations with Russia in hopes of bringing down a president."
The Facts of the Seth Rich Murder That Don’t Support Conspiracy Theories
Our David French with what needs to be known and said about the murder of Seth Rich:
The conspiracy is based on a true event — the terrible and unsolved murder of Seth Rich, a young Democratic National Committee staffer. Early the morning on July 10, an unidentified assailant shot Rich in the back. The police haven’t solved the crime, and their current best theory is that the attack occurred as part of a botched or interrupted robbery. Rich’s valuables, however, were still on his body, and the police (so far as we know) have no leads…
For the theory to be true, its believers have to demonstrate that Rich leaked to WikiLeaks, that someone in the DNC (or the Clinton camp) in turn had Rich murdered, that the D.C. police are intentionally slow-walking the investigation, that the major intelligence agencies (namely the CIA, FBI, and NSA) are together either deliberately concocting a story about Russian interference or too stupid to recognize an inside job, and finally, that the remainder of official Washington is either oblivious to or colluding with conspirators who’ve damaged relations with Russia in hopes of bringing down a president. Oh, and did I mention that the family of the slain young man is also either in on the conspiracy or unaware of its existence?
Rich’s parents write in the Washington Post today:
The circumstances of what happened next are still unclear. We know that Seth was abruptly confronted on the street, that he had been on the phone and quickly ended the call. We also know that there were signs of a struggle, including a watchband torn when the assailants attempted to rip it off his wrist. Law-enforcement officials told us that Seth’s murder looked like a botched robbery attempt in which the assailants — after shooting our son — panicked, immediately ran and abandoned Seth’s personal belongings. We have seen no evidence, by any person at any time, that Seth’s murder had any connection to his job at the Democratic National Committee or his life in politics. Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.
… We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.
The fact that Rich’s valuables weren’t taken was indeed odd, but it’s hardly unthinkable that his assailant panicked and ran after the shooting. The Washington, D.C., police failing to generate leads is not the least bit surprising. In 2015, the D.C. police solved only 62 percent of the city’s homicides. The closure rate has been as high as 96 percent in 2011 and as low as 60.5 percent in 2003.
Then again, what makes someone believe in a conspiracy theory is not facts, but a need to believe.
-
Nice piece of work fishing that up from the Memory Hole.
-
https://nypost.com/2021/07/09/psaki-claims-biden-didnt-discuss-business-with-hunter-despite-docs-that-show-otherwise/
Just like nancy did not tell paul anything
so he could INSIDE trade
( " I have nothing to do with his stock trades )
not mentioned is she only comes home and just happens to mention legislation that would affect certain stocks
he goes out calls his broker and she can make the absurd claim she
had nothing to do with it.
no shame
because NO punishment .
NOT even the media who covers for all the Dems
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/07/nationalizing_the_capitol_police.html
Another armed wing of the dems.
-
https://nypost.com/2021/07/07/suit-details-frat-house-fbi-office-with-guns-booze-and-rainbow-hued-sex-toy/
-
was investigating Hunter.
then was asked by "officials" to lay off Hunter leading up to the election
and the asked to stay on by the "big " guy:
https://www.westernjournal.com/election-interference-hunter-biden-prosecutor-suppressed-devastating-truth-helped-joe-biden-win-report/
so suddenly Trump appointee investigating the son of Biden gets asked to stay on .
funny, in the Ukraine prosecutors investigating Hunter get fired because of the big guy.
-
Not sure about the slant here.
My understanding is that pre-Comey & Hillary the SOP was not to announce investigations. My understanding is that the fact that Comey did announce the Hillary investigation was at variance with this.
If I am right about this, then what is happening now may be an effort to return to SOP and this article is being a bit disingenuous.
-
https://jimbovard.com/blog/2021/07/17/nsa-vs-tucker-carlson-is-an-alarm-bell-for-all-americans/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sham-surveillance-safeguards-vs-tucker-carlson/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/01/tucker-carlson-pushing-back-against-nsa-surveillance-however-the-intelligence-branch-of-government-is-much-larger-than-most-consider/
Again, read it all.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/07/23/its-official-the-nsa-unmasked-tucker-carlson-n2593042
https://jimbovard.com/blog/2021/07/17/nsa-vs-tucker-carlson-is-an-alarm-bell-for-all-americans/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sham-surveillance-safeguards-vs-tucker-carlson/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/01/tucker-carlson-pushing-back-against-nsa-surveillance-however-the-intelligence-branch-of-government-is-much-larger-than-most-consider/
Again, read it all.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394911.php
The people responsible will be arrested in 3, 2, never....
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/07/23/its-official-the-nsa-unmasked-tucker-carlson-n2593042
https://jimbovard.com/blog/2021/07/17/nsa-vs-tucker-carlson-is-an-alarm-bell-for-all-americans/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sham-surveillance-safeguards-vs-tucker-carlson/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/07/01/tucker-carlson-pushing-back-against-nsa-surveillance-however-the-intelligence-branch-of-government-is-much-larger-than-most-consider/
Again, read it all.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394525.php
Read it all.
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1409674563928141827
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-administration-spying-us-nsa-whistleblower-says-agency-monitoring-his-show
The FBI/DOJ will leap into action...
To find, arrest and prosecute the leaker...
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/394502.php
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdUF3feEdIs&t=6s
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1058716/must-see-lara-logan-just-messaged?fbclid=IwAR18B7Zvt1zVSVGhORFzHefdbtHUV5bn_q7jmfusok3dgdFc3cRItPft6zA
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/1058873/lara-logan-on-appeasement-u-s-weapons-transfers-to-taliban-more
-
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1438225946474127361
Go ahead, VOAT HARDER!
-
Fk.
-
Very wealthy tax avoiders:
https://dnyuz.com/2021/09/19/how-accounting-giants-craft-favorable-tax-rules-from-inside-government/
-
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/and-then-everything-happens-at-once/
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nasser-was-not-outlier-exposing-fbis-incurable-rot
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/they_intend_to_destroy_america.html
Not voting your way out of this.
-
https://populist.press/durham-indictment-judge-presiding-over-case-may-be-compromised/
no surprise
have you seen the list of liars for hire at Perkins Coie
They must have people who know EVERYONE in the legal system in DC Maryland and Virginia
Do I have faith the prosecution will get square deal
of course not.
-
must be looking for a swamp job:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bolton-milley-china-call-b1921476.html
his book must not have made much
so he is back again
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/lawmakers-demand-doj-explain-dropping-of-cases-against-chinese-researchers-accused-of-hiding-military-ties_4019016.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-09-28&mktids=6415acc423fe3e90703bd737e3f30ffa&est=uQc2cFPyZ3qrA%2F1rvhI3WsOreHroWvft0WeFwnvlBnJvV3Irdo3vUQDxJDzgOdA%2Bx%2Bkk
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/navy-nuclear-engineer-charged-trying-165250892.html
anyone here against execution?
let's see what happens - probably 5 to 10 yrs behind bars
:x
-
https://www.foxnews.com/media/watters-world-investigates-nancy-pelosis-315-million-in-assets?fbclid=IwAR2yUDzMvW4fv5utOuqKeptcSJQ8Fjo9uiG5WEhCVqLB40HJHl6kf5p1CfE
-
wow
her portfolio is over 300 mill now?
last time I looked it was about 60 to 70 million
if she were a can instead of a crat
can we imagine the constant bad press she would get?
i wondered for decades why no one has looked into the "family business"
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/us-navy-nuclear-engineer-wife-charged-by-doj-with-selling-nuclear-submarine-secrets_4041668.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-11&mktids=f0856272e47cafb38ce64e1cd0b6fc8e&est=O4hTe1NB5bsTbndG8zNlYDWXUaPDYwn5g0Ah0GAW5Y1FHBxyNpei%2FPuyQetwcqQUN8BS
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/11/new-york-art-gallery-that-sells-hunter-bidens-work-received-500000-in-federal-covid-loans/
-
"Investigations by several nonpartisan watchdog groups, however, have confirmed that Berges’ $350,000 loan was by far the largest one received by any art gallery in New York City."
nothing to see here folks
https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/georges-berg%C3%A9s-gallery-new-york?select=Oz2-lbjAYJmTeUd4l_i9Zg
funny I don't see the Berges Gallery
even listed under NYC art galleries:
https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/georges-berg%C3%A9s-gallery-new-york?select=Oz2-lbjAYJmTeUd4l_i9Zg
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/83419-trump-hating-traitors-nabbed-2021-10-13?mailing_id=6193&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.6193&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
-
"Whatever happened to seeking the death penalty for traitors?"
my thoughts exactly! let's see how much time they get.
"Regardless, maybe our nation would be better off if Joe Biden, Lloyd Austin, and Mark Milley spent a little less time searching for those 17 elusive white supremacists and instead paid a bit more attention to rooting out the America-hating leftist traitors in our midst."
yes
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/lying-not-information-seth-rich-years-fbi-admits-interviewing-third-party-2018-related-seth-rich-murder/?fbclid=IwAR2XqJlX4kAJ1iCSsWtYtu7FSbvKnwmth6dF9Of0Deko2NFBRCuy0VWGyfw
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8vzztBISE
Passed on to me by a retired border cop.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/andrew-cuomo-ordered-to-turn-over-5-1-million-book-profit-to-new-york-state/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=26041011
-
https://conservativebrief.com/liberal-3-58201/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=PP
***The DOJ added that they “did so to gain direct access to unsuspecting high-level political figures to further their professional endeavors: in the defendant’s case, out of a desire to lobby on behalf and advance the interests of his client, the government of the United Arab Emirates; in Khawaja’s case, in the hopes of securing a political appointment in the future.”***
a 24/7 function with the Clintons their entire careers
"It’s not clear if Clinton was aware of Nader’s actions at the time or whether she knew he had pleaded guilty to the scheme prior to the Washington Examiner’s reporting.
Well gee, lets go ask them or their mob lawyers. :roll:
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397648.php
-
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/aoc-congress-stock-trading-153940351.html
:-o
-
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/aoc-congress-stock-trading-153940351.html
That would be a nice line item for the 2022 Republican contract with America. These people can participate in the stock market and in these companies just fine through index funds and mutual funds at the likes of T Rose Price et al without directly touching any publicly held, individual stocks while they are in power.
-
Biden executive order to pay off unions
I cannot think of any better way to increase construction costs to taxpayers:
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-biden-sign-executive-order-232936261.html
sleazy for sure
Biden proves again he is a total scumbucket
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/8/inspector-general-investigating-capitol-police-aft/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=LpUoC6woQsJVyLkKhycQCv9dSHS9usfA7fGASPPj%2BSKC53PdCJIDwmmFz7iTcsYF&bt_ts=1644346166339
-
What say we?
=========================
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html?fbclid=IwAR0oEuGcfjLNGlCZfp1bkRGxji9_1BvpjkSP9R5h-Y3oYwZnDJBqLnjV1UE
Before Giving Billions to Jared Kushner, Saudi Investment Fund Had Big Doubts
Before committing $2 billion to Mr. Kushner’s fledgling firm, officials at a fund led by the Saudi crown prince questioned taking such a big risk.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia with Jared Kushner, a close ally during the Trump administration, and Ivanka Trump.Credit...Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Give this article
David D. KirkpatrickKate Kelly
By David D. Kirkpatrick and Kate Kelly
April 10, 2022
Six months after leaving the White House, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince, a close ally during the Trump administration, despite objections from the fund’s advisers about the merits of the deal.
A panel that screens investments for the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund cited concerns about the proposed deal with Mr. Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, previously undisclosed documents show.
Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30.
But days later the full board of the $620 billion Public Investment Fund — led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler and a beneficiary of Mr. Kushner’s support when he worked as a White House adviser — overruled the panel.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Ethics experts say that such a deal creates the appearance of potential payback for Mr. Kushner’s actions in the White House — or of a bid for future favor if Mr. Trump seeks and wins another presidential term in 2024.
Mr. Kushner played a leading role inside the Trump administration defending Crown Prince Mohammed after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that he had approved the 2018 killing and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi columnist for The Washington Post and resident of Virginia who had criticized the kingdom’s rulers.
ImageMr. Kushner and Crown Prince Mohammed in 2020. Ethics experts say that the investment deal creates the appearance of potential payback.
Mr. Kushner and Crown Prince Mohammed in 2020. Ethics experts say that the investment deal creates the appearance of potential payback.Credit...Saudi Press Agency, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The Saudi fund agreed to invest twice as much and on more generous terms with Mr. Kushner than it did at about the same time with former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — who was also starting a new fund — even though Mr. Mnuchin had a record as a successful investor before entering government, the documents show. The amount of the investment in his firm, Liberty Strategic Capital — $1 billion — has not been previously disclosed.
A spokesman for Mr. Kushner’s firm said of its relationship with the Saudi Public Investment Fund, “Affinity, like many other top investment firms, is proud to have PIF and other leading organizations that have careful screening criteria, as investors.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
A spokesman for the Saudi fund declined to comment on its investment process. If any additional discussions about the deal took place, they were not reflected in the documents and correspondence obtained by The New York Times.
The Times reported last fall that Mr. Kushner had been seeking a Saudi investment. Now, the internal fund records and correspondence obtained by The Times show the outcome, scale and timing of his firm’s deal as well as the debate it aroused. Those documents and other filings indicate that at this point Mr. Kushner’s venture depends primarily on the Saudi money.
Mr. Kushner planned to raise up to $7 billion in all, according to a document prepared last summer for the Saudi fund’s board. But so far he appears to have signed up few other major investors.
In its most recent public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, dated March 31, Mr. Kushner’s firm reported that its main fund had $2.5 billion under management, almost entirely from investors based overseas. Most of that appears to be the $2 billion from Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi documents obtained by The Times say that in return for its investment, the Saudi fund would receive a stake of at least 28 percent in Mr. Kushner’s main investment vehicle.
No law or rules constrain the investment activities of former administration officials after leaving the White House; many from both parties have profited from connections and experiences gained in government.
But Robert Weissman, president of the nonprofit group Public Citizen, called Mr. Kushner’s relationship with the Saudis “extremely troubling,” arguing that his stance toward the kingdom’s leadership as a senior adviser “makes the business partnership appear even more to be both a reward to, and an investment in, Kushner.”
Editors’ Picks
These Birds Form a Trio, but Probably Not a Throuple
An Art Revolution, Made With Scissors and Glue
Broadway Bets Big on a Spring Rebound. Will the Virus Cooperate?
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Saudi officials say that the kingdom’s Public Investment Fund, which also holds stakes in the ride-sharing company Uber and the Newcastle United Football Club in Britain, operates autonomously, with an elaborate governance structure that includes the investment panel. But Prince Mohammed took control of the fund when he rose to power in 2015 and he is its paramount decision maker.
Mr. Kushner, whose fund has not publicly disclosed a theme or focus, has little experience or track record in private equity. Before working in the White House, he ran his family’s commercial real estate empire, sometimes with disappointing results. His best-known deal was the $1.8 billion purchase of the office tower at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, in 2007; the building’s mortgage became a crippling liability when the recession hit the next year.
Diplomats, investors and ethics experts noted during the Trump administration that his anticipated return to the family business injected a potential conflict of interest into Mr. Kushner’s relationship with Prince Mohammed and other oil-wealthy Arab royals. Many are major long-term investors in American real estate, and the Kushner family had courted them before.
Got a confidential news tip?
The New York Times would like to hear from readers who want to share messages and materials with our journalists.
Learn More
While advising Mr. Trump, Mr. Kushner developed a friendship and informal alliance with the Saudi crown prince. Prince Mohammed signaled that he favored closer relations between Israel and the Arab monarchs of the Persian Gulf, which was also one of Mr. Kushner’s priorities while in the Trump administration. He helped negotiate a series of agreements, called the Abraham Accords, opening diplomatic relations between Israel and other Arab monarchies. After leaving government, he set up a nonprofit to promote economic and other ties between the countries.
In Washington, Mr. Kushner had also helped broker $110 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia over 10 years. He helped protect those and other weapons deals from congressional outrage over the murder of Mr. Khashoggi and the humanitarian catastrophe created by the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen.
The debate within the Saudi fund over investing with Mr. Kushner was a stark contrast to the easy approval of the proposal by Mr. Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner who invested in numerous Hollywood films, including “The Lego Movie,” and helped resurrect a failing California bank before entering government.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Mnuchin’s fund is focused on cybersecurity, financial technology and entertainment — all sectors that fit Saudi priorities, according to an executive summary prepared by the fund’s staff. The summary noted that Mr. Mnuchin’s work at the Treasury gave him “significant access toward understanding the future of the U.S. financial system,” and the firm’s founders had “deep experience at some of the highest levels of the U.S. regulatory system” overseeing and monitoring its industries.
Image
Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also got an investment from the Saudi fund for his new venture — though not as large, or on terms as favorable, as Mr. Kushner’s.
Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also got an investment from the Saudi fund for his new venture — though not as large, or on terms as favorable, as Mr. Kushner’s.Credit...Iman Al-Dabbagh for The New York Times
As Treasury secretary, Mr. Mnuchin had also chaired a committee responsible for vetting certain merger deals with foreign companies; the summary said he had “shaped” the new fund to accommodate investment from foreign governments like the kingdom.
In its most recent filing, dated March 31, Mr. Mnuchin’s firm reported raising $2.7 billion from a total of 33 investors. Most of the money came from abroad, and the Saudi documents say that other Persian Gulf states also invested.
A spokesman for Liberty Strategic Capital said the firm “has a diverse investor base including U.S. insurance companies, family offices, sovereign wealth funds, and other institutional investors.”
Both Mr. Kushner’s and Mr. Mnuchin’s funds treated the Saudi fund as a “cornerstone” investor, the Public Investment Fund documents say, offering the Saudis a discount on the standard 2 percent asset management fee for private equity firms as well as a cut of the firm’s 20 percent share of any fund profits, known as carried interest.
But the Saudis agreed to pay Mr. Mnuchin’s firm only a 1 percent asset management fee, compared to 1.25 percent for Mr. Kushner’s, the documents indicate. On a $2 billion investment, that would pay his firm $25 million a year, not including a share of any profits earned by the Affinity fund.
Both firms agreed to open regional offices in Riyadh, which the Saudi government says it will soon require of any international company doing business with the kingdom.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
The five-member board investment committee evaluating Mr. Kushner’s proposal referred to it with the code name Project Astro. The panel was led by Yasir al-Rumayyan, a Harvard Business School graduate who is also chairman of Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil giant. The panel also included Andrew Liveris, the Australian-born former chief executive of the Dow Chemical Company, and Ayman al-Sayari, the vice chairman of the Saudi Central Bank.
Image
Yasir al-Rumayyan, chairman of Saudi Aramco, led the panel screening the Kushner investment.
Yasir al-Rumayyan, chairman of Saudi Aramco, led the panel screening the Kushner investment.Credit...Ahmed Yosri/Reuters
A panel member identified in the minutes as Dr. al-Mojel — possibly Ibrahim al-Mojel, the chairman of the Saudi Industrial Development Fund, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford — asked before the June 30, 2021, meeting about the justification for investing in Mr. Kushner’s fund. “Why is the strategic benefit worth the risk?” he asked, according to printed responses.
The responses, apparently prepared by staff of the Saudi fund, argued that the promised Riyadh office of Mr. Kushner’s firm, Affinity, would help the Saudis “capitalize on the capabilities of Affinity’s founders’ deep understanding of different government policies and geopolitical systems.”
Why aren’t there any significant institutional investors from the US?
The Affinity principal would like to avoid media attention at this time. Accordingly, Affinity has approached international institutional investors on a very discreet basis (especially PIF as Affinity’s cornerstone LP) to anchor the launch of their inaugural fund.
Saudi staff wrote that Mr. Kushner was trying to avoid attention by initially courting only international institutions like the Saudi Public Investment Fund for his new venture.
Source: Minutes of the Board Investment Committee of the Saudi Public Investment Fund, June 30, 2021
The explanation for the absence of any American institutional investors in Mr. Kushner’s fund was that he “would like to avoid media attention,” the written responses said. “Accordingly, Affinity has approached international investors on a very discreet basis.”
Mr. Kushner’s lack of private equity experience and the “unsatisfactory” results of due diligence reviews conducted on behalf of the Saudi fund “are valid and important concerns,” the responses acknowledged, but they attributed the findings to the fact that he was still setting up the infrastructure for his company.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
What’s more, the responses added, the Saudi fund had “partially mitigated these risks”: The Saudis had stipulated that Mr. Kushner’s firm could draw down only $500 million of the $2 billion commitment before “having a qualified investment team in place, on-boarding core operational professionals and constructing the investment committee.”
The expertise of the [general partner] isn’t relevant to the objective of the fund. Even the case studies presented focused on real estate only. Also, the operational [due diligence] shows that they are unsatisfactory in all aspects.
These are valid and important concerns. These risks have been flagged and detailed in the investment memo, including the risk of the Principal having limited experience in private equity and the inability for Affinity to provide any quantifiable investment track-record for their founding team.
Responding to objections raised about the $2 billion investment in Mr. Kushner’s fund, staff of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund acknowledged that he lacked a track record in private equity.
Source: Minutes of the Board Investment Committee of the Saudi Public Investment Fund, June 30, 2021
(Late last year, Mr. Kushner hired two experienced private equity investors, Bret Pearlman and Asad Naqvi; the recent securities filing states that Affinity Partners now has a staff of 20, about half of whom are investment professionals.)
Even after reading the responses, Mr. Liveris, the former Dow Chemical chief executive, and Mr. al-Sayari, of the Saudi Central bank, added their own doubts along with Dr. al-Mojel’s. Mr. al-Rumayyan, the panel chairman and top executive of the Saudi fund, appeared to concur, according to the minutes. The panel members did not respond to requests for comment or could not be reached.
The minutes record that all four panel members attending the meeting “stated that they are not in favor of Project Astro.” The panel’s rules require the votes of a majority of those present to pass a resolution, the minutes note. Mr. al-Rumayyan, in this case, suggested raising the panel’s “views and decision” to the fund’s board, led by the crown prince.
But within days, the board had passed a resolution approving the deal, documents show.
In a letter dated last July 5, fund staff explained to a board member who had questioned the size of the investment why it could not be cut back.
“This investment aims to form a strategic relationship with the Affinity Partners Fund and its founder, Jared Kushner,” the letter said. A reduction of the size of its $2 billion stake “may negatively or fundamentally affect the framework of the agreed strategic and commercial relationship.”
David D. Kirkpatrick is an investigative reporter based in New York and the author of “Into the Hands of the Soldiers: Freedom and Chaos in Egypt and the Middle East.“ In 2020 he shared a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on covert Russian interference in other governments and as the Cairo bureau chief from 2011 to 2015 he led coverage of the Arab Spring uprisings. @ddknyt • Facebook
Kate Kelly covers money, influence, and policy as a correspondent in the Washington bureau of the Times. Before that, she spent twenty years covering Wall Street deals, key players and their intersection with politics. She is the author of three books, including "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh." @katekelly
-
It's different than Hunter's deals but creates the same appearances. Only in this case it will be covered and Hunter's was just Russian disinformation.
Saudis turned anti-US under Biden. There is the bad Iran deal pending and also the Khashoggi murder destroying a necessary relationship.
'No laws broken' means this will not stop Trump from running nor his opponents from calling it corruption.
We want politicians to return to the private sector after public service and the business world is now global. Funds want money and the Saudis have that.
It's a bit like the Clinton crony network roaming the markets of the world that never seemed to offend Dems. But without double standards, they'd have none.
-
I can see that it is different in that it came about AFTER Trump left office, but
a) it can be argued that it was a payoff for work already performed; and
b) how is it different from what Hillary/Billary did while she was out of office? Is there not the same forward looking nature to the deal?
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/beijings-elite-capture-strategy-was-a-success-peter-schweizer_4407071.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-04-17-3&utm_medium=email&est=sHvOE0mtapQ1uHJ9kNxc1IG8IfFpF%2B1STOlS%2FLQyjkoh%2BbOuIV0BXFna3bYhvVt%2FKPTA
-
https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/21/newly-obtained-emails-raise-questions-about-department-of-defense-involvement-in-spygate/
Just the tip of the iceberg.
-
".https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/21/newly-obtained-emails-raise-questions-about-department-of-defense-involvement-in-spygate/ "
so DARPA was involved in finding out who hacked the DNC
not necessarily
wrong, though they apparently lied and covered it up.
that said do we even know. WHO HACKED THE DNC?
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/paying-buffalos-bills/
Ruddy Guliani was discussing this corruption on his marvelous radio broadcast last week
( https://wabcradio.com/show/rudy-giuliani/ )
he states the corruption in NY state is top to bottom
the Dems in total control too long.........
-
https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/14/richard-blumenthal-intel-stocks-competes-ethics/?utm_medium=email&pnespid=qLs.AzxGJLkV1_DDo2quApieuBz.WpZzfOjnmfN28hBm9w_EnSqa4UqVTh0XGO9uh4.vvsph
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/james-baker-believed-sussmann-presented-160307762.html
of course
he wants a job at the firm
he teaches at HAVard of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Baker_(government_attorney)
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/06/who_really_killed_seth_rich.html
I'm so old, I remember when this was a conspiracy theory!
"For the theory to be true, its believers have to demonstrate that Rich leaked to WikiLeaks, that someone in the DNC (or the Clinton camp) in turn had Rich murdered, that the D.C. police are intentionally slow-walking the investigation, that the major intelligence agencies (namely the CIA, FBI, and NSA) are together either deliberately concocting a story about Russian interference or too stupid to recognize an inside job, and finally, that the remainder of official Washington is either oblivious to or colluding with conspirators who’ve damaged relations with Russia in hopes of bringing down a president."
The Facts of the Seth Rich Murder That Don’t Support Conspiracy Theories
Our David French with what needs to be known and said about the murder of Seth Rich:
The conspiracy is based on a true event — the terrible and unsolved murder of Seth Rich, a young Democratic National Committee staffer. Early the morning on July 10, an unidentified assailant shot Rich in the back. The police haven’t solved the crime, and their current best theory is that the attack occurred as part of a botched or interrupted robbery. Rich’s valuables, however, were still on his body, and the police (so far as we know) have no leads…
For the theory to be true, its believers have to demonstrate that Rich leaked to WikiLeaks, that someone in the DNC (or the Clinton camp) in turn had Rich murdered, that the D.C. police are intentionally slow-walking the investigation, that the major intelligence agencies (namely the CIA, FBI, and NSA) are together either deliberately concocting a story about Russian interference or too stupid to recognize an inside job, and finally, that the remainder of official Washington is either oblivious to or colluding with conspirators who’ve damaged relations with Russia in hopes of bringing down a president. Oh, and did I mention that the family of the slain young man is also either in on the conspiracy or unaware of its existence?
Rich’s parents write in the Washington Post today:
The circumstances of what happened next are still unclear. We know that Seth was abruptly confronted on the street, that he had been on the phone and quickly ended the call. We also know that there were signs of a struggle, including a watchband torn when the assailants attempted to rip it off his wrist. Law-enforcement officials told us that Seth’s murder looked like a botched robbery attempt in which the assailants — after shooting our son — panicked, immediately ran and abandoned Seth’s personal belongings. We have seen no evidence, by any person at any time, that Seth’s murder had any connection to his job at the Democratic National Committee or his life in politics. Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.
… We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.
The fact that Rich’s valuables weren’t taken was indeed odd, but it’s hardly unthinkable that his assailant panicked and ran after the shooting. The Washington, D.C., police failing to generate leads is not the least bit surprising. In 2015, the D.C. police solved only 62 percent of the city’s homicides. The closure rate has been as high as 96 percent in 2011 and as low as 60.5 percent in 2003.
Then again, what makes someone believe in a conspiracy theory is not facts, but a need to believe.
-
dropped?
https://republicbrief.com/more-to-the-story-jesse-watters-drops-bombshell-live-on-air-about-paul-pelosis-arrest/
is this true?
-
https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/15/exclusive-watchdog-john-hickenlooper-senate-stock-filing/?utm_medium=email&pnespid=sOZgFiQfL7oHyPaYqDa3CcmQpk2qVoYsIrTt3vc19Bhm0YqvQHspHnRvLWTXVm38swZ8kQxr
-
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-army-soldier-pleads-guilty-attempting-murder-fellow-service-members-deadly-ambush?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Extremist%20Roundup%202022-06-30%20SIB&utm_medium=email
https://www.justsecurity.org/71470/the-surprising-convergence-between-neo-nazis-and-jihadis/?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Extremist%20Roundup%202022-06-30%20SIB&utm_medium=email
-
When Corruption Grows [Joe Mannix]
—Open Blogger
Much ink has been spilled - including by me - about the deplorable state of integrity within the government and other institutions. The institutions are hopelessly corrupt and operate for their own benefit and without any checks or balances. They take as take can, and to hell with the consequences. Those consequences are largely paid for by the little people or those who fall out of favor. It's classical Party corruption and our institutions and systems are lousy with it.
Our institutions are so full of corruption that it isn't unreasonable to call it total. Every major institution from the government agencies and legislatures and courts to the universities to the major corporations to the NGOs to the school boards and so on down the line is hopelessly, even diabolically corrupt. What we have in this country (and what is present in many other countries) is essentially total institutional corruption. It is systemic corruption in that all official systems of size are corrupted. This is not good by any means, but it could be worse - and we'll get there if the trend continues.
The flip side of total systemic corruption is that some things - things outside the major power system - are not corrupt. Daily life is not too bad in this regard. You can go to the supermarket and be reasonably confident that you will get what it says you'll get on the tin. The odds of being ripped off by a random stranger aren't terribly worse now than they used to be. The level of fraud, theft, abuse, etc. between and among people and during the routine work of daily life is not the defining characteristic of everyday interactions. In this regard, our total systemic corruption intersects with the wider population arbitrarily and with no mercy, but things are okay until the evil eye of the corrupt falls on you.
The next stage from systemic corruption is what I call endemic corruption - the condition where all things are corrupt in all respects and between all people at all times. In such an environment, none of the normal honesty of daily life is present. You buy food and find that it is fake and the package is either empty or it contains some ersatz food. You buy a house and find that it falls apart moments after you move in. You buy goods and find that they are counterfeit. The reports you use at work are all doctored and the company transparently lies about everything they do. Everything from financial statements to pollution controls to mileage to the octane content of gasoline is fabricated. The machinery with which you interact is manipulated to count high for things you buy and low for things where you get paid. Your money is stolen and contracts are unfulfilled. You can spin the wheel in the courts, but then the official corruption intersects and if you're not in favor, you lose. Party favor gives some the right to behave with impunity in all aspects of life, and the rest just have to get abused.
And become abusers. In a world without morality in a condition of endemic corruption when everything from weights and measures to ingredient lists to business practices are a lie, only a sucker tries to follow the rules. You get ripped off, sure, but you're not above ripping someone else off. Survival is survival. You might not like it, but you'll probably do it - especially when your boss tells you to go ahead and use timber to reinforce concrete instead of steel, or else be fired. The problem compounds with each turn of the crank. The primary problem to be solved is no longer "how do I do the right thing" but rather "how do I not get caught?" Societies with endemic corruption are, in a word, exploitative. Everyone exploits everyone else at all times.
If you want a vision of how such a world looks, cast your sight across the Pacific to Red China. For as bad as a lot of the crap they export is, the domestic market is often worse. Fake food, fake construction, fake goods, fake measures, fake numbers, fake everything. If you're Party-connected (in the right faction), there are no rules in any venue. If you're not, your job is to be harvested until you tap out. We are not anything like that far along in this country. In terms of law, the Party-connected can do anything they want but it doesn't yet extend downstream to everything like it does in places further along the corruption curve.
And so what happens in such an environment? Universal pain, exploitation and hopelessness. That has its own consequences, which can be seen through some fringe movements in Red China like "lying flat" (doing nothing above intermittent subsistence labor - similar to the "anti-work" concept floated in this country, but with a wildly different motivation) to people referring to themselves as "leeks" or "chives," depending on translation (people who grow to be harvested and regrown and harvested again) and, more distressingly, arguing that the current generation should be the last. "I am the last generation" or "I will give birth to no more leeks" is the ultimate black-pill attitude. A quote I heard that was attributed to a young Chinese office worker seems to sum up the essential problem fairly well: "everyone hurts me and I hurt everyone."
Endemic corruption is evidence of general moral degradation along with with legal and institutional illegitimacy. The people who live in such a condition are regularly and routinely abused and regularly and routinely engage in abuse themselves. This will continue until hope is lost. For Red China's sake, I hope those fringe elements remain fringe and that some degree of honesty can emerge. For our sake, I hope we learn the lesson that Red China can provide and avoid the problems of endemic corruption. Our systemic corruption, if not contained and reversed, will flow downstream and take us to a very rotten place.
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/financial-boon-aoc-squad-members-biden-cancels-student-debt
-
Just one turd in the massive cesspool of DC corruption.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/financial-boon-aoc-squad-members-biden-cancels-student-debt
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-prosecutors-drop-charges-colbert-team-members-arrested-capitol?utm_source=browser_push&utm_medium=onesignal&utm_campaign=push_notifications
-
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/400090.php
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-prosecutors-drop-charges-colbert-team-members-arrested-capitol?utm_source=browser_push&utm_medium=onesignal&utm_campaign=push_notifications
-
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/07/20/capitol-police-release-damning-facts-slam-doj-decision-to-not-charge-the-colbert-nine-n598358
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/400090.php
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-prosecutors-drop-charges-colbert-team-members-arrested-capitol?utm_source=browser_push&utm_medium=onesignal&utm_campaign=push_notifications
-
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2022
There Won't Be Any Winners Because The Status Quo Is Corrupt Everywhere
Systemic corruption on this vast scale optimizes failure and collapse.
Debating which nations will "win" as the global economy unravels is a popular but pointless parlor game. Since the status quo in every nation is deeply, profoundly, systemically corrupt, there won't be any "winners," there will only be losers.
Apologists love to say that corruption has always come hand-in-hand with power, and this is superficially true. Once a centralized hierarchy takes power, those seeking self-glorification and wealth seek power as a means to their self-enrichment and glorification.
Naturally, they use their power to reward those who helped them gain power and those helping them maintain power. So a small Texas contractor who contributed to Lyndon Johnson's political career was awarded immense contracts to build bases in Vietnam during Johnson's vast expansion of the Vietnam War. It's just business, right?
But this naive, superficial normalization of corruption ignores the consequential difference between two types of corruption. One kind is directing cushy positions and contracts to cronies: well-paid positions on boards are given to pals, fat contracts are awarded to political allies, and so on. The point here is that somebody was going to get the cushy position and the fat contract anyway, and so the corruption is in who gets the gravy.
This level of corruption has a systemic cost. Bribes paid to secure contracts and subsidies act as a "tax" on the economy, as the bribes add expense but do not deliver any improvement in quality or quantity. When the most qualified candidate or firm is passed over to favor an unqualified crony or ally, the loss in effectiveness is consequential, though more difficult to measure.
The systemically destructive type of corruption is on a completely different level. Systemic corruption deforms the core economic functions of governance and capital to enrich insiders at the expense of the national interest and the common good.
When corruption hollows out a nation's military capabilities, that undermines national security. When shoddily built equipment is stripped of valuable parts (to be sold on the black market) to the point it's no longer of any military value, corruption has a cost that is incalculable until it's too late to repair the rot. When armament contracts are given to build inferior weapons systems to benefit cronies, corruption has optimized losing the next war.
When corruption is the deciding factor in distributing the nation's capital, that mal-investment of irreplaceable resources in unproductive projects fatally undermines the entire economy. When corruption funnels national resources into poorly built bridges to nowhere ghost cities and monuments to excess, there are opportunity costs that can never be recovered, for all that capital and labor could have been invested productively.
Corruption becomes fatal when those in power are no longer able to distinguish the difference between self-interest and the national interest. Systemic corruption blurs the lines and persuades those in power that their self-enrichment and power grabs are serving the national interest.
The truth is their distorting the system to maximize their private gain cannot possibly serve the national interest or the common good. It's one thing to reward a long-serving crony by appointing the pal to a cushy no-real-work-required position on a crony-filled board with little actual power. It's another to distort the distribution of irreplaceable capital and resources to maximize the self-enrichment of the corrupt few as the expense of the many.
Systemic corruption on this vast scale optimizes failure and collapse.
In my book Global Crisis, National Renewal, I argue that the only nations that will survive the transition from a waste is growth economy will be those which embrace Degrowth. We can also say that only those nations which succeed in limiting systemic corruption will have the means to invest their nation's dwindling resources productively.
Since no nation is exhibiting any consequential interest in either Degrowth or eradicating systemic corruption, there will be no "winners", there will only be losers. While the status quo careens into decay and collapse, at least we can enrich ourselves by chasing the Pelosi Portfolio.
When Corruption Grows [Joe Mannix]
—Open Blogger
Much ink has been spilled - including by me - about the deplorable state of integrity within the government and other institutions. The institutions are hopelessly corrupt and operate for their own benefit and without any checks or balances. They take as take can, and to hell with the consequences. Those consequences are largely paid for by the little people or those who fall out of favor. It's classical Party corruption and our institutions and systems are lousy with it.
Our institutions are so full of corruption that it isn't unreasonable to call it total. Every major institution from the government agencies and legislatures and courts to the universities to the major corporations to the NGOs to the school boards and so on down the line is hopelessly, even diabolically corrupt. What we have in this country (and what is present in many other countries) is essentially total institutional corruption. It is systemic corruption in that all official systems of size are corrupted. This is not good by any means, but it could be worse - and we'll get there if the trend continues.
The flip side of total systemic corruption is that some things - things outside the major power system - are not corrupt. Daily life is not too bad in this regard. You can go to the supermarket and be reasonably confident that you will get what it says you'll get on the tin. The odds of being ripped off by a random stranger aren't terribly worse now than they used to be. The level of fraud, theft, abuse, etc. between and among people and during the routine work of daily life is not the defining characteristic of everyday interactions. In this regard, our total systemic corruption intersects with the wider population arbitrarily and with no mercy, but things are okay until the evil eye of the corrupt falls on you.
