Perhaps now's a great time to walk down memory lane & see what Hamsher & Norquist collaborated on.

[CrossChris]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/jane-hamsher-grover-norquist-call-for-rahm-emanuel%E2%80%99s-resignation.html

Dear Attorney General Holder:

We write to demand an immediate investigation into the activities of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. We believe there is an abundant public record which establishes that the actions of the White House have blocked any investigation into his activities while on the board of Freddie Mac from 2000-2001, and facilitated the cover up of potential malfeasance until the 10-year statute of limitations has run out.

The purpose of this letter is to connect the dots to establish both the conduct of Mr. Emanuel and those working with him to thwart inquiry, and to support your acting speedily so that the statute of limitations does not run out before the Justice Department is able to empanel a grand jury.

The New York Times reports that the administration is negotiating to double the commitments to Fannie and Freddie for a total of $800 billion by December 31, in order to avoid the congressional approval that would be needed after that date. But there currently is no Inspector General exercising independent oversight of these entities. Acting Inspector General Ed Kelly was stripped of his authority earlier this year by the Justice Department, relying on a loophole in a bill Mr. Emanuel cosponsored and pushed through Congress shortly before he left for the White House. This effectively ended Mr. Kelly’s investigation into what happened at Fannie and Freddie.

Since that time, despite multiple warnings by Congress that having no independent Inspector General for a federal agency that oversees $6 trillion in mortgages is a serious oversight, the White House has not appointed one

<continued at link>

[Whisp]

1. what a loving couple those two make.

will have to read this later, thanks for posting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Yes, please read it.

The OP obviously didn't.

[Luminous Animal]

33. Oh, I'm sure the OP read the letter (and the article on Naked Capitalism that applauded the action)

[ProSense]

2. So

they were conspiring to demonize Rahm by demonizing ?

Norquist 2012!

Love, Jane!!!

[CrossChris]

4. Do you agree that no inspector general should oversee an agency that handles $6 trill. in mortgages?

While I think they shouldered an unfair portion of the blame, there is strong evidence that there was malfeasance.

Even stronger evidence that the IG post was left vacant to stonewall an investigation.

We used to be against stonewalling investigations, and refusing FOIA requests. What happened?

[girl gone mad]

7. No one need "demonize" FNM and FRE.

Their corruption is writ large.

[ProSense]

8. Wow,

an expert has spoken. No one needs to explain corruption at Fannie and Freddie, largely caused by deregulation and Republican greed, but the idea of Hamsher joining forces with Norquist to investigate Rahm's role is so laughable if it weren't so absurd.

Where was Norquist (and Hamsher) during the Bush years, you know, when all the shit was hitting the fan?

[girl gone mad]

9. Once again, you either feign confusion or intentionally misinterpret my words.

I will try to be more clear.

No one has to expend effort to "demonize" Fannie and Freddie, as you suggest. The legacy of corruption and incompetence is demonic enough on its own.

Rahm was serving on the board when many of the worst misdeeds were occurring, and the man pocketed millions for his "work".

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1

According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.

Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."

During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to "present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings."

The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but "failed to make reasonable inquiries of management."

[ProSense]

10. Hmmmm?

"Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint"

So they were conspiring to get his name added to a complaint filed in 2007?

Clowns!

What does that have to do with Obama?

Again: Where was Norquist (and Hamsher) during the Bush years, you know, when all the shit was hitting the fan?

[girl gone mad]

11. My question to you..

Now that taxpayers are footing the massive bill for these GSE's, which is in part due to Emanuel's fuck ups, would you agree that some of his ill-gotten millions should be clawed back?

As to your points, Rahm was Obama's COS, and the shit didn't really hit the fan until the financial crisis in 2008, when they couldn't cover it up any longer and our current administration eventually gave them a blank check to cover the losses.

[ProSense]

12. My question

First, from the link you provided: "Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint"

Now

"Now that taxpayers are footing the massive bill for these GSE's, which is in part due to Emanuel's fuck ups, would you agree that some of his ill-gotten millions should be clawed back?"

...what the hell are you talking about?

[girl gone mad]

13. I'm asking you if you believe he should have been allowed to profit so handsomely..

for the fraud he committed.

[ProSense]

15. Again

"for the fraud he committed."

...what the hell are you talking about?.

[girl gone mad]

17. I have told you repeatedly what I'm talking about.

He sat on the board, he knew about the accounting lies yet he said and did nothing.

Should he have been pursued by the Inspector General? Keep in mind that without the government bailouts, investors would have gone after him and gotten that money back, so the bailouts amounted to a huge gift from the American taxpayer to Rahm Emanuel for his coverup and lies.

[ProSense]

20. You've

repeatedly shared your opinion based on thin air.

[girl gone mad]

21. Why won't you answer the question?

I think the answer would tell us what it is you believe this party should be.

Either you want a protection racket for the well-connected who wish to engage in fraudulent financial schemes at the expense of the productive class, or you want a political party that stands up for the financial interests of people who do legitimate work in the economy.

You can't have both, and your continued defense of Rahm Emanuel leaves the impression that your loyalties lie only with a small group of established insiders, not with the majority of the people who make up the Democratic party.

[ProSense]

22. Hmmm?

"You can't have both, and your continued defense of Rahm Emanuel leaves the impression that your interests rest only with a small group of established insiders, not with the majority of the people who make up the Democratic party."

By defense, do you mean pointing out that you haven't presented a sliver of evidence to support your claim?

[girl gone mad]

23. I presented ample evidence.

If you're going to stick your head in the sand at sunset, don't try to claim the sun didn't set just because you didn't see it.

The report is very clear.

http://abcnews.com/images/Blotter/specialreport122003.pdf (not subject to copyright)

Failure of Non-Executive Directors to Make Adequate Inquiries

The Board of Freddie Mac was aware of control weaknesses and other management issues that were root causes of many of the problems that led to the ongoing restatement of the financial reports of the Enterprise. The non-executive Directors either 1) did not recognize those “red flags” and make reasonable inquiries of management or 2) failed to take appropriate actions to address the issues raised by the “red flags”.

Presentations were made to the Directors about matters of concern yet they failed to make appropriate, additional inquiry or demand that management take effective, timely action. For example, in June 1999, the Directors of Freddie Mac:

(1) were informed that the SEC had concerns about companies that took actions to change the timing of income recognition or used reserves to avoid earnings surprises;419

(2) were told at least three times by the then-Chief Financial Officer (CFO) that the Net Interest Income of Freddie Mac was “surging and we are undertaking transactions to smooth the time pattern over 1999- 2000;”420

(3) were more specifically informed that the 1999 Net Interest Income of Freddie Mac “is running substantially above plan ... without rebalancing transactions, 1999 Net Interest Income could exceed 2000 Net Interest Income;”421 and

(4) were informed that management was “investigating strategies to ... improve the time pattern of Net Interest Income between 1999 and 2000” that included “analyzing the adequacy of reserves” and delaying the “settlement of 1999 purchases.”422

The special examination found few indications that the non-executive Directors questioned management about how the planned actions or strategies to improve the time pattern of net interest income squared with the concern of the SEC about corporate actions to change the timing of income recognition. There is evidence, however, that non-executive Directors clearly understood the intent of management to smooth earnings. Indeed, one non-executive Director expressed no concern about how the SEC would view the propriety of the action of management, but instead questioned “how transparent smoothing of growth would be to others.”423

Another example concerns the failure of the Board to respond to the red flags related to the change in duties and reassignment of the then-Controller, Gregory Reynolds. Freddie Mac named Mr. Reynolds, a CPA, Controller in September 1998.424 Beginning in September 1999, Mr. Reynolds was also “assigned as the point person for negotiating” a “third party alliance opportunity for distributing mortgage technology”.425 After September 1999, there were times when Mr. Reynolds spent “well in excess of 50 percent” of his time working on those “Business Development Initiatives.”426 Although the non-executive Directors knew Mr. Reynolds was involved in the initiatives from his participation in presentations to the Board,427 the Board did not ask management how Mr. Reynolds was able to perform his critical functions as Controller and, at the same time, play a crucial role in the initiatives.

The non-executive Directors failed again when then-CFO John Gibbons unexpectedly resigned in March 2000.428 Those Directors failed to ask management, in light of the Business Development obligations of Mr. Reynolds and the credentials of the interim CFO,429 who was going to assume responsibility for that important function. Nor did they ascertain who would oversee the activities and efforts of the Corporate Accounting unit that was stretched thin and facing increasing volumes and ever more complex transactions.

There is no evidence that when acting CFO Vaughn Clarke informed the full Board in September 2000 that the Controller would be leaving his position, any of the non-executive Directors asked if it was significant that within six months of the resignation of the Chief Financial Officer, the Controller was also leaving his position. Nothing suggests those Directors recognized the cumulative impact those changes could have on an Enterprise with financial reporting controls that had deteriorated to the point that the Internal Audit Department informed the Board they were marginal.430

Given the lack of qualifications of the new CFO and the marginal controls in financial reporting, the fact that the Directors took no appropriate action to ensure that the Interim Controller had the skills needed at that critical juncture is significant.

etc...

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. And the next sentence is ...

The report also said board members appointed by the President, such as Emanuel, serve terms that are far too short "for them to play a meaningful role on the Board."

So your claims of 'fraud' by Emmanuel are still just claims - made by yourself (and insinuated by Hamsher and Norquist).

Where's your evidence for Emmanuel committing fraud?

[girl gone mad]

32. He served on the board long enough to cash out $$$$ millions.

He sat in silence while the executives were committing Enron style accounting fraud, which was brought to his attention. He said nothing and took the money, knowing the profits from which he was deriving these gains were just a mirage.

Under ordinary circumstances, shareholders would have gone after Rahm and other board members once all of the dirty dealing came to light in the market collapse. Instead, Rahm and his boss handed the GSEs unlimited bailouts in a clear case of conflict of interest, given that he had such an extreme personal financial incentive to get taxpayer money to paper over what was in part his own failure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. He was on the board 14 or 15 months

and got $320,000, not millions. The accounting fraud was investigated in 2003 - when Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress could have thrown the book at Emmanuel, if they'd had evidence, because they'd have loved to have caught a Democratic congressman. The accusations of a cover-up to protect him just don't add up.

$320,000 for 15 months part time work is a cushy job, I don't deny; but no-one has shown any evidence he was part of the fraud. The bailouts later were not a 'conflict of interest'; they stabilised the economy, and did not benefit Emmanuel personally in any way. And they started in 2008, still under Bush.

[CrossChris]

41. One problem with that--Rahm was no ordinary Democrat. He was working to push the party rightward.

He was practically a member of the Clinton family, which Poppy Bush was and still is quite friendly with, if you'll remember. I think he was too high up and too connected to the Bushies, via the Clintons, to really "go after."

[KittyWampus]

44. Nonsense- he's a true Democrat that fools like to demonize. The fact you then trash Clinton as equal

to Bush is fucked up.

[CrossChris]

51. He's a Third Way architect that people criticize for pushing the party rightward.

I never equated Clinton with Bush, but said they were friends--which is irrefutable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. So it's the Clintons you hate, then

Being associated with them is enough for you to assume Hamsher was right to call for his resignation.

Fair enough, just so we know.

[CrossChris]

55. No, the appearance of malfeasance, then stonewalling on naming a new IG is the reason.

I don't hate the Clinton's. I don't hate anybody. That's your projection.

[girl gone mad]

5. remember when Obama snuck through unlimited bailouts to Fannie/Freddie on Xmas eve?

They will never have to eat peas.

[CrossChris]

6. Great catch! No they will not. Nor will anyone be there to inspect their plates.

Definitely worth revisiting. Great detective work!

[KittyWampus]

40. LOL! Attacking the agencies helping the little guy yet letting the big fish off the hook.

You are transparent.

[CrossChris]

42. I said nothing about letting the big fish off the hook. Put them all on ice, if they helped crash

the economy.

Are you claiming that Fannie and Freddie were clean in all this?

[KittyWampus]

47. You also equated Clinton with Bush. Sorry, you're transparent. Attacking Fred/Fan while the bulk of

the problem and pretty much all of the malfeasance lay elsewhere is insane.

[CrossChris]

48. I didn't say Fannie & Freddie were the bulk, but worthy of investigation. Clinton & Bush are friends

That's not equating them, but saying that a Bush has reasons to lay off a Clinton confidant.

[KittyWampus]

39. Do you even know what "Fannie/Freddie" ARE? You know the difference between them & Investment Banks

and the Banks doling out mortgages and then chopping those mortgages up?

[Luminous Animal]

14. Perhaps it's a great time to see what John Kenneth Gailbraith & Norquist collaborated on

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coalition-calls-for-an-audit-of-the-federal-reserve-before-bernanke-is-reappointed-as-chair-78372177.html

Oh look! There's a bunch of other lefties who signed on with Norquist, as well.

Burn them! Burn them!

[dameocrat67]

18. They conspire with the right to do right wing things so they

have a shit fit when a dem conspires with them to do left wing things. As far as I am concerned Goldman Sachs and Fanny and Freddy are a republican constituency.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Who was at Fannie Mae ... Tom Donilon's Revolving Door

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/national-security-advisor-tom-donilon/story?id=11836229

"President Obama's new National Security Advisor spent the decade prior to joining the White House as a legal advisor to powerful interests including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, where he oversaw the mortgage giant's aggressive campaign to undermine the credibility of a probe into its accounting irregularities, according to government reports and public disclosure forms...

After a stint at the law firm O'Melveny & Myers, where Donilon was registered as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, he took on full-time work with the mortgage giant as executive vice president for law and policy. Donilon's name appears on Fannie Mae's public lobbying disclosure reports between 2000 and 2005...

Donilon's tactics reportedly included attacks on the agency responsible for policing Fannie Mae's operations, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and an attempt to launch a separate investigation into OFHEO itself, according to a 2006 government report about Fannie Mae. Those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, and regulators eventually discovered top Fannie Mae executives had been manipulating the company's financial reporting to maximize their bonuses..."

[CrossChris]

38. I really hope everyone reading this thread sees this. Great find! Worth an OP, IMO.

This issue shouldn't go down the memory hole.

[mmonk]

59. Thanks for posting part of the corruption they sought to address.

[CrossChris]

36. Exactly! They only howl when a left/right coalition does something to challenge the powerful.

It's okay to collaborate on the wars, trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, Patriot Act extensions, deficit deals, etc.

[slipslidingaway]

25. The only way out is a left-right coalition on certain issues ...

my Party right or wrong will not lead to a good outcome for most people ... IMHO.

[CrossChris]

45. Left-right coalitions are only ok for the top 1% and their reps in DC. Populism is scary!

Could you imagine if the frustrated citizens on both sides of the aisle ever worked together?

[slipslidingaway]

56. So true, the peons need to remain loyal. n/t

[CrossChris]

37. Nice find! nt

[Marr]

50. I would really love to see one of the Hamsher critics address that.

I doubt any will.

Great response.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Calling for an audit of the Fed is not a partisan, anti-Democratic move

Calling for the resignation of the Democratic president's chief of staff because you're accusing him, without evidence, of fraud is very partisan.

[dameocrat67]

16. Just because he is a democrat does not mean

he is worth defending, particularly when he conspired with the big banks to put millions of young Americans into dept slavery to the banks. That is right wing and Hamsher was right to call him on it. Some people dont belong in the democratic party.

[MouseFitzgerald]

19. Wait a sec

People are mad that Hamsher was apart of a bipartisan coalition to investigate Rahm Emmaunuel? What am I missing? How is that a bad thing? Rahm Emmanuel is a horrible scumbag that treated the left with utter disdain, whats the problem?

[Rex]

27. I know! WTF?

We get yelled at when Obama works with Repukes and we get mad...here we have a lefty and righty working together...but that is different, it is a lefty not a moderate. People are so transparent around here, even when they are trying their best to act slicker then shit. The hatred here for the Left by supposed Dems is disgusting.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krabigirl]

31. Seriously.

[KittyWampus]

43. Hello Newbie, and Rahm isn't a "horrible scumbag" except to extremists who need to demonize Dems.

And the "bipartisan" investigation was a bullshit trumped up ill-advised venture.

[MouseFitzgerald]

58. Yeah he is and you know it

[scheming daemons]

28. she collaborates with Norquist in efforts to bring down the President

She has never gotten over Obama defeating Hilllary.

She was the original PUMA.

[Luminous Animal]

29. Hamsher never endorsed anyone during the primaries. She was quite clear about that.

She was not then and is not now a PUMA.

I am going to ask you to prove that 1) She was a Hillary supporter, and 2) she was the original PUMA.

[CrossChris]

35. She's such a PUMA that she went after Rahm Emanuel. longtime confidant of the Clintons.

That was her collaborative effort with Norquist.

I wish everyone would mention that every time someone brings up that infamously EVIL collaboration between a person on the left and a person on the right.

[CakeGrrl]

46. Trying to pick a pea out of a pile of crap?

Good luck. You seem to think this is a one-issue deal about the execrable Hamsher, or that one issue that YOU consider redeemable offsets everything else.

Go ahead and sing her praises.

You'll continue to meet with disagreement. That's the way it goes.

I think the woman is nothing more than a divide and conquer shill - and a nasty one at that.

You can overlook her advertising for BP, or her use of blackface to make a point, or her contacts with the Tea Party during the HCR vote, or her willingness to pit groups of Dems against each other and so on, but some people are not willing to overlook it.

[CrossChris]

49. I wouldn't criticize a site's advertising on here if I were you. Jane & Grover went after Rahm.

That's the evil bipartisan collaboration that so many are harping on. I just thought I'd help remind everyone.

[CakeGrrl]

52. Yes, I get what you choose to focus on, and I'm looking at a bigger picture.

And it looks like your interpretation isn't gospel, at that.

On balance? She could disappear from the discourse altogether and Progressives would be the better for it, IMO.

[Number23]

57. I see this thread did not go as you planned.

:rofl:

But the epic handings of ass delivered by ProSense and Muriel within make me still give it two ENTHUSIASTIC :thumbsup: :thumbsup: