Kamala Harris' mortgage meltdown record under scrutiny as campaign heats up

[left-of-center2012]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-mortgage-meltdown-record-under-13730708.php

Sen. Kamala Harris of California regularly points to how, as state attorney general, she wrestled $20 billion from the nation’s big banks in 2012 after the housing meltdown — after initially walking away from negotiations when the institutions offered $2 billion to settle. No attorney general secured more for their state from Wall Street after the mortgage crisis.

But Harris rarely mentions something else that happened in 2012: Her office declined to sue OneWest, the California bank whose CEO was now-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, an architect of the Republican tax cut law that Harris and other Democrats deride as being a giveaway to the wealthy.

Low-income housing advocate Paulina Gonzalez-Brito remains disappointed that Harris didn’t pursue a case.

“The question is, when push comes to shove, when you’re faced with that level of opposition from monied interests, are you willing to stand up to those monied interests?” said Gonzalez-Brito, who is the executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, which represents 300 community organizations, mostly in low-income neighborhoods. The nonprofit does not endorse candidates.

“In this case, Kamala Harris made a decision to not take on OneWest Bank,” said Gonzalez-Brito.
“It’s unfortunate,” Gonzalez-Brito said. “It was disappointing.”

[wasupaloopa]

1. So are we going to get the whole story or just

say Kamala Harris is not fit to be president?

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. THIS is why I dont bother around her much anymore...

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Lets make sure we find every possible negative thing to say about ALL democrats while a fucking

nazi traitor rapist piece of shit is close to ending the human race.

GREAT idea

[peggysue2]

9. Existential threat staring us in the face and . . .

we're fighting over stupid shit, demonizing our candidates because . . .

4 more years of Donald Trump will be absolutely brilliant, doncha know.

It defies all reason. So . . .

why don't we find out Kamala Harris' reason for making this decision, as in particulars, details. Before we blast her off to Jupiter, that is. Or label her Worst Person in the World.

Jeeze! I'm getting tired of this and it hasn't even started.

[sheshe2]

27. That is way to much work.

Headlines sell.

[Eliot Rosewater]

35. I have predicted everything so far correctly and you dont want to know what I think

happens next.

[Hassler]

17. +1

[DURHAM D]

3. I would suggest that everyone read the whole article,

not just the snips above.

[still_one]

5. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[mr_lebowski]

8. No need for that, you see ...

"Low-income housing advocate Paulina Gonzalez-Brito remains disappointed that Harris didn’t pursue a case. "

That's all I need to read ... SHE'S OUT! NEVER KAMALA!!!!

[DURHAM D]

12. Housing advocate Paulina Gonzalez Brito also said this -

Harris points to other actions she took as attorney general to