The next stage from systemic corruption is what I call endemic corruption - the condition where all things are corrupt in all respects and between all people at all times. In such an environment, none of the normal honesty of daily life is present. You buy food and find that it is fake and the package is either empty or it contains some ersatz food. You buy a house and find that it falls apart moments after you move in. You buy goods and find that they are counterfeit. The reports you use at work are all doctored and the company transparently lies about everything they do. Everything from financial statements to pollution controls to mileage to the octane content of gasoline is fabricated. The machinery with which you interact is manipulated to count high for things you buy and low for things where you get paid. Your money is stolen and contracts are unfulfilled. You can spin the wheel in the courts, but then the official corruption intersects and if you're not in favor, you lose. Party favor gives some the right to behave with impunity in all aspects of life, and the rest just have to get abused.
And become abusers. In a world without morality in a condition of endemic corruption when everything from weights and measures to ingredient lists to business practices are a lie, only a sucker tries to follow the rules. You get ripped off, sure, but you're not above ripping someone else off. Survival is survival. You might not like it, but you'll probably do it - especially when your boss tells you to go ahead and use timber to reinforce concrete instead of steel, or else be fired. The problem compounds with each turn of the crank. The primary problem to be solved is no longer "how do I do the right thing" but rather "how do I not get caught?" Societies with endemic corruption are, in a word, exploitative. Everyone exploits everyone else at all times.
If you want a vision of how such a world looks, cast your sight across the Pacific to Red China. For as bad as a lot of the crap they export is, the domestic market is often worse. Fake food, fake construction, fake goods, fake measures, fake numbers, fake everything. If you're Party-connected (in the right faction), there are no rules in any venue. If you're not, your job is to be harvested until you tap out. We are not anything like that far along in this country. In terms of law, the Party-connected can do anything they want but it doesn't yet extend downstream to everything like it does in places further along the corruption curve.
And so what happens in such an environment? Universal pain, exploitation and hopelessness. That has its own consequences, which can be seen through some fringe movements in Red China like "lying flat" (doing nothing above intermittent subsistence labor - similar to the "anti-work" concept floated in this country, but with a wildly different motivation) to people referring to themselves as "leeks" or "chives," depending on translation (people who grow to be harvested and regrown and harvested again) and, more distressingly, arguing that the current generation should be the last. "I am the last generation" or "I will give birth to no more leeks" is the ultimate black-pill attitude. A quote I heard that was attributed to a young Chinese office worker seems to sum up the essential problem fairly well: "everyone hurts me and I hurt everyone."
Endemic corruption is evidence of general moral degradation along with with legal and institutional illegitimacy. The people who live in such a condition are regularly and routinely abused and regularly and routinely engage in abuse themselves. This will continue until hope is lost. For Red China's sake, I hope those fringe elements remain fringe and that some degree of honesty can emerge. For our sake, I hope we learn the lesson that Red China can provide and avoid the problems of endemic corruption. Our systemic corruption, if not contained and reversed, will flow downstream and take us to a very rotten place.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/communist-chinese-firm-got-nearly-6-million-barrels-of-us-oil-reserves-through-auction-sale-records-show_4621191.html?utm_source=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-07-26&utm_medium=email&est=yqVfjPZpN2XMiCc%2BkmvBKwX7cpho5brweTOvcIhgnwUaa29g%2BI%2BsaPtQ8hxBvtFvUcqh
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11058953/Nancy-Paul-appear-taken-advantage-inside-information-ex-Dallas-Fed-President-says.html
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11058953/Nancy-Paul-appear-taken-advantage-inside-information-ex-Dallas-Fed-President-says.html
Gosh, because they are honest!!!!
:roll:
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/paul-pelosi-drug-system-tried-use-get-jail-free-card-dui-bust-report/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-7mU3SRKo&t=27s
-
Anyone surprised?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-7mU3SRKo&t=27s
-
https://michaelyon.locals.com/upost/2537955/pelosi-a-biden-in-heels
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/video-nancy-pelosis-son-also-board-member-of-energy-company-traveled-to-ukraine-and-nancy-featured-prominently-in-companys-ad/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/nancy-pelosi-travel-taiwan-increase-family-fortune-son/
-
very interesting...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdSz6wkJo04
-
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/3-men-charged-connection-death-215919036.html
not sure why this takes 4 yrs to find this out.
" He had suffered multiple heart attacks and was confined to a wheelchair, a source familiar with his condition told ABC News, leaving his attorneys puzzled over how Bulger's medical condition suddenly improved so much that he was able to move prisons.'
" Bulger's death inside the federal prison is just one high-profile death that has not seen resolution, another other being the suicide of Jeffery Epstein in a Manhattan lockup."
remember Epstein's suicide watch downgraded and he gets a cpap machine equipped with electric cord
then suddenly dies
and no cameras
all just incompetence !
-
This is why the feds killed Bulger:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/01/30/howie-carr-muellers-hands-dirty-in-old-fbi-frame-up/
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/3-men-charged-connection-death-215919036.html
not sure why this takes 4 yrs to find this out.
" He had suffered multiple heart attacks and was confined to a wheelchair, a source familiar with his condition told ABC News, leaving his attorneys puzzled over how Bulger's medical condition suddenly improved so much that he was able to move prisons.'
" Bulger's death inside the federal prison is just one high-profile death that has not seen resolution, another other being the suicide of Jeffery Epstein in a Manhattan lockup."
remember Epstein's suicide watch downgraded and he gets a cpap machine equipped with electric cord
then suddenly dies
and no cameras
all just incompetence !
-
can't read it
due to request for email
-
can't read it
due to request for email
Howie Carr: Mueller’s hands dirty in old FBI frame-up
RUMOURED RESULTS: Findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election are rumored to be announced after the Nov. 6 midterm elections. Associated Press file photo.
RUMOURED RESULTS: Findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election are rumored to be announced after the Nov. 6 midterm elections. Associated Press file photo.
By HOWIE CARR | howard.carr@medianewsgroup.com | Boston Herald
PUBLISHED: January 30, 2019 at 12:08 a.m. | UPDATED: January 30, 2019 at 6:35 a.m.
Roger Stone keeps talking about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s reprehensible behavior with the FBI in Boston way back when.
But I don’t think he or most people understand how bad Mueller’s actions were – “chilling,” is how a Clinton federal judge in 2006 described the former FBI director’s attempts to cover up a massive frame-up by Boston G-men decades earlier.
For the record, Mueller did not railroad four innocent men into prison – two onto death row – for a Chelsea murder they did not commit back in 1965.
Bio Scalp Psoriasis Ads
Biologic Scalp Psoriasis Treatments (You May Wish You Knew Them Sooner)
Symptoms and Treatments You May Wish You Knew Sooner For Biologic Scalp Psoriasis
SPONSORED BY BIO SCALP PSORIASIS ADS
Learn More
That frame job was handled by the Boston office of the FBI, where at one point at least six G-men were taking payoffs from organized crime. That information came from serial killer Stevie Flemmi, who last summer admitted in federal court to taking part in 50 murders.
Everyone knew the four men were innocent, but the FBI wanted them to rot in prison, so the scandal would not be revealed. In the 1980s, two U.S. attorneys in Boston wrote letters to the state demanding that the innocent men not be released, but Mueller, an interim U.S. attorney in 1986-87, did not write one. (At least I couldn’t find one.)
Making sure the innocent men remained in prison was mostly handled by two of the G-men on the mobsters’ payroll, Zip Connolly and John “Vino” Morris, who made sure they left no paper trails. They were hit men with badges — Morris set up a double murder for Whitey Bulger in 1982 in Southie, after which Vino was promoted to director of the FBI training academy in Quantico.
Meanwhile, Zip is doing 40 years in a Florida prison for another gangland hit, in Miami, set up by the same crooked fed who set up the 1965 frame-up.
This is the world of “law enforcement” that Robert Mueller operated in. Not everyone was crooked – just everyone who mattered.
Fast forward to 2006. Mueller is now the FBI director.
After 35 years in the can, two of the four innocent men are dead, the other two have finally been freed. The four men or their estates are suing the feds for wrongful imprisonment. It is not a frivolous lawsuit – they will eventually win a judgment of $102 million.
The plaintiffs – the victims – are trying to get the necessary information from the crooked FBI now run by Mueller about how they were framed. But Mueller absolutely stonewalls the release of the information.
Here’s a show-cause order I discovered last year from U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who presided over the civil case. The FBI was refusing to turn over the exonerating evidence to either the plaintiffs or the Justice Department, which was defending the FBI after its frame up.
Mueller’s stonewalling, Gertner wrote, was a “serious problem.”
“This is a case about, inter alia, informant abuse, about the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence bearing on the innocence of the four plaintiffs, about FBI agents allegedly ‘hiding the ball,’ not disclosing critical information that would have exonerated the plaintiffs, and not doing so, for 40 years.”
Think about that again – for 40 years, ever since the night of the murder, the FBI had known that these four guys were innocent, and yet they never stepped up to identify the real killers, because they were FBI rats. And Mueller’s FBI was prolonging the cover-up, the judge wrote.
“Given those accusations,” she wrote, “the position the FBI is taking is chilling … This Court is not remotely satisfied.”
Six days after Mueller was threatened with contempt, the feds filed this: “This matter has been brought to the personal attention of the Director of the FBI… (the innocent men and the DOJ) have been provided with unredacted copies of the FBI documents.”
And all it took to bring Mueller around to doing the right thing was the threat of a contempt citation by an ultra-liberal federal judge who went to Yale Law School with the Clintons.
Of course, that wasn’t the first time Mueller’s FBI tried to broom the scandal of the four framed men. In 2002, Mueller directed the G-men to oppose state pardons for the four men because the FBI’s own evidence that exonerated them was merely “fodder for cross-examination.”
Despite the FBI’s knowledge that the men, including Peter Limone, were innocent, Mueller’s FBI claimed to a state board that the incontrovertible exculpatory evidence “does not necessarily mean, however, that Limone or any of the other defendants is innocent – it merely means that they are entitled to a new trial.”
By the way, one of the innocent men, Louie Greco, was in Florida the night of the murder he was falsely convicted of. One of the crooked Boston FBI agents (who died in prison in Oklahoma while facing murder charges in another gangland hit) later bragged to a local gangster about their brilliant railroad:
“How does Louie Greco like going from Miami to death row? He wasn’t even there.”
This is your FBI, the organization that Bob Mueller was – and still is – trying to protect from being exposed as irredeemably corrupt.
Good luck, Roger Stone. You’re going to need it, despite your not guilty plea Tuesday.
Howie’s new book, “Kennedy Babylon Vol. 2,” is now available for immediate shipment at howiecarrshow.com.
Herald Talk.
A daily roundup of the day's top opinion and editorial pieces.
Sign Up
Privacy Policy
Tags: Howie CarrRobert MuellerRoger Stone
Author
Howie Carr | Columnist
Howie Carr has written two New York Times bestsellers, is a member of the National Radio Hall of Fame and has won a National Magazine Award. He hosts a syndicated daily four-hour radio show, two hours of which are simulcast on Newsmax TV. His website is howiecarrshow.com.
howard.carr@medianewsgroup.com
Join the Conversation
We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.
Sign up for email newsletters
SUBSCRIBE
Follow Us
SPONSORED CONTENT
These Gummies Will Kill Your Belly And Arm Fat Overnight!
By Nature Remedies Nature Remedies
Most Popular
TRENDING NOW
Howie Carr: Boston FBI office set the standard for incompetence
Stephen King takes the stand in fed fight against publishing world merger
Howie Carr: A case of hit and run … for office
Battenfeld: Arrogant Liz Cheney and her White House fantasy crushed by voters
Howie Carr: Mar-a-Lago raid latest Deep State run at Trump
Howie Carr: Biden’s superhero status tilts totally left
Howie Carr: Biden’s ‘zero percent’ inflation claim not based in reality
Former Massachusetts State Trooper indicted for responsibility in deadly 2021 car crash
President Biden tests positive for COVID-19 again, he said
OBF: Brady reputation takes a big hit
TRENDING NATIONALLY
R. Kelly’s former goddaughter breaks down at his federal trial
Stanford monkeypox case not sex-related, raising questions about transmission
California city is rated as ‘Happiest City in the U.S.’ in new study
6-year-old son of NBC reporter Richard Engel dies
Wife of missing Florida doctor filed for divorce same day he disappeared at sea
Hands Down The Top Credit Card of 2022
Here’s how you can get an easy $200 when you spend $500.
CompareCredit.com
|
Sponsored
Learn More
Now Legal In Nevada: The "Most Powerful" Relief Gummy
Health Headlines
|
Sponsored
Most Adults With Medicare Don't Know This (Check It Now)
Up To $900' Grocery Benefit Americans With Medicare Are Applying For Today
Qualify Medicare
|
Sponsored
Learn More
Business Owners With Bad Credit Are Getting Funded
Small Business Funding
|
Sponsored
Homeowners Are Trading In Their Doorbell Cams For This
Camerca
|
Sponsored
Learn More
MORE IN OPINION COLUMNISTS
Joe Biden ought to present Chinese Communist President Xi Jinping with a box of Snickers when they meet at an Asian conference in Bangkok in November.
Lucas: Biden working on his bowing to China
There is only one thing worse than a minor being indicted for attacking a school principal. It's a school principal being assaulted to unconsciousness by a minor.
Editorial: Children who commit crimes must be held accountable
Throughout history, no other country has come close to matching America's level of greatness. We in Boston have particular pride of place with the nation's cradle of liberty right in our backyard.
Walters: Cancel culture mustn’t diminish Boston’s rich history
Rideshare and delivery workers like myself are living in fear. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Call: Gig drivers deserve same rights & protections as any other worker
Boston Herald
SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTERS
e-Edition
Send a News Tip
CONTACT US
Boston Herald Store/Back Copies
Work With Us
Legal Notices
Privacy Policy
Accessibility
CLASSIFIEDS
Contests
Fun & Games
Jobs
BUSINESS DIRECTORY
Network Advertising
Adtaxi Solutions
FOLLOW US
SUBSCRIBE NOW
Copyright © 2022 MediaNews Group
Terms of Use
Cookie Policy
Arbitration
Powered by WordPress.com VIP
-
thanks
GM
did not remember this
obviously kept out of the news
sick......
Federal government cover up
..... typical day in and day out operating procedure
for the higher ups.....
-
Remember that Mueller was supposed to get Trump, and the media was pushing the narrative that Mueller was the embodiment of honor and integrity.
Whitey Bulger was in a position to counter that narrative with ugly stories of Boston corruption.
So he got a sudden transfer to a violent BOP facility and placed in general population to silence him forever.
Not accidental.
thanks
GM
did not remember this
obviously kept out of the news
sick......
Federal government cover up
..... typical day in and day out operating procedure
for the higher ups.....
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/inmates-suspected-of-involvement-in-murder-of-james-whitey-bulger-were-allegedly-aware-of-his-prison-transfer
Remember that Mueller was supposed to get Trump, and the media was pushing the narrative that Mueller was the embodiment of honor and integrity.
Whitey Bulger was in a position to counter that narrative with ugly stories of Boston corruption.
So he got a sudden transfer to a violent BOP facility and placed in general population to silence him forever.
Not accidental.
thanks
GM
did not remember this
obviously kept out of the news
sick......
Federal government cover up
..... typical day in and day out operating procedure
for the higher ups.....
-
Keep in mind that inmates being aware of the movements of ANY inmate, much less one of such serious security concerns as Whitey Bulger is a MAJOR security breach.
This was a set-up from the jump, and at high levels within the DOJ.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/inmates-suspected-of-involvement-in-murder-of-james-whitey-bulger-were-allegedly-aware-of-his-prison-transfer
Remember that Mueller was supposed to get Trump, and the media was pushing the narrative that Mueller was the embodiment of honor and integrity.
Whitey Bulger was in a position to counter that narrative with ugly stories of Boston corruption.
So he got a sudden transfer to a violent BOP facility and placed in general population to silence him forever.
Not accidental.
thanks
GM
did not remember this
obviously kept out of the news
sick......
Federal government cover up
..... typical day in and day out operating procedure
for the higher ups.....
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/steve-bannons-gravy-train-gets-derailed/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202022-09-11&utm_term=WIR-Smart
Note too that Bannon is the source of the assertion that 35 Trumpers are getting raided by the FBI , , ,
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11209689/97-members-Congress-families-bought-sold-stock-conflict-interest.html
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-green-initiatives-benefit-top-officials-family-members-with-ties-to-china-cybersecurity-expert_4725690.html?utm_source=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-09-15&utm_medium=email&est=CIqtU4FQnJb%2BBltdN7R27Q5GaEBo5ueNHiR1lxf%2FQ7hN3yCyZkQuZ7JLingjqO5I2n4r
US Green Initiatives Benefit Top Officials’ Family Members With Ties to China: Cybersecurity Expert
By Hannah Ng and Tiffany Meier September 14, 2022 Updated: September 14, 2022biggersmaller Print
0:00
4:06
1
As the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (pdf) seeks to spend some $369 billion toward energy and climate programs over the next 10 years, those green initiatives will mostly benefit family members of top officials with ties to the Chinese regime, according to Rex Lee, a cybersecurity adviser at My Smart Privacy.
“There’s concern … that potentially lawmakers and or their family members stand to benefit [greatly] from legislation that they have influence over and are creating policy and making laws in Washington DC,” Lee told the “China in Focus” program on NTD News, the sister media of The Epoch Times.
To prove this argument, he pointed to Tony Podesta, the brother of former Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta who recently joined the Biden administration to serve as a senior adviser on “clean energy innovation and implementation.”
John Podesta was tapped to “oversee implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act’s expansive clean energy and climate provisions and will chair the President’s National Climate Task Force in support of this effort,” the White House said on Sept. 2.
Yet, Tony Podesta, Lee said, “represents Huawei and their lobbying efforts go directly back to the White House, which means that … he has a direct line to [President] Joe Biden.”
“Huawei … is allowed to market in the United States as a result of having some of Trump and Obama’s executive orders repealed by the Biden administration,” he added.
The U.S. Department of Commerce officials in 2021 granted applications worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Chinese tech company Huawei—which was blacklisted under the Trump administration over national security concerns—to buy chips for its auto supply business.
“I think this is happening with green technology, as well … if you look at the lobbying efforts from the solar panel, panel manufacturers out of China, as well as the battery manufacturers out in China,” Lee opined.
The other conflict of interest that Lee further pointed out, arises from a lithium refining company in Pittsburgh, which has Paul Pelosi Jr., the son of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as a member of its Advisory Board.
Another company named by Lee is BHR, a Chinese private equity firm, in which Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden held a 10 percent stake as of last May, according to company records.
BHR is reportedly backed by major state financial institutions such as the Bank of China and the China Development Bank Capital.
Lee said that it is concerning when “these family members are going to benefit or these families or these lawmakers are going to benefit financially from the laws that they’re legislating.”
Energy Dependence
With Democrats rolling out plans to ban gas-powered cars, the demand for materials to produce EV batteries such as lithium and cobalt, is expected to surge.
That increasing demand would make America become even more energy dependent on China, according to the expert.
“Ninety-five percent of cobalt mining is done in Africa through Chinese companies that have worked with the governments in Africa to mine the cobalt over there,” Lee said.
“Sixty-two percent of lithium will flow back through China as well,” he added.
BYD Company, the Chinese electric car and battery giant, had reached an agreement to acquire six lithium mines in Africa, according to a May 2021 report from China’s The Paper.
Lee further called for Americans to raise the issue of these lobbying efforts with their lawmakers.
“You can look up what companies are lobbying what laws and then write your lawmaker about these things … and hold your lawmaker accountable,” Lee said.
“We shouldn’t allow any foreign company … any companies from other countries to lobby. And that in itself is a threat to the United States and our ability to compete, much less let companies from adversarial nations such as China and Russia,” he said.
The Epoch Times reached out to Pelosi’s office and the Biden administration for comment.
Anne Zhang and Dorothy Li contributed to this report.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/19/tuberville-chips-stock-biden-chip-bill/?utm_medium=email&pnespid=5uE_GjVVab8GxuHDvWjqD5ODs0yzX5RtNrC30_d2sxpmDtnJIL9cuqQNR8j3HkAPSi9n13Pd
-
AmINO: American In Name Only
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/20/house-democrats-kill-resolution-investigate-hunter-biden/
-
make up a Federal government position and place relative in post:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/29/biden-administration-appoints-ron-klains-wife-diplomat-for-plants-and-animals/
diplomat to get everyone to save 30% of planet for biodiversity and water .....
-
https://thewashingtonstandard.com/nancy-pelosis-son-now-implicated-in-biden-ukraine-pay-for-play-corruption/
-
I'm looking for citations of Pelosi's son grifting in Ukraine, and Romney's aide too.
https://www.oann.com/son-of-house-speaker-pelosi-made-money-in-ukraine-used-her-in-ads/
A lot of the cites have been scrubbed. It's almost like they are trying to cover things up.
Son Of House Speaker Pelosi Made Money In Ukraine, Used Her In Ads
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference and with local officials about Venezuelan democracy efforts on Thursday, Oct. 3, 2019, in Weston, Fla. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:35 PM PT – Friday, October 4, 2019
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may soon be facing similar allegations to Joe Biden. A recent report suggested Pelosi’s son Paul may have used her position to benefit financially. A promotional video from 2013 resurfaced on Thursday, brought to public attention by journalist Patrick Howley.
BOOM: Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE!
And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company!https://t.co/wlndLhPqLe
— Patrick Howley (@HowleyReporter) October 3, 2019
The video shows Nancy Pelosi speaking about her efforts in office to push for clean energy. Her message is followed by a promotional statement from her son Paul, who was a board member of Viscoil and an executive at its related company NRGLab.
“My name is Paul Pelosi…and Viscoil is here today to talk about accelerating the future,” said Pelosi Jr. “That’s what Viscoil does — it uses technology to maximize the use of natural resources, like oil and other resources.”
Pelosi’s son traveled to Ukraine in 2017 on behalf of the Corporate Governance Initiative, where he now serves as executive director. The official reason given for his visit was to discuss a youth soccer partnership program with the Ukrainian government, but clips of that trip have reportedly been removed from online.
One of those clips was saved by The American Mirror on Twitter.
2017 — What's really going on here? Nancy Pelosi's son in Ukraine to talk about "soccer"? pic.twitter.com/LCnF93Rgnc
— The American Mirror (@American_Mirror) September 27, 2019
Hunter Biden faces similar allegations, which claim he used his father’s position to make lucrative business deals in Ukraine and China.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11459511/Former-911-dispatcher-friend-Eric-Adams-earning-241-000.html
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/howls-outrage-after-new-york-times-confirms-sbf-speak-alongside-zelenskyy-yellen-dealbook?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1093
-
Biden's nonbinary head of nuclear waste admits to snatching luggage worth over $2,000 from airport
Sam Brinton, who was recently celebrated by the Biden Energy Department as the "first gender fluid person in the federal government," is facing felony charges and has been placed on leave after being caught allegedly stealing luggage at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport.
-
Congress people worried about being tied to him
Miranda Devine does it again :-D:
one legal system for us
then one for the elites:
https://nypost.com/2022/12/14/the-curious-timing-of-scammy-sam-bankman-frieds-crypto-bust/
and the MSM will mostly be silent ......
-
https://spectator.org/why-is-fbi-so-political/
-
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
December 24, 2022 6:30 AM
SBF gets to go home for the holidays, while prosecutors get to pretend that he had to put up $250 million for the privilege.
What may be even more interesting than the implosion of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX is the government’s choreography of the case against its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried.
Unquestionably, the noose is tightening around the 31-year-old erstwhile wunderkind known as SBF. When you’re charged with multiple felony-fraud counts that, combined, could land you well over 100 years in the slammer, and you arise from your jailhouse slumber only to find that your two main accomplices have pled guilty and are spilling the beans to prosecutors, well . . . it’s just not going to be a good day.
Looking on what little bright side there may be for SBF, though, he’s probably had worse stretches over the last few weeks. On Wednesday evening, he was being moved from his Bahamian captivity to custody in the United States when Damian Williams, the Biden-appointed Manhattan U.S. attorney, announced that his office, the Southern District of New York (SDNY), had struck plea bargains and cooperation agreements with SBF’s colleagues, Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang. But by Thursday afternoon, SBF was winging home to mom and dad for the holidays, a free man — or at least as free as he is apt to be for the next decade or four.
We discussed this bit of farce on the Corner, probably around the time SBF’s plane was touching down near his Stanford law-prof parents’ Palo Alto manse, where he will be on something loosely akin to house arrest for the next few weeks.
Two things are at play here.
The first is that, as we’ve detailed, the Justice Department is engaged in Biden’s signature “big f***ing deal” inflation. The SDNY got SBF to agree to sign a $250 million bail bond so it could portray the FTX fiasco as the biggest financial fraud in the history of the planet — but he did not have to post anything remotely close to that amount in collateral. DOJ might as well have claimed that he was on the hook for underwriting this week’s scandalous $1.7 trillion bipartisan budget blowout. To get sprung from custody, he would happily have signed a bail bond covering our $31 trillion national debt if the SDNY had told him to — and the resulting promissory note would have been about as real as the notion that FTX was once worth $31 billion. To be clear, I really don’t think SBF is going to flee. The fugitive’s life calls for a degree of derring-do and attention to detail that are, as his current predicament suggests, beyond him. But if he does take off, the amount he forfeits to Uncle Sam will be a lot closer to $250 than $250 million.
The second thing is mildly hilarious when you think about the Democratic-darling progressive prosecutors and their crusade against cash bail. SBF could have fought his extradition. He would have lost in the end, and it would have meant additional weeks or months of increasingly uncomfortable confinement (it may be “better in the Bahamas,” but not in the custody of the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services). But as it happened, the DOJ wanted his transfer for prosecution in Manhattan done rapidly, so he had some leverage. Clearly, the parties cut a deal in which SBF dropped his opposition to extradition and the SDNY agreed to put up only cursory resistance to his release on bail. Given that the DOJ has magnified the FTX/Alameda fraud scheme into the crime of the century — one in which countless investors have been fleeced of their life savings — and given that people such as the late Bernie Madoff have been sentenced to over a century of incarceration for such schemes, it would have been a bad look for the DOJ to let SBF out for a chintzy $10 million, the amount of Madoff’s bond in 2008. So now prosecutors get to say SBF had to put up $250 million to be released, when in reality, he didn’t have to put up anything close to that. Prosecutor Nicholas Roos crowed that it was “the largest ever” pretrial bond. On paper, perhaps, but not in reality. What it was, though, was an instance of the “system” (run by Democrats) letting a rich white guy (a Democrat) who donates lots of money to (mostly Democratic) politicians buy his way out of custody (i.e., cash bail, the bête noire of “everything is racist” Democrats).
TOP STORIES
Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Wrong about It’s a Wonderful Life
Martin McDonagh’s Brutalizing The Banshees of Inisherin
Biden’s Disgraceful Border Evasions
California Destroys Its Independent Truckers
House Passes $1.7 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill over Republican Objections
Florida Supreme Court Approves DeSantis’s Request for Grand Jury to Investigate Vaccines
Messrs. George Soros, Chesa Boudin, and Larry Krasner, please direct your complaints to the Honorable Merrick Garland, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., 20530.
The theater of SBF’s catch-and-release follows the peculiar timing of his indictment, which was unsealed just as he was about to be grilled by a congressional committee. As we’ve noted, such testimony — hours of hostile questioning under oath — is the sort of thing a prosecutor would ordinarily do everything in his power to facilitate, not forestall. But — surprise! — SDNY prosecutors did forestall it, thus canceling hours of nationally televised Republican queries about SBF’s version of Robin Hood: robbing the rich to give to Democrats.
More on
FTX
SBF Bail Set at $250M. Yeah, Right
Progressing to Nowhere
FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried to Be Released on $250 Million Bail to Parents’ Palo Alto Home
Chairwoman Maxine Waters, please direct your thank-you card to the Honorable Merrick Garland, etc., etc.
The guilty pleas were the final interesting twist in the case this week. Caroline Ellison, besides reportedly being SBF’s sometimes-girlfriend, was one of his business partners. Specifically, she was the CEO of Alameda Research, the firm to which he is alleged to have diverted FTX client funds and then to have exploited like a piggy bank for purposes of purchasing prime real estate and other luxury items, as well as insurance in the form of political donations. Gary Wang was FTX’s chief technology officer. Their guilty pleas cannot have been a surprise to SBF or anyone who read the indictment against him. Several of the counts accuse SBF of conspiracy, and it is black-letter criminal law that one cannot conspire alone, so there had to be coconspirators, and other charges had to be on the way.
As the SDNY’s press release related, Ellison pled guilty to seven counts and Wang to four counts. Many of these felony offenses carry sentences of up to 20 years, and the federal sentencing guidelines for ten-digit frauds are through the stratosphere (see, e.g., Guidelines Section 2B1.1). But when accomplices provide testimony that satisfies prosecutors, the latter may file motions that empower the judge to ignore the guidelines and impose a term of little or no prison time (see Guidelines Section 5K1.1).
Sadly for SBF, this requires having a bigger fish to hand prosecutors, and in this case, he himself is the biggest fish.
Here is the interesting part. As we explained last weekend, for all the chest-beating of the regulators, there are significant legal questions about whether the two relevant administrative agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, have enforcement jurisdiction over cryptocurrencies. So what has the SDNY done? To get their bargains, both Ellison and Wang were required to plead guilty to conspiracies to commit securities fraud and commodities fraud — charges that are also alleged in the SBF indictment. As part of their cooperation, Ellison and Wang also agreed to settle the civil lawsuits brought against them by the SEC and the CFTC.
More from
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
Close the Border over the National-Security Crisis, Not over a Phony Covid Emergency
The January 6 Committee’s Final Act: Pointless Criminal Referrals of Trump
That is to say, while Ellison and Wang may have had legitimate legal objections to raise against the securities- and commodities-fraud charges, the two accomplices decided it was best to plead guilty and give the SDNY, the SEC, and the CFTC the wins they wanted. Ellison and Wang can already argue that they’ve provided “substantial assistance” to the investigation (the standard for the aforementioned prosecutors’ motion that would allow the judge to give them lenient sentences). The government wants precedents from which it can argue that of course current law empowers it to regulate cryptocurrency — even as it presses for new laws making that power explicit (not coincidentally, the kind of laws SBF was wining and dining politicians and regulators to enact — since in Gomorrah-by-the-Potomac, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu).
The concessions made by SBF’s alleged coconspirators are not legally binding against him. He can still mount legal challenges to the charges against him. He does, however, face the prospect of a trial in which his two closest confederates would take the stand and relate that they have pled guilty to the same fraud schemes of which he is accused, and that he joined them — indeed, led them — in the execution of those schemes. That is, SBF’s lawyers now face practical evidentiary challenges that dwarf whatever technical legal objections they can make.
Bernie Madoff pled guilty to all the charges against him, even though he was looking at 150 years in prison. That’s what usually happens when the billions go poof and the damning proof is overwhelming.
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19346/treason-in-america
Treason in America - Again
by Lawrence Kadish
January 25, 2023 at 12:15 pm
As Benedict Arnold cynically realized centuries ago, treason may be the most threatening weapon our enemies can aim at the heart of a democracy, especially the one that leads the free world to keep it safe from tyranny. (Image source: MPI/Getty Images)
Benedict Arnold, move over.
Loathed as one of America's most despised traitors, we are reminded that Arnold once was the hero of Saratoga during the Revolutionary War, only to become a turncoat prepared to hand over West Point to the British.
During the last century there was Aldrich Ames, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer turned KGB double agent. Now serving a life sentence without parole, he did enormous damage to our national security while sending many American intelligence assets to their deaths in the Soviet Union. You want an example of how one American can do incalculable damage to his country? Read the Ames file.
But wait. There is now a 21st Century indictment that, if proven in a court of law, is absolutely mind-numbing.
The FBI's former top spy-hunter based in New York, Charles McGonigal, has been charged with violating U.S. sanctions and other criminal counts stemming from alleged ties to Russian oligarch billionaire Oleg Deripaska, a confident of Vladimir Putin.
The indictment also says McGonigal is accused of trying to get Deripaska removed from a U.S. sanctions list.
A second indictment accuses the G-man of hiding payments totaling $225,000 that he allegedly received from an individual considered an asset by an Albanian intelligence agency.
For those who believe that our nation, with all of its faults, remains mankind's last best hope, this is stunning news. Not only does this indictment suggest that our country's security can be purchased by our enemies, but also that those sworn to defend America can allegedly be bought and paid for – again.
How is this possible? How low can the human spirit sink that there would be those who would sell their souls, and their nation's safety, for cash?
Ames once provided an answer to CNN during a 1998 interview.
He said his reasons were "personal, banal, and amounted really to greed and folly." The "payout" for his betrayal was approximately $2.7 million. Tell that to the men and women buried at Arlington.
This most recent indictment of a former FBI spy hunter is a searing reminder that treason is not some distant crime found in lamented chapters of our history. Its poison is still found among individuals of authority within our national institutions, where it remains insidious, lethal, and malignant:
"Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." (United States Constitution)
As Benedict Arnold cynically realized centuries ago, treason may be the most threatening weapon our enemies can aim at the heart of a democracy, especially the one that leads the free world to keep it safe from tyranny.
Lawrence Kadish serves on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute.
-
Don't have citation handy, but Nancy made major sales of Google right before the DOJ suit was brought.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/15/steve-bannon-miles-guo-arrest-fraud/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=6bRsAj9bN7EegqDar26uDZSBoB3.BYp9dfGhxOV6qBNm.eYXK5U8Hv3C_UnFoNMFaaReD55X
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/15/steve-bannon-miles-guo-arrest-fraud/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=6bRsAj9bN7EegqDar26uDZSBoB3.BYp9dfGhxOV6qBNm.eYXK5U8Hv3C_UnFoNMFaaReD55X
The big guy didn’t get his 10%.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/15/steve-bannon-miles-guo-arrest-fraud/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=6bRsAj9bN7EegqDar26uDZSBoB3.BYp9dfGhxOV6qBNm.eYXK5U8Hv3C_UnFoNMFaaReD55X
The big guy didn’t get his 10%.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/why-would-anyone-pay-500000-for-a-painting-by-hunter-biden
He should have bought the paintings!
-
"The big guy didn’t get his 10%."
And he was backing the other team.
-
Emerald Robinson ✝️
Dems: let’s start riots across USA!
GOP: here comes a strongly worded letter.
Dems: let’s forcibly inject you with drugs!
GOP: we might hold a hearing.
Dems: let’s arrest Trump!
GOP: did you not get my last letter?
-
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/l-a-politician-found-guilty-of-corruption/
-
local Democrat politician found guilty
only happens when he can be replaced by another Dem
so no net loss for dems
no one is above the law ! upholding our judicial system
[when politically ok ]
can anyone think of a Dem removed that is replaced by Repub
maybe happened but I don't recall it to be the case
"ark Ridley-Thomas Found Guilty of Bribery and Fraud Involving Benefits for Son in Exchange for Lucrative County Contracts: Long-time politician Mark Ridley-Thomas has been found guilty by a jury of bribery in a scheme in which his son received substant..."
proof in point
this is exactly what Biden family does
yet the Dem machine will ignore ....
-
The Truth About Clarence Thomas’s Disclosures
He reported carefully on his inherited real estate. ProPublica’s reporting was slipshod and incurious.
By James TarantoFollow
April 16, 2023 4:09 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
2626
image
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivers a speech in Atlanta, Feb. 11, 2020.
PHOTO: JOHN AMIS/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Clarence Thomas lost his beloved maternal grandparents barely a month apart in the spring of 1983. Myers Anderson, whom his grandson knew as “Daddy,” died of a stroke on March 30. Christine Anderson, known as “Aunt Tina,” suffered a stroke as well and died on May 1. “Perhaps, I thought, she’d lost the will to live,” Justice Thomas writes in his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.”
The Andersons, who were 75 and 70 respectively, are buried at Palmyra Baptist Church in Liberty County, Ga. When they died, Mr. Thomas was 34 and chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Losing Aunt Tina a month after Daddy was more painful than I could ever have imagined,” he writes. “How could I have let myself grow away from her, or from the man who . . . was the only real father I’d ever had?”
Mr. Thomas inherited a one-third interest in a few modest houses Myers Anderson owned. Forty years later, ProPublica has taken a different kind of interest in those properties. ProPublica describes itself as “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force.” It promises “deep-dive reporting” dedicated to “exposing corruption, informing the public about complex issues, and using the power of investigative journalism to spur reform.”
Give ProPublica credit for admitting its journalism has an agenda. So does mine, as the word “opinion” atop this page should make clear. But ProPublica’s acknowledgment that it’s in the opinion business doesn’t excuse it from the obligation to report facts accurately, carefully and thoroughly.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
Preview
Subscribed
ProPublica has at least three reporters working the Clarence Thomas beat—Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski. Their story, published last Thursday, is titled “Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.” The troika write that the lack of disclosure “appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.” That statement is equivocal because it’s a legal theory based on incomplete facts. Justice Thomas didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions or to mine.
Some facts are known and undisputed. Mr. Crow, a Dallas developer and friend of the justice, confirmed in a written statement to ProPublica that Savannah Historic Development LLC, a company he established, bought “the childhood home of Justice Thomas,” which Mr. Crow plans to convert into a museum “telling the story of our nation’s second black Supreme Court Justice.” Public documents show that the company paid Anderson’s heirs a total of $133,363 for the Savannah house and two adjacent empty lots. According to ProPublica, Justice Thomas’s mother, 94-year-old Leola Williams, lived in the house at least until 2020 and possibly still does.
Assuming Justice Thomas received one-third of the sale price (or any amount more than $1,000), the text of the federal financial-disclosure statute would require him to have reported the transaction in Part VII (“Investments and Trusts”) of his annual AO-10 form for 2014. He didn’t do so and may need to file an amended form.
But my review of Justice Thomas’s disclosures and other documents convinces me that any failure to disclose was an honest mistake. On all other matters involving his scanty real-estate inheritance, he followed the Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, prepared by the Committee on Financial Disclosures of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Those instructions don’t make clear the statutory obligation to disclose the 2014 transaction.
Further, the ProPublica troika made a sloppy reporting error, the effect of which is to cast Justice Thomas’s disclosures in a falsely unfavorable light—to make them look shambolic or perhaps even dishonest when in fact they followed the filing instructions without fail.
The reporters’ error involves a confusion about what Justice Thomas did disclose. “By the early 2000s,” ProPublica reports, “he had stopped listing specific addresses of property he owned in his disclosures. But he continued to report holding a one-third interest in what he described as ‘rental property at ## 1, 2, & 3’ in Savannah.” It’s worth noting—ProPublica doesn’t—that the filing instructions (on page 32) prescribe disclosing rental properties in precisely this manner.
The story continues: “Two of the houses were torn down around 2010, according to property records and a footnote in Thomas’ annual disclosure archived by Free Law Project.” That footnote in Justice Thomas’s 2010 disclosure states in full: “Part VII, Line 2 - Two of the Georgia rental properties have been torn down. The only remaining property is an old house in Liberty County.”
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/01/lois-frankel-stock-trades-disclosures-show-jpmorgan-first-republic/
-
https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/04/left-wing-scotus-justice-took-3m-from-book-publisher-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases/
-
interesting
nothing about this in MSM
of course
no we don't need the legislative branch to set rules for the Judiciary
-
Nice to have this handy to respond to the smear campaign against Thomas, which continues:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=feature
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/206/260/original/cf3dad94d6fd21af.jpg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/206/260/original/cf3dad94d6fd21af.jpg)
-
welcome to DC :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-whistleblower-scandal-is-brewing-inside-the-hunter-biden-investigation
-
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/05/26/comer-says-biden-linked-to-5-million-bribe-while-vp-but-fbi-is-obstructing-investigation-n1698350
which means essentially nothing because:
" If found to be in contempt of Congress, this would be the first time an FBI director has faced such a charge. The maximum penalty for this offense is a fine of up to $100,000 and between one to 12 months in jail, though that would require prosecution by the Department of Justice."
amazing how DC officials always have way out.........
-
Above the law.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2023/05/26/comer-says-biden-linked-to-5-million-bribe-while-vp-but-fbi-is-obstructing-investigation-n1698350
which means essentially nothing because:
" If found to be in contempt of Congress, this would be the first time an FBI director has faced such a charge. The maximum penalty for this offense is a fine of up to $100,000 and between one to 12 months in jail, though that would require prosecution by the Department of Justice."
amazing how DC officials always have way out.........
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-director-confirms-existence-of-document-alleging-biden-engaged-in-bribery-house-gop_5304275.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-06-01&src_cmp=mb-2023-06-01&utm_medium=email&est=IZJ8c670mRS2ZGRPU3iVYF56n0pDyvjplaBEnv213rsrai3PH7IQ3HATaAE%3D
so. Wray did not meet deadline and is not going to
thus he will held in contempt
but wasn't Holder as well
no biggie
means nothing
no one held to account
calling someone in contempt only means something for an unimportant person
not a DC operative who is protected by the Deep state shysters
:x
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-oversight-lawmakers-briefed-by-fbi-on-biden-document-alleging-criminal-bribery-scheme
Raskin : to Pravda/MSM
"just hearsay"
can anyone imagine if this was Trump
contents would have been headlines around the world and radio waved to the moon
months ago all from an "undisclosed" source .
-
this is what I find with a google search:
***This hazardous material that was recently found in the White House premises is typically used to numb the area around the mouth lining, nose, and throat, ahead of surgical procedures. This allows doctors to carry out operations without causing discomfort or pain.***
Oh, I get with . This was being used for medicinal purposes by a local ophthalmologist or otolaryngologist
for valid medical purposes ......
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5GCEM_enUS1001US1001&q=sarcastic+face&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=jc8WgxrSYfHhbM%252CAQN_xE2bRB52QM%252C_%253BDzMyWoR-9IhMnM%252CAQN_xE2bRB52QM%252C_%253BntRI5AhWxXAaFM%252C1HwcbFhUogEzRM%252C_%253B8o6GiGuFv6ShJM%252CLCMVhrcqcmT96M%252C_%253B7bXoA-ZnNcrXGM%252CRWH4x8W-GlxjRM%252C_%253BMF9k1fCz3Al5MM%252CoqWNPddOMLLJZM%252C_%253BpvkV8v3Gp1bomM%252C-8J95Vm7sHpu5M%252C_%253BIaoq-s5we_q_2M%252CjY_9KoZ3mI1vXM%252C_%253BuZfYxsOFlM03GM%252CCPyFHwcFFu6dCM%252C_%253B6pUQS9VGPq0QNM%252CU8ZMQHeSpIXNkM%252C_%253BIMtBqrnE-pojPM%252CAQN_xE2bRB52QM%252C_%253BhnkB0kHYcHG3AM%252C54sd4t2KQ5VldM%252C_%253B0uHk557z98pePM%252Ciyjes6YPZQKXlM%252C_%253Bgid5mJH2wIGryM%252CQaeMsQJTVfObtM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kQZPY3VpExyug2CtlOa6WmpEWHIWw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz0dqU6vL_AhUJElkFHR6WAiQQjJkEegQIGhAC&biw=1309&bih=717&dpr=2.2
Anyone else tired of being lied to like we are dumb stooges whenever they need to cover their asses ?
-
Anyone care to bet if the coke in the WH story will lead to a name (s)?
My expectation we will be. "reassured" it was not a Federal official or Hunter
and they will not find who place it there and rumors that it could have been there for many days many many visitors ago
can't find the SCOTUS leaker
etc ...................................
:wink:
-
There should have been fingerprints on the baggie, yes?
-
There should have been fingerprints on the baggie, yes?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12269051/Secret-Service-carrying-fingerprint-analysis-left-cocaine-White-House.html
-
Once again, a British newspaper reports where our Pravdas do not.
"No results for weeks"?!? Seriously?!?
-
I am guessing they are trying to find a way to link the bag to a MAGA person
first
before releasing (if ever ) who it is .
if someone more embarrassing we will never know
of course we all know this.
the most transparent WH in history !
-
https://nypost.com/2023/07/05/missing-biden-corruption-case-witness-dr-gal-luft-details-allegations-against-presidents-family-in-extraordinary-video/?&utm_campaign=devineonline&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20230706&lctg=649c637ec7c6527b1b0fe213&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Devine%20Online
‘Missing’ Biden corruption case witness Dr. Gal Luft details allegations against president’s family in extraordinary video
By Miranda Devine
July 5, 2023 10:52pm Updated
MORE FROM:
MIRANDA DEVINE
Most voters say Hunter Biden got sweetheart deal because of dad Joe, poll shows
Blowing the lid off the cover-up of Hunter Biden's cushy plea deal
Allegations against Biden and his family are too credible to wipe away with 'father's love' sob story
Heroic IRS whistleblower testimony ensnarls Hunter and Joe Biden in bribery scheme
This businessman — who went to prison for 2 years for corrupt donations to Biden — received jail time from the feds because he had wrong last name
The “missing witness” from the Biden corruption investigation, Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft, has laid out his bribery allegations against the president’s family in an extraordinary video filmed in an undisclosed location while he’s on the run.
In the 14-minute recording, obtained exclusively by The Post, the fugitive former Israeli army officer claims he was arrested in Cyprus to stop him from testifying to the House Oversight Committee that the Biden family received payments from individuals with alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence and that they had an FBI mole who shared classified information with their benefactors from the China-controlled energy company CEFC.
The self-proclaimed fall guy says he provided the incriminating evidence to six officials from the FBI and the Department of Justice in a secret meeting in Brussels in March 2019 — but alleges that it was covered up.
“I, who volunteered to inform the US government about a potential security breach and about compromising information about a man vying to be the next president, am now being hunted by the very same people who I informed — and may have to live on the run for the rest of my life on the run …”
“I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I have no political motive or agenda … I did it out of deep concern that if the Bidens were to come to power, the country would be facing the same traumatic Russia collusion scandal — only this time with China. Sadly, because of the DOJ’s cover-up, this is exactly what happened …”
Dr. Gal Luft
Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft laid out his bribery allegations against President Biden’s family in an extraordinary video filmed in an undisclosed location while he’s on the run.
Luft claims he was arrested in Cyprus to stop him from testifying to the House Oversight Committee that the Biden family received payments from individuals with alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence.
AP
“I warned the government about potential risk to the integrity of the 2020 elections … Ask yourself, who is the real criminal in this story?”
The House Oversight chairman, Republican James Comer, who was preparing to interview Luft before Luft disappeared, says the Israeli remains a “potential witness” in the Biden family probe, despite his fugitive status.
It remains to be seen whether Luft is the man who will bring down the Bidens, but he is not going quietly into the sunset.
He is determined to tell the American public his version of the truth.
Calling himself “patient zero of the Biden family investigation,” Luft, 57, says he is innocent of charges of conspiring to sell Chinese weapons to Kenya, Libya and the UAE, of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and of making a false statement.
He says he was forced to skip bail in Cyprus in April while awaiting extradition “because I did not believe I will receive a fair trial in a New York court.”
Hunter Biden
The self-proclaimed fall guy says he provided the incriminating evidence to six officials from the FBI and the Department of Justice in a secret meeting in Brussels in March 2019 but alleges that it was covered up.
CNP / Polaris
‘Make evidence public’
Now he is challenging the government to release the minutes of the Brussels meeting and make public the evidence against him.
“Why did the DOJ choose to unseal the indictment on Nov. 1, 2022, the very same week of the midterm elections?” he asks.
“Could this have anything to do with the fear that once Republicans gain control over Congress and begin to investigate, [the DOJ] cover-up would be on full display?”
Luft says he told the DOJ and the FBI in Brussels that Joe Biden, soon after his vice presidential term ended, had attended a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, DC, with his son Hunter and officials from CEFC.
Luft’s account of the former VP’s presence at that meeting was corroborated 21 months later when the FBI interviewed another attendee, Biden family associate Rob Walker, according to recent testimony before Congress.
Luft disclosed during the Brussels interview that CEFC was paying $100,000 a month to Hunter and $65,000 to his uncle Jim Biden, in exchange for their FBI connections and use of the Biden name to promote China’s Belt and Road Initiative around the world — and that the money was being funneled through Walker.
The Oversight Committee has written to Walker demanding he submit to questioning about his role in distributing more than $1 million from China to at least three of President Biden’s relatives.
The DOJ sent a delegation of six people to meet Luft in Brussels, he alleges: four FBI agents and two prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, Daniel Richenthal and Catherine Ghosh.
Among the FBI contingent was Special Agent Joshua Wilson from the Baltimore field office, who would go on to sign a subpoena later that year to seize Hunter’s abandoned laptop from a Delaware repair shop.
“Why did the government dispatch to Europe so many people?” asks Luft.
“They knew very well I’m a credible witness and I have insider knowledge about the group and individuals that enriched the Biden family.
“Over an intensive two-day meeting, I shared my information about the Biden family’s financial transactions with CEFC, including specific dollar figures. I also provided the name of Rob Walker, who later became known as Hunter Biden’s bagman.”
James Comer
Rep. James Comer, who was preparing to interview Luft before he disappeared, says the Israeli remains a “potential witness” in the Biden family probe, despite his fugitive status.
Getty Images
Think-tank ties
He also told the DOJ and the FBI in Brussels that Hunter had an FBI mole named “One Eye” who had tipped off his CEFC associates, Dr. Patrick Ho and Chairman Ye Jianming, that they were under investigation.
Luft is well connected in intelligence circles in Washington, DC, where he ran a think tank, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, with former CIA Director James Woolsey and former national security adviser Robert McFarlane as advisers.
He learned in 2017 that Hunter and Jim Biden were being paid by CEFC because Luft was in partnership at the time with a nonprofit think tank associated with the Chinese company.
When Ho was arrested in 2017 in New York on bribery charges, the first person he tried to call was Hunter Biden, whom he had paid $1 million as a “legal retainer.”
But at his trial, Ho was blocked by prosecutors from mentioning the Bidens, according to Luft.
Ho “paid Hunter Biden a million dollars for God-knows-what [but] was not allowed to mention the word Biden before the jury,” says Luft.
Joe Biden, Hunter Biden
Luft also told the DOJ and the FBI in Brussels that Hunter had an FBI mole named “One Eye” who had tipped off his CEFC associates, Dr. Patrick Ho and Chairman Ye Jianming, that they were under investigation.
WireImage
“Prosecutor Daniel Richenthal told the judge at the time that mentioning the name Biden would ‘add a political dimension’ to the case, and the judge agreed. Which means if I was brought before a New York court, I would not be allowed to utter the word Brussels or Biden.”
Luft denies the charge that he is an arms dealer: “I was asked by a bona fide arms dealer, an Israeli friend, to inquire with a company I knew if they had an item and what would be the price of an item. This is where the conspiracy ended. No follow-up, no money, no brokering activity.”
He also faces FARA charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent of CEFC.
“The DOJ says I caused a payment of $6,000 a month to former CIA Director James Woolsey in order to put his name on an article I had ghostwritten for the China Daily newspaper … Woolsey had been an adviser to my think tank since 2002 and nothing in the article represented Chinese interests.”
“Why am I being indicted … for ghostwriting an innocuous article for which I received no payment, let alone from a foreign government, when the mother of all FARA cases, the Bidens’ systemic influence-peddling on behalf of foreign governments, for which they raked [in] millions, goes unpunished?”
Attorney met with government
A curious addendum to Luft’s tale comes in October 2020, days after The Post’s bombshell revelations from Hunter’s laptop.
Luft dispatched his attorney, Robert Henoch, to Washington to meet the Trump administration’s acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to repeat the allegations he had made in Brussels.
Donoghue also had been assigned by Attorney General Bill Barr in February 2020 to coordinate federal investigations into all Ukraine-related corruption allegations against Joe Biden.
Unbeknownst to Luft, on Sept. 4, Donoghue had ordered the Delaware US attorney to pause the criminal investigation into Hunter to avoid leaks in the two months before the election, according to testimony before Congress.
Donoghue agreed to meet Henoch at a Starbucks near DOJ headquarters and corresponded on his private email, says Luft, who showed The Post the emails between his attorney and the senior official.
“The story is about corruption at the very highest levels of government/politics and I think it can all be corroborated,” Henoch wrote.
Nothing ever came of the meeting — until February of this year, when Luft was arrested in Cyprus.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jul/21/hawley-gillibrand-push-for-strict-stock-trading-ba/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=4eX702x%2FtnKLf0waGoD%2BZ59kuSZ1PK47BLNnPrREyiBXTjhazfU0tWQ6Ykt%2Fv%2Be2&bt_ts=1689943601206
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hunter-biden-gallery-sold-art-to-dem-donor-appointed-to-special-commission-by-president-biden/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=32181862
-
".The buyer in question was California investor and philanthropist Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali, who contributed $13,414 to the Biden campaign and $29,700 to the Democratic National Campaign Committee this year, Insider reported.
Biden announced Hirsh Naftali’s appointment to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad in July 2022 — eight months after Hunter’s art debuted at the gallery. The commission is an independent agency of the U.S. government;"
I thought contributions to a campaign are limited to $2,000.
Can't get anymore corrupt than this.
:x
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12337511/Art-access-Democratic-donor-bought-Hunters-art-picked-plum-Biden-commission-visited-White-House-13-TIMES-18-months-visitor-logs-show.html
-
Wonder how many other ways the "art" world is used to launder money around
:|
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12337511/Art-access-Democratic-donor-bought-Hunters-art-picked-plum-Biden-commission-visited-White-House-13-TIMES-18-months-visitor-logs-show.html
Access for sale.
Appointments for sale.
Political actions for sale.
Policies for sale.
Now just imagine all this evidence is against Trump or Dich Cheney.
What would the reaction be?
Isn't that what it should be with the Biden's?
What if we had only one system of justice...
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/27/doj-campaign-finance-charge-dem-megadonor-alleged-fraudster/?pnespid=pLc5E30dNapLhaPL.2uxCJGG4helU5QpNLG5meI1vgFmqURKne1ZPEBrIVwRzrzOoXn7lp9O
-
https://www.newsnationnow.com/trump-investigation/ap-the-judge-assigned-to-trumps-jan-6-case-is-a-tough-punisher-of-capitol-rioters/
My only question is the MSM going to point out every time they speak of this trial the judges is an ******OBAMA APPOINTEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!******
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/01/judge-trump-jan-6-special-counsel/
I have already heard she has many conflict of interests she must recuse herself from this case
does anyone believe she was randomly selected?
Saw on Fox news Kudlow who had Dershowitz and Kash Patel on and both made it clear she needs to recuse herself from this case
She worked for DC firm that represented Burisma for God's sake !
Greg Kelly pointed this out as well earlier on radio this afternoon.
By the time we get to Hannity it will be old news and he will sound like his usual broken record self.
-
waiting for the right time to blast the Left wing media
with this after the next bad news for Hunter
I presume
Nothing to see
-
https://nypost.com/2023/07/30/doj-cant-sink-any-lower-after-attempted-arrest-of-hunter-bidens-ex-partner-devon-archer/
he had gun to his head from the leftist shysters....
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-indictment-leaves-alleged-co-114604736.html
Prof Dershowitz points out that there are potential violations of the 6th amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
-
The explanation is simple. A mass murder is entitled to private, privileged communications with his lawyer. A Republican being prosecuted for free speech is not.
-
How Deep Runs the Corruption?
By Jeffrey Tucker
Commentary
For the last several years, my friends in public health and science have expressed astonishment and professional disorientation at the behavior and messaging of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The scientific journals are part of this.
They simply could not believe the brazen manipulation of science for political purposes. They could not believe that so many people within these agencies and journals went along with it for reasons of career protection. They have been appalled that science and public health have been deployed in this way.
They worry about the future with this level of corruption. And they have been quite passionate in decrying it, while paying a professional price for not going along.
Implicit in this reaction is a history in which they implicitly trusted these institutions, their data, their reporting, and their sincerity with regard to public health. They presumed that these agencies were not capable of manipulating science for political reasons. They certainly would never have believed that they would preside over the worst public-health calamity of our lifetimes.
When they set out to decry this, correct the error, and alert the public to the truth, it was not because they hated the NIH and the CDC. Indeed it was the opposite. They wanted them to be good. They wanted their integrity restored. They wanted to trust again.
In other words, what motivated them is piety in their professions and the agencies that preside over them. In this, the real haters get it all wrong. My friends are not disinformation spreaders. They are spreaders of facts in the interest of public well-being. They believed strongly that the system is not broken fundamentally and could be improved.
They decided that they did not want to practice their craft in an environment of lies. They wanted restoration of truth.
I’ve listened and understood but because this has not been my realm or my main intellectual interest for the dominant part of my career, I’ve not entirely understood the intensity of their critique or the motivations of my friends. Maybe I’ve always assumed that such enormous bureaucracies were up to no good. I’ve never believed that the CDC, for example, was a net positive in terms of public health, not that I thought about it much before the pandemic.
I’m seeing this fully now because of something that happened this past week. It affects a realm about which I care deeply, namely economics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the jobs data again, with a headline number of 187,000 new jobs. That’s not great but it is not bad news.
But over the last year and a half, I’ve grown incredulous toward these data releases and the little essay that sits on top of them that is routinely copied by all media outlets as the truth. So I’ve started to look more carefully at the underlying data. The release text said that the number of part-time jobs for reasons of economics, meaning that the people who have part-time jobs when they would actually like full-time jobs, was “little changed.”
That’s what the BLS said but the data showed otherwise. It showed an increase of 221,000 part-time jobs. That’s 5.4 percent growth. That’s not “little changed.” That’s a huge and alarming change.
It’s also more than the total number of jobs created. This means that many people have lost full-time work and been forced to take part-time jobs. This is truly awful news, the very opposite of where we would like to be. One might suppose that the BLS would just admit this outright. They didn’t admit it. They covered it up. The person who wrote those words “little changed” either knew and lied under pressure or did not look at the data himself and simply trusted his superiors.
In any case, it is flat-out wrong. And demonstrably so!
This makes one wonder about all the data releases coming from the Biden administration. Every month, an output release from the previous month is reduced. This has been systematic and large. It just keeps happening.
Was this forwarded to you?
Sign-up for a all access digital subscription, or register for a free account.
It raises the question. If we were in a technical recession now—or if we never left the one from 2020—would we actually know it? We have no choice but to trust the government’s numbers. Maybe we shouldn’t. Maybe everything is much worse than we know from the agencies’ reporting. It certainly feels that way.
We look at independent data that we know we can trust and find out terrible things. A survey by the Lending Club recently reported that nearly two-thirds of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. This is not only a huge increase; it is completely unsustainable.
Why is this happening? Many consumers are spending without thinking. They are persisting in their old habits even though the value of money has fallen nearly 20 percent in three years. Everyone is poorer than before but continuing to live as if all is normal. To blame at least in part is the relentless propaganda from the Biden administration that says the economy is in great shape and there is nothing to worry about.
These are very costly lies.
Do you see the relationship here between economics and public health? During COVID, we were told that distancing would protect people. Then we were told that masks would do the trick. Then we were told that the vaccine would work. Do all those things and you will not be bothered by COVID.
That was a lie. Everyone got it anyway. And once people got sick, they had no real protocol for how to get better. That’s because the agencies had disparaged repurposed drugs like Ivermectin. They did this in order to pretend as if the vaccine was the only real solution, thereby making the “Emergency Use Authorization” compatible with prevailing conditions.
Thus, when people got sick, they had no idea what to do. The agencies that people trusted are fully culpable for this.
It’s true in the economic realm. The government has not been straight with people about the economic crisis of our times. All official channels say everything is hunky-dory, just keep adding to that credit-card debt, spending as always, draining your savings such as it is, and don’t worry about your job. Everything is fine. Look at our press release! Listen to the weird White House spokeswoman!
This is malpractice. It also undermines trust even further.
No society can run without trust. Builders have to trust measurements, economists trust the data, scientists trust the journal, doctors have generally trusted pharmaceutical companies, and philosophers trust logic. There is just no alternative. If we take that away and replace truth with lies, where does that leave us? As one of my friends says: in a new dark age.
Last night I was watching the U.S. Open. Several times, an ad came on saying that COVID is still with us, killing more people than the flu, so we need to be alert. The ad is just text with ominous music. It ends by urging that everyone get the COVID vaccine immediately. The closing slogan is: no one has time for the 19.
That’s weird, I thought. We know for sure that the vaccine does not protect well or perhaps at all against infection. Who is putting out this propaganda? The CDC? The third time the ad ran, I noticed a tiny word at the end: Moderna. It’s a pharmaceutical ad. For some reason, the ad escaped all the usual legal injunctions about side effects and downsides. There was not a word about those.
There is no way viewers knew that this was a pharma ad. It looked for all the world like a public-service announcement from the CDC or NIH. It turns out to be a Moderna ad. But, really, is there much difference? We know now that these agencies themselves are wholly captured and doing pharma ads themselves.
I never wanted to live in a world without trust. I perhaps hoped that people would trust government less but there is much more going on now. Government is involved in everything and therefore a loss of integrity in government means a loss of integrity in a huge range of areas, leaving us confused about what the truth is.
There’s never been a better time to trust your instincts. If you smell a rat in these official pronunciations, there probably is a rat. The corruption goes very deep. We don’t yet know the bottom of it.
-
https://nypost.com/2023/10/09/suspended-iran-special-envoy-rob-malley-under-scrutiny-for-hamas-remarks-following-israel-terror-attack/?fbclid=IwAR0_7M8bxbKpLh3sg-HApTfvafuDSDKQhBH-tFJYEoJ3FS1zKCuFCwj711k
-
The mind boggles at the implications here:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/28/hamas-releases-american-hostage-whose-family-purchased-hunter-bidens-art/
" So you're telling me that the great-aunt of the youngest American hostage -- and first American -- to be released by Hamas is a buyer of Hunter Biden's art, who was then appointed by Joe Biden to the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad? "
-
Amazing
Liz Hirsh Naftali
Why she was on CNN just last night (as well as previously) talking about the return of that cute 4 yo girl:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Liz+Hirsh+Naftali&form=HDRSC3&first=1
I can't believe any serious art collector would consider spending any serious money to buy a Hunter work unless it was to gain influence. Can anyone else?
-
The mind boggles at the implications here:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/28/hamas-releases-american-hostage-whose-family-purchased-hunter-bidens-art/
" So you're telling me that the great-aunt of the youngest American hostage -- and first American -- to be released by Hamas is a buyer of Hunter Biden's art, who was then appointed by Joe Biden to the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad? "
Yes it boggles the mind.
Answer to the question, what could anyone gain by buying access. Answer, go to the front of the line.
Selling special access and favors and siccing Feds on opponents is the exact opposite of
equal treatment under the law.
I public office you are supposed to avoid even the appearance of anything like this.
-
https://nypost.com/2024/01/08/news/us-navy-sailor-sentenced-to-27-months-in-prison-for-selling-military-secrets-to-china/
-
second
https://www.vermilionchina.com/p/the-chinese-soldier-trained-by-americans
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13056383/baltimore-prosecutor-marilyn-mosby-mortgage-fraud-covid-retirement-funds.html
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13062085/chinese-spy-arrested-california-fbi-trade-secret-technology.html
-
why is he released on bond ?
yes $2 million but so what!
How often do we read they flee back to China
to never face any consequences.
10 yrs not enough for the damage this guy has caused.
Worth life in prison in my opinion.
Media never report what they were paid off with. How much?
US citizen - didn't we used to hang traitors?
-
https://spectator.org/trump-is-the-man-nixon-couldnt-be/
-
That was really good!
-
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/02/13/white-house-dropped-key-venezuelan-sanctions-after-pressure-from-wall-street-power-players-report-1436705/?utm_campaign=bizpac&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Get%20Response&utm_term=EMAIL
-
As we have discussed here preiously (thread?) there is good reason to be seriously critical of Jared's deal with the Saudis. That said, I remember it as being after Trump left office?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-shoved-jared-kushner-s-corruption-into-gop-lawmakers-faces-dem-lawmaker/ar-BB1jaS47?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=dce17304524f440f91f1de9a0ecae92e&ei=85
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703
-
Inside trade much?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/democratic-senator-called-resign-finance-committee-chairman-wife/