Toronto Girlfriends

Why Eliot Spitzer was Taken Out

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,940
5,741
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Kinda makes you wonder why Eliot was singled out when many others are doing the same......

Eliot’s Mess

Published March 14th, 2008 in Articles, Podcasts

The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Air America Radio’s Clout

March 14th, 2008

While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort’ $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush’s new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.

Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there’s a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush’s man Bernanke was using ours.

This week, Bernanke’s Fed, for the first time in its history, loaned a selected coterie of banks one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee these banks’ mortgage-backed junk bonds. The deluge of public loot was an eye-popping windfall to the very banking predators who have brought two million families to the brink of foreclosure.

Up until Wednesday, there was one single, lonely politician who stood in the way of this creepy little assignation at the bankers’ bordello: Eliot Spitzer.

Who are they kidding? Spitzer’s lynching and the bankers’ enriching are intimately tied.

How? Follow the money.


The press has swallowed Wall Street’s line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn’t afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That’s blaming the victim.

Here’s what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and its variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chunk of these ‘sub-prime.’

Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota.

Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.

‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.

But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.

But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to.

Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,” Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.

Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.

Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup’s Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called “securitization.”

What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinning’s, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into “tranches” of bonds which were stamped “AAA” - top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really).

When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars – he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.

But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide’s stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks.

Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.

The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.

Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.

And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.

Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!” Naw, that’s not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer” - made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden.

It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans:

“Not 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.”

Bush, Spitzer said right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.

Spitzer wrote, “When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.”

But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story – of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all – now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun.

A note on “Prosecutorial Indiscretion.”

Back in the day when I was an investigator of racketeers for government, the federal prosecutor I was assisting was deciding whether to launch a case based on his negotiations for airtime with 60 Minutes. I’m not allowed to tell you the prosecutor’s name, but I want to mention he was recently seen shouting, “Florida is Rudi country! Florida is Rudi country!”

Not all crimes lead to federal bust or even public exposure. It’s up to something called “prosecutorial discretion.”

Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.

Or maybe we should say, ‘indiscretion.’

************
Greg Palast, former investigator of financial fraud, is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Ummmmm Yea and the Mann act was put in plce to entrap him :rolleyes:

you are a puppet at best...............But that requires a hand up your ass and you seem to like it. Sad woody, sad
 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
19,045
5,431
113
Lewiston, NY
Wondered...

Why he was singled out so ruthlessly. That whole angle about having his SAR followed up on because he was a "Politically Exposed Person" was fundamentally bull crap (a PEP is specifically defined under BSA guidelines as a FOREIGN political figure - though probably the Bushies feel anyone taking on Wall St. and the big banks is "foreign.") Aside from not pointing out the role of the banks (through the all to cozy practices with RE appraisers) in creating the "housing bubble" in the first place and failing to point out that "Securitization" was taking place when the mortgage teaser rates were rates were still in effect vs. when the deal started to go bad (they were even securitizing sub-prime seconds :eek: ) the article was pretty much spot on. For another example of how the big banks savage the little guy while Bushie "regulators" stand by with thier hands in their (full) pockets see "Frontline" on PBS this week - it's a repeat, but there's more revealing stuff about the "premption" of state consumer protection laws if you missed it the first time.
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
I love conspiracies, but the timing is a bit too tight. But if Spitzer has a story to tell, he will tell it and he will get intense media coverage.
 

Questor

New member
Sep 15, 2001
4,548
1
0
Excellent article. I have no doubt that he went down because of his stand against sub prime mortgages and his opposition to Bush.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,940
5,741
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
papasmerf said:
Ummmmm Yea and the Mann act was put in plce to entrap him

you are a puppet at best...............But that requires a hand up your ass and you seem to like it. Sad woody, sad
LOL!!!
JAJA,
There you go again .....as only you can.
You again demonstrate you truly are a celebration of ignorance.
This really seems a bit too deep for your lil blue brain to fathom, so you run along now and go play with the bears....;)
 

CharliePie

Blonde and Bodacious
Nov 17, 2007
8
0
0
Another interesting article on the subject...

Farmer’s Folly
DEPARTMENT
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED March 13, 2008

In today’s New York Times, a New Jersey Republican politician and former prosecutor, John Farmer (whom the Times inexplicably fails to identify by his political badge—an issue that the Public Editor needs to address), counters concerns that the investigation that brought down Eliot Spitzer was politically motivated. In Farmer’s presentation, concerns about the way the prosecution was brought are being raised by “supporters of Spitzer” as part of a “strategy” in his “defense.”

Farmer’s analysis is feeble and unconvincing, and his premises are false.

The guilt or innocence of Eliot Spitzer has nothing to do with concerns about the use of the prosecutorial process for partisan gamesmanship. I raised these concerns very early on. I am not a “supporter” of Spitzer—in fact, I insisted that Spitzer resign immediately. In my view, his failure to counter or reject the accusations in his initial appearance sealed his fate. It also presented the unseemly and unacceptable specter of a high public official holding on to office to use resignation as a bargaining chip—as has happened repeatedly in recent years. This degrades the integrity of public office and should not be countenanced.

The public in New York was angry at Eliot Spitzer—at least to the extent it was not snickering and laughing at his expense. It should have been. And now it should direct its careful attention at the conduct of the federal prosecutors and investigators involved. Their conduct falls seriously short of professional standards, and they have some pressing questions to answer.

Even in defending them, Farmer acknowledges, as he must, that the conduct of the investigation failed to meet minimal professional standards. He agrees that the prosecutors filled public filings with salacious details and developed a suspicious and unprofessional rapport with the press (which the press, including the Times, perhaps unsurprisingly is unwilling to note or criticize). He correctly observes that this “is simply inexcusable.” But Farmer falls down in the overall analysis, and in fact he fails even to note or discuss the graver charges. His point in the end is that the charges ring true, so the case is closed.

But the ultimate guilt or innocence of the target and the question of whether the investigation was politically motivated are entirely distinct points. Farmer’s analysis would let the prosecutors ignore their professional obligations any time they can make their charges stick. I have seen the sort of society that produces around the world, and I have a strong sense that America under George W. Bush is headed in just this direction.

In this case, the facts are not fully developed, but we learn a little more every day. Today’s Times tells us that the North Fork Bank launched the inquiry by submitting a Suspicious Activity Report against their client, Governor Spitzer, on the basis that he had made a number of smaller payments in order to avoid a $10,000 threshold for reporting. The Times quotes Bob Serino, a former counsel at the Treasury Department, as saying that “Banks could certainly decide that a politician’s risk rate is higher and thus have a higher level of due diligence set for someone like Spitzer.” This is true, and it points to an Orwellian deterioration of relations between banks and their customers which undermines a basic service relationship. Instead of serving their clients, banks are increasingly asked to spy on their clients for the benefit of a pervasive national surveillance state. The prospect that this will be used for abusive purposes, especially with elected officials and other public purposes, is strong, and in fact well demonstrated by the Spitzer case. Indeed, the suspicion that the bank apparently articulated, that Spitzer was laundering bribes, is and was absurd. But that baseless “suspicion” was enough to launch a massive fishing expedition into the governor’s finances and is now very aggressively invoked by prosecutors as cover for what increasingly looks like a political hit job.

Even more troubling is the fact that Spitzer, as a law enforcement officer, had challenged practices of North Fork Bank and had considerably embarrassed the bank and its management. This raises the obvious concern that retaliation, and not prudent oversight, was the motive behind the bank’s decision to report Spitzer to federal authorities.

But even beyond this opening phase, the conduct of the case, to the limited extent it has surfaced in public filings and newspaper accounts, points to very questionable calls on the part of politically appointed law-enforcement officials. They decided to devote massive resources to the matter which could not be justified on the basis of the small payments in question. Did they invest these resources not because they had detected a crime—there was none—but because they had a prominent Democratic officeholder in their sights and they wanted to find something compromising about him? This is a common practice in much of the world, and indeed there is a specific term for this in Russian, it is called компромат. This concern has not been dispelled. Indeed, the more information we gather, the more is builds.

The report of the investigation shows that prosecutors and investigators had assembled their case against the prostitution ring by mid-January. But they held back. They were waiting for their true prey, which was not the prostitution ring. They were out for Eliot Spitzer. He apparently booked another transaction on the eve of Valentine’s Day. The allocation of resources for this operation again was massive, and included a stake-out of Spitzer’s hotel room and comprehensive surveillance. Again, the prosecution team was not out after a crime, it was out after a person.

The key questions that need to be asked go to the extraordinary allocation of resources and manpower for this operation and the application of level standards. Here again, the Bush Justice Department has one set of standards when Republican officials fall into a prostitution ring, and an entirely different set when the target is a Democrat who is threatening the Republican Party’s power base in Albany. We just need to look over the “D.C. Madam” case, which caught in its snare a high-level official of the Bush Administration and a Republican senator. But the Bush Justice Department’s attitude towards that case couldn’t be more different. It is deferential towards the customers and has shown no interest in bringing charges against any of them. It has also engaged in extraordinary somersaults to keep the names of the Republicans caught up in the case out of the media. The two cases, compared with care, point convincingly to a partisan political double standard.

The Bush Justice Department complains it has no resources to investigate or deal with the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a woman from Houston who was gang-raped, brutalized and held hostage by American contractors in Iraq. It claims it has no resources to deal with dozens of similar cases involving rape and assault by or against U.S. citizens. It has no resources to deal with hundreds of cases involving massive contract fraud, tallying into the billions of dollars, in Iraq. Its prosecution of white-collar crime across the country has fallen through the floor. But this same Justice Department allocates millions in resources to ensnare a prominent Democratic politician in a sex tryst at the Mayflower Hotel. This evidences an extremely curious set of priorities—priorities which are suspiciously driven by a partisan politics, not a sober and responsible interest in law enforcement.

The public has an interest in being protected against politicians who betray their trust through immoral and unethical behavior. But its interest in insuring that the machinery of the criminal justice system is clean from the taint of partisan political manipulation is still stronger. In this case, the public should be angry at Eliot Spitzer. But it should reserve its real rage for the Justice Department, whose political shenanigans are destroying the public’s trust and bringing our criminal justice system to a point of rupture.
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,992
0
0
Above 7
I'm quite sure his pissed off enough people that a whole bunch of people were out to get him.

Makes him look even more stupid and more arrogant for doing what he did.
 

great bear

The PUNisher
Apr 11, 2004
16,168
54
48
Nice Dens
WoodPeckr said:
LOL!!!
JAJA,
There you go again .....as only you can.
You again demonstrate you truly are a celebration of ignorance.
This really seems a bit too deep for your lil blue brain to fathom, so you run along now and go play with the bears....;)
Please, please, leave us Bears out of it.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I can buy that there might be some sort of political revenge / hatred angle in going after Spitzer, but I find the link to his arrest and the $200b federal reserve bailout to be incredibly weak.

First, nothing Spitzer was ever doing would have had any impoact on that bailout. Not as AG. Not as Governor. The article does some handwaving on this front about how he would "create a ruckus", but I find that pretty weak.

Now if you had some evidence that he was about to launch into a new round of prosecutions, etc., and the people who were monitoring him were somehow in his sights, then THAT sounds like a plausible connection.

I can buy that he was singled out somehwo relating to the subprime crisis, but I just don't see any plausible connection to the $200b bailout.

Even if the $200b bailout turns out to be requried because of some prior fraud on the part of people Spitzer was going to nail, or did nail, arguably the federal reserve still has a duty to keep the banking system afloat. Whether it is in trouble due to fraud, or incompetence, or bad judgement, or bad luck, is neither really here nor there, that's all water under the bridge at this point from the fed's point of view. (Might well be an ongoing issue for specific individuals from a CRIMINAL point of view, but that's nothing to do with the bailout.)
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
WoodPeckr said:
..... Air America Radio’s Clout

........

Isn't that an oxymoron.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I'm just happy to see that all that money spent by banks on AML solutions is paying off......

OTB
 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
19,045
5,431
113
Lewiston, NY
Also adds more fuel....

CharliePie said:
Farmer’s Folly
Even more troubling is the fact that Spitzer, as a law enforcement officer, had challenged practices of North Fork Bank and had considerably embarrassed the bank and its management. This raises the obvious concern that retaliation, and not prudent oversight, was the motive behind the bank’s decision to report Spitzer to federal authorities.
to the WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THINKING aspect. Blow the bank in for substandard practices and then keep doing your own transactions there and expect them to play fair?? :rolleyes:
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Spitzer is a hood...pure and simple.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,940
5,741
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
CharliePie said:
The report of the investigation shows that prosecutors and investigators had assembled their case against the prostitution ring by mid-January. But they held back. They were waiting for their true prey, which was not the prostitution ring. They were out for Eliot Spitzer. He apparently booked another transaction on the eve of Valentine’s Day. The allocation of resources for this operation again was massive, and included a stake-out of Spitzer’s hotel room and comprehensive surveillance. Again, the prosecution team was not out after a crime, it was out after a person.

The key questions that need to be asked go to the extraordinary allocation of resources and manpower for this operation and the application of level standards. Here again, the Bush Justice Department has one set of standards when Republican officials fall into a prostitution ring, and an entirely different set when the target is a Democrat who is threatening the Republican Party’s power base in Albany. We just need to look over the “D.C. Madam” case, which caught in its snare a high-level official of the Bush Administration and a Republican senator. But the Bush Justice Department’s attitude towards that case couldn’t be more different. It is deferential towards the customers and has shown no interest in bringing charges against any of them. It has also engaged in extraordinary somersaults to keep the names of the Republicans caught up in the case out of the media. The two cases, compared with care, point convincingly to a partisan political double standard.

The Bush Justice Department complains it has no resources to investigate or deal with the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a woman from Houston who was gang-raped, brutalized and held hostage by American contractors in Iraq. It claims it has no resources to deal with dozens of similar cases involving rape and assault by or against U.S. citizens. It has no resources to deal with hundreds of cases involving massive contract fraud, tallying into the billions of dollars, in Iraq. Its prosecution of white-collar crime across the country has fallen through the floor. But this same Justice Department allocates millions in resources to ensnare a prominent Democratic politician in a sex tryst at the Mayflower Hotel. This evidences an extremely curious set of priorities—priorities which are suspiciously driven by a partisan politics, not a sober and responsible interest in law enforcement.

The public has an interest in being protected against politicians who betray their trust through immoral and unethical behavior. But its interest in insuring that the machinery of the criminal justice system is clean from the taint of partisan political manipulation is still stronger. In this case, the public should be angry at Eliot Spitzer. But it should reserve its real rage for the Justice Department, whose political shenanigans are destroying the public’s trust and bringing our criminal justice system to a point of rupture.
Exactly!
This looks like a classic 'setup' to get Eliot out of the way.
This points out where Team 'w' priorities really are grounded......in protecting their base/crooks.
All this coming from the GOP, the so called 'Law & Order' party.....:rolleyes:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I do love a good conspiracy theory, it does bring out all the fruits and nuts.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
DonQuixote said:
Live by the sword, die by the sword. He didn't have friends.

He didn't hold his enemies as close as he should have.
By all reports it sounds like he was holding someone too close....

He doesn't make for a very sympathetic character that's for sure, spoiled little rich bully living in a 5th ave apartment that daddy bought..... I'm sure there was many a clinked glass on Wall Street over the news....

OTB
 

CharliePie

Blonde and Bodacious
Nov 17, 2007
8
0
0
onthebottom said:
By all reports it sounds like he was holding someone too close....

He doesn't make for a very sympathetic character that's for sure, spoiled little rich bully living in a 5th ave apartment that daddy bought..... I'm sure there was many a clinked glass on Wall Street over the news....

OTB
Sure, that very well may be the case but it doesn’t mean it’s not party of a worrisome trend. I mean, this was handed over by the IRS to the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section (PIS, how fucking Orwellian is that???) and interestingly enough, since Bush came into office there were 5.6 cases involving Democrats initiated by PIN for every 1 case involving a Republican.

Link: http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

Whether the guy is a hypocrite is besides the point, he’s entitled to due process. If we start retrieving that right from everyone we deem to be an asshole, then I want to be in charge (to be sure it’s done adequately and fairly you see)…
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
CharliePie said:
Sure, that very well may be the case but it doesn’t mean it’s not party of a worrisome trend. I mean, this was handed over by the IRS to the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section (PIS, how fucking Orwellian is that???) and interestingly enough, since Bush came into office there were 5.6 cases involving Democrats initiated by PIN for every 1 case involving a Republican.

Link: http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

Whether the guy is a hypocrite is besides the point, he’s entitled to due process. If we start retrieving that right from everyone we deem to be an asshole, then I want to be in charge (to be sure it’s done adequately and fairly you see)…

Oh, I think he's going to get his fill of due process...... :D

OTB
 
Toronto Escorts