Obama administration pressures DA to stop looking into banks

[Thanas]

Greenwald

n mid-May, I wrote about the commendable -- one might say heroic -- efforts of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to single-handedly impose meaningful accountability on Wall Street banks for their role in the 2008 financial crisis and the mortgage fraud/foreclosure schemes. Not only was Schneiderman launching probing investigations at a time when the Obama DOJ was steadfastly failing to do so, but -- more importantly -- he was refusing to sign onto a global settlement agreement being pushed by the DOJ that would have insulated the mortgage banks (including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo) from all criminal investigations in exchange for some relatively modest civil fines. In response, many commenters wondered whether Schneiderman, if he persisted, would be targeted by the banks with some type of campaign of destruction of the kind that brought down Eliot Spitzer, but fortunately for the banks, they can dispatch their owned servants in Washington to apply the pressure for them:

Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

In recent weeks, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and high-level Justice Department officials have been waging an intensifying campaign to try to persuade the attorney general to support the settlement, said the people briefed on the talks.

Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.

But Mr. Donovan and others in the administration have been contacting not only Mr. Schneiderman but his allies, including consumer groups and advocates for borrowers, seeking help to secure the attorney general's participation in the deal, these people said. One recipient described the calls from Mr. Donovan, but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.

Not surprising, the large banks, which are eager to reach a settlement, have grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Schneiderman. Bank officials recently discussed asking Mr. Donovan for help in changing the attorney general’s mind, according to a person briefed on those talks.

In response to this story, the DOJ claims that the settlement is necessary to help people whose homes are in foreclosure, an absurd rationalization whichMarcy Wheeler simply destroys. Meanwhile, Yves Smith, whose coverage of banking and mortgage fraud (and the administration's protection of it) has long been indispensable, writes today:

It is high time to describe the Obama Administration by its proper name: corrupt.

Admittedly, corruption among our elites generally and in Washington in particular has become so widespread and blatant as to fall into the "dog bites man" category. But the nauseating gap between the Administration's propaganda and the many and varied ways it sells out average Americans on behalf of its favored backers, in this case the too big to fail banks, has become so noisome that it has become impossible to ignore the fetid smell.

The Administration has now taken to pressuring parties that are not part of the machinery reporting to the President to fall in and do his bidding. We’ve gotten so used to the US attorney general being conveniently missing in action that we have forgotten that regulators and the AG are supposed to be independent.

Her entire analysis should be read. The President -- who kicked off his campaign vowing to put an end to "the era of Scooter Libby justice" -- will stand before the electorate in 2012 having done everything in his power to shield top Bush officials from all accountability for their crimes and will have done the same for Wall Street banks, all while continuing to preside over the planet's largest Prison State . . . for ordinary Americans convicted even of trivial offenses, particularly (though not only) from the War on Drugs he continues steadfastly to defend. And as Sam Seder noted this morning, none of this has anything to do with Congress and cannot be blamed on the Weak Presidency, the need to compromise, or the "crazy" GOP.

I particularly regret that my book to be released in October -- examining America's two-tiered justice system, whereby political and financial elites are immunized from accountability even for the most egregious crimes while ordinary Americans (particularly poor and minorities) suffer unfathomably harsh punishments for minor transgressions -- won't include this incident, as it so perfectly highlights the book's argument (though it's long been obvious that Wall Street criminals would be immunized from accountability and the book deals with that extensively). Also worth reading in that regard is this article from Joseph Stiglitz on how failure to criminally prosecute mortgage fraud would destroy the rule of law. As I wrote at the end of my May post on Schniederman:

It is worth keeping a watchful eye on Schneiderman's investigative efforts and doing everything possible to provide what will undoubtedly be much-needed support if, as appears to be the case, he is serious about taking on these pernicious factions and impeding the conspiring by the political class to protect their benefactors/owners.

When I wrote that, I assumed the pressure would come from the banks themselves, not from top Executive Branch officials. At this point, though, the mistake is to consider those entities as separate and distinct at all. As Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said of the branch of government in which he serves: banks "frankly own the place." Capitol Hill is obviously not the only property they own on Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Koolaidkirby]

I have two major beefs with Obama, one is that he is a shitty negotiator.

The other that he loves to suck corporate dick.

[blahface]

Obama is such a socialist.

[StarSword]

The other that he loves to suck corporate dick.

Obama is such a socialist.

Wow. One guy says one thing, the other says the exact opposite.

[Phantasee]

I'm fairly certain blahface was trying to be bitingly sarcastic.

Thanas, you need to stop posting these sorts of articles. You make me depressed.

[That NOS Guy]

Wow. One guy says one thing, the other says the exact opposite.

You may need your sarcasm meter checked.

[Uraniun235]

Thanas, you need to stop posting these sorts of articles. You make me depressed.

Don't listen to him, Thanas. These articles make me feel better about refusing to vote for Obama again, and give me fuel with which to make my friends feel miserable when they line up to vote for him.

[Molyneux]

Well, ain't that a revolting development.
On the other hand, I'll have to remember to try to find a phone number to call Schneiderman's office tomorrow and express my support.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thanas, you need to stop posting these sorts of articles. You make me depressed.

Don't listen to him, Thanas. These articles make me feel better about refusing to vote for Obama again, and give me fuel with which to make my friends feel miserable when they line up to vote for him.

While I understand the sentiment and I am somewhat sympathetic, I can't help but wonder if it'll also make you feel better about having a Teabagger in the White House.

[Uraniun235]

Oh shit I forgot about that! The big scary Repubs might get into office!

I was so wrong! Save me, Democrats! Save me!!!

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh shit I forgot about that! The big scary Repubs might get into office!

I was so wrong! Save me, Democrats! Save me!!!

Do you have anything of actual substance to say, or merely vapid contentless mockery?

And yes, I do find the Teabaggers scary. With fucking good reason.

[Uraniun235]

My first post in this thread was 100% true. Articles like this make me feel more certain about my decision, I enjoy sharing them with my friends, and I hope Thanas continues to post them despite Phant's misgivings.

My second post in this thread was every bit as serious a response as your post deserved. Oh no, Uraniun235 isn't going to vote Democrat! Now Obama will lose and the big bad Teabagger will get us!! Even if I thought my individual vote mattered much in an actually contested state, it's a good bet Oregon's going to go Democratic again anyway, so whatever I do matters even less than usual.


I'll be blunt, though: I really do think everyone who votes to re-elect Obama deserves every shred of misery and self-loathing they feel about that decision. Have fun being the Democratic Party's bitch; you've played directly into their (terrible) strategy.

[DarkArk]

I really do think everyone who votes to re-elect Obama deserves every shred of misery and self-loathing they feel about that decision. Have fun being the Democratic Party's bitch; you've played directly into their (terrible) strategy.

So, that means we should vote for whatever screwed up scumbag the Republicans manage to nominate? Let's face it he's still a far better choice than anything the other side has managed to put up so far. One of the failures of the two party system.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I really do think everyone who votes to re-elect Obama deserves every shred of misery and self-loathing they feel about that decision. Have fun being the Democratic Party's bitch; you've played directly into their (terrible) strategy.

So, that means we should vote for whatever screwed up scumbag the Republicans manage to nominate? Let's face it he's still a far better choice than anything the other side has managed to put up so far. One of the failures of the two party system.

You realize you have more than one choice right?

Lets face it. Obama is so ineffective, that the tea party is getting everything it wants anyway. We are still torturing people. We are still holding people without trial. Our government is still sucking corporate cock while the People get screwed (no... not screwed. Econoraped), consumer protection is weak and we did not even get regulation of the same derivitives that caused our economic meltdown in the first place. Banks get bailed out, the middle class who actually suffers for their collapse does not. Fuck this noise. If you vote to re elect Obama, you might as well be voting for Bachmann, but with somewhat different spin.

[The Romulan Republic]

I really do think everyone who votes to re-elect Obama deserves every shred of misery and self-loathing they feel about that decision. Have fun being the Democratic Party's bitch; you've played directly into their (terrible) strategy.

So, that means we should vote for whatever screwed up scumbag the Republicans manage to nominate? Let's face it he's still a far better choice than anything the other side has managed to put up so far. One of the failures of the two party system.

You realize you have more than one choice right?

Lets face it. Obama is so ineffective, that the tea party is getting everything it wants anyway. We are still torturing people. We are still holding people without trial. Our government is still sucking corporate cock while the People get screwed (no... not screwed. Econoraped), consumer protection is weak and we did not even get regulation of the same derivitives that caused our economic meltdown in the first place. Banks get bailed out, the middle class who actually suffers for their collapse does not. Fuck this noise. If you vote to re elect Obama, you might as well be voting for Bachmann, but with somewhat different spin.

False. It could be so, so much worse.

Keep in mind that far Right policies include:

-An anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment. Obama won't do this.

-A much higher probability of dragging America into a war with Iran. I don't think Obama is very likely to do this.

-Dismantling government programs much faster than is happening now, in some cases to the point of actually wanting a default. Obama pissed off his base to avoid a default.

The whole "Obama is the same as the Tea Party" line (which is itself a variant of the slightly less stupid "Obama is exactly the same as Bush" line) is horseshit. By all means, criticize the man. But saying he's no different from the Tea Party is fucking stupid, and pathetic.

[Alyrium Denryle]

-An anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment. Obama won't do this.

The president has Zero control over constitutional amendments.

-A much higher probability of dragging America into a war with Iran. I don't think Obama is very likely to do this.

No. He just intensifies war in Afghanistan.

-Dismantling government programs much faster than is happening now, in some cases to the point of actually wanting a default. Obama pissed off his base to avoid a default.

Key word. Faster. Doing it faster or slower is irrelevant, the result is the same. Either our society goes to shit and becomes megasomalia because government has been dismantled, or it does so because we default and government has been dismantled. Either way, we end up like the decaying roman empire without the visigoths.

The tea party held the country hostage, and unlike someone holding hostages in a bank, they did not get shot. They will do it again, and in doing so, in high-balling so adeptly, they will continue to get exactly what they want. The tea party has apparently visited the Mediterranean and has learned how to haggle.

By all means, criticize the man. But saying he's no different from the Tea Party is fucking stupid, and pathetic.

When do you draw the line? So long as the democrats are only marginally less bad than the republicans? No matter how bad that is in absolute terms?

[K. A. Pital]

So even when the Incumbent Party equals the other Incumbent Party with a few minor caveats that are unlikely to occur anyway, vote for the Incumbent Party. And vote for the Incumbent President, lest he be changed by more of the same.

I remember people posting pompous posts where they defended America's "competitive" and "democratic" two-party system whenever someone said it is crap even compared to a typical European multiparty one. *laughs ass off* Where are these folks now? I really need to use that search function to find some gems.

[Covenant]

These non-debates always go in circles. One person's choice to vote for a candidate who expresses their core values will not destroy the planet. A third party candidate getting a few votes in a solid democratic lock does more good than harm. We're not talking about getting a crazed theocratic Republican elected here, just giving spillage in non-contests to a favored candidate. If people are saying they'd really rather have someone who is antagonistic to them than someone who is just apathetic or ineffective at supporting them... then that's crazy, but that's not what I heard.

I'd vote for a third party candidate or a different nominee if offered the opportunity. I was a big Obama supporter but on a variety of social/ethical grounds I'm disappointed. I won't blame the economy or such on him, since Congress has made a real joke of everything, but I wish he'd take a stand on things--and stand in the way I want. It's healthy to not drink the Kool-aid, ya' know. Nothing wrong with a bit of vote splitting to remind people there MIGHT be some tiny shreds of an actual 'left' in America, maybe.

Two party systems are jokes.

But despite a leader's effectiveness, you have to admit that the party platforms of the Tea Party and the Democrats show a wide divide. It's just hyperbole to claim that Obama and Bachmann are nearly the same person or leader or political yardstick or whatever you want to point at. I'd still rather have the lesser of two evils when only given a choice of evils. Sure, there are other candidates, but if you're willing to vote against Obama then it shouldn't be a big shocker that I'm still willing to vote against the Republicans. We need a coalition government system so it feels less dangerous for me to give my vote to someone besides the big two.

I mean hell, I was one of the bunch that voted for Nader when I was sure that Al Gore was going to take it easily, and I got goddamn Bushwacked for that.

The real battlegrounds seem local anyway, like how the Tea Party astroturfers took control by killing off the moderate Republicans.

[Edi]

The only thing that is going to continue if Obama is re-elected is the Republicans getting everything they wish for while the White House attacks anyone who criticizes them. If the Republicans win the presidency, the Democrats would have to begin acting like something of an opposition party, but it doesn't matter what the outcome is. Ordinary Americans are going to get shafted anyway.

[Metahive]

Reveal embarassing secrets about the government, get relentlessly bullied and thrown in the dungeon to rot. Fuck up the economy, ruin millions of lives and the president himself will protect you from justice. I would call this system a joke but it ain't funny.

If the Republicans win the presidency, the Democrats would have to begin acting like something of an opposition party, but it doesn't matter what the outcome is.

Yep, since the only lesson the Democrats take from electoral defeats is "Be more republican, move further to the right". Political Pavlovian Dogs, that's what they are.

[Chirios]

The only thing that is going to continue if Obama is re-elected is the Republicans getting everything they wish for while the White House attacks anyone who criticizes them. If the Republicans win the presidency, the Democrats would have to begin acting like something of an opposition party, but it doesn't matter what the outcome is. Ordinary Americans are going to get shafted anyway.

Would they? I don't remember them being that vocal when Bush was in office.

[Uraniun235]

So, that means we should vote for whatever screwed up scumbag the Republicans manage to nominate? Let's face it he's still a far better choice than anything the other side has managed to put up so far. One of the failures of the two party system.

Do you seriously believe I'm actually going to vote Republican? Oh oh wait let me guess your next response:

"You mean you're not going to vote?? Well then you won't have any right to complain!"


I'm going to vote third-party, you fucking imbecile.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So, that means we should vote for whatever screwed up scumbag the Republicans manage to nominate? Let's face it he's still a far better choice than anything the other side has managed to put up so far. One of the failures of the two party system.

Do you seriously believe I'm actually going to vote Republican? Oh oh wait let me guess your next response:

"You mean you're not going to vote?? Well then you won't have any right to complain!"


I'm going to vote third-party, you fucking imbecile.

You are kidding yourself if there were ever a third party, and even if there were ever one, it will no doubt be greased to death with corporate funds again and again.

If you want to change the way your country is run, then you have to clean house, rewrite all the laws etc. etc. But your country will never ever find the will to do it.

[Thanas]

At least he is doing something.

[Bluewolf]

Oh what a lark, this again. I still find it hilarious that people go "Well what if X gets in. Oh noooo!". It's a fear yes but the Republicans have gotten what they want on the whole for a decade. They've cowed into Republican interests for a decade now. There is no way you can blame people for not wanting to vote for Republicans in a different colour. You can cry about how it'll make the country even worse. Hell, that was the same cry in 2008 and look what's happened now. Fuck, I'd argue that as a POTUS himself (Ignoring the Palin bullshit), McCain would have been the same, maybe even a fucking improvement as at least he may have not given rise to one massive Tea Party surge.

Sorry people but the only way to actually even begin to try and make the Democrats change their ways is to make it hurt for them. That means voting for someone else. If a Republican gets in, then so be it. That's the price and really, no one can really tell the difference anymore. The Dems have, on a national level become the 'Rethuglicans' that this forum cried about for years. I've heard a lot better things on a more local level however.

Oh and may I remind everyone that "It's a wasted vote" is the very same principle that helps strangle third parties in the first place.

If you want to change the way your country is run, then you have to clean house, rewrite all the laws etc. etc. But your country will never ever find the will to do it.

I read that as: Don't try and change anything because nothing will change because people wont try. It also seems to call for a revolution which would be interesting. Still, that's what you're saying. Don't try, don't try and help anything, nothing will ever change so just live with it and vote Democrat like a good little boy and hem and haw about those evil Republicans. I guess early black civil rights activists are good case for this. I mean, the only way they could have made any progress is to change the way the country is run, and then have to clean house, rewrite all laws etc. etc. We saw their lack of progress in the 50s and 60s.

How can you even try and change anything if you don't fucking try? Can you really fault people for actually acting on their desire for change. Even if it's as small as voting for someone else

PS: Though but that attitude, I guess this forum loses any right to moan about people who don't vote or spoil their ballot. I mean nothing will change so why bother?