Rep Joe Walsh's teahadist meltdown

[Capt Bringdown]

pUttrvyIRkQ

Rebuttal to the zombie lie that Fannie and Freddie caused the financial crisis:

What Can We Say For Certain Regarding the GSEs? (http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/)

[Capt Bringdown]

But don't worry, the Obama administration is hot on the case:




Richard Blumenthal Asks Eric Holder Where the Foreclosure Prosecutions Are (http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/08/richard-blumenthal-asks-eric-holder-where-the-foreclosure-prosecutions-are/)

It took until Richard Blumenthal’s turn in Eric Holder’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today before Holder got asked about foreclosure fraud. Blumenthal generously suggested that, “I know the foreclosure crisis is on your agenda,” and then asked if we’ll ever see a prosecution on robosigning and other fraud.

Holder responded, at first, by pointing to states Attorney Generals, claiming they are conducting investigations. I do hope he’s thinking of Eric Schneiderman, Beau Biden, and Catherine Cortez Masto, because the ones working on the settlement are pointedly avoiding any real investigation. Holder then further dodged, suggesting DOJ might find other ways–like civil suits–to hold these banks accountable.

Finally, and perhaps most interesting, Bluementhal asked why DOJ had not intervened in the Bibby, Donnelly v. Wells Fargo suit, a whistleblower suit against Wells Fargo, BoA, Chase, Ally, and others for the illegal legal fees the banks charged homeowners, including veterans.

Holder hedged in response to that question, promising he’d find out who had made the decision not to intervene and the basis for the decision.

[boutons_deux]

California Refuses to Accept Obama's Banking Sellout

There is no three-strikes law for crooked bankers, not even a law for a fifth strike, as The New York Times reported in the case of Citigroup, cited last month in a $1 billion fraud case. Unlike the California third-striker I once wrote about whom a district attorney wanted banished forever to state prison for stealing a piece of pizza from the plate of a person dining outdoors, Citigroup executives get off with a fine and by offering a promise not to do it again, and again and again.

As the Times reported when Citigroup agreed to settle SEC charges last month: "Citigroup's main brokerage subsidiary, its predecessors or its parent company agreed to not violate the very same antifraud statue in July 2010. And in May 2006. Also as far back as March 2005 and April 2000."

Not that the bankers face prison time, since the Justice Department has refused to act in these cases, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing only civil charges, which the banks find quite tolerable. This time, the fine against Citigroup was $285 million, which may sound like a lot except that the bank raked off as much as $700 million on this particular toxic securities deal. As the Bloomberg news service editorialized, "... there should be only one answer from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal judge in New York assigned to weigh the merits of the agreement: You've got to be kidding."

Not to pick on Citigroup, the too-big-to-fail bank that Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin helped make legal before he was paid off with a $126 million job on Wall Street; that corporation was not the only serial offender. "Citigroup has a lot of company in this regard on Wall Street," the Times noted, "nearly all of the biggest financial companies -- Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America among them -- have settled fraud cases by promising that they would never again violate an antifraud law, only to have the SEC conclude they did it again a few years later."

So forget relying on the federal government to hold the Wall Street swindlers accountable. Indeed, the Obama administration has been involved in negotiating a deal with state attorneys general to settle their complaints with the banks for a pittance of compensation for the victims. In return, the states would promise not to institute further legal proceedings against the banks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/california-refuses-to-acc_b_1085581.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

===========

Financial sector totally owns Exec and Congress, is completely above the law.

[Winehole23]

When Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) blew up at a constituent earlier this week, shouting “Don’t blame the banks!” when confronted on questions about the economy, it was all because of an “empty stomach” and “too much coffee,” he said. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/10/tea-party-rep-blames-angry-outburst-on-too-much-coffee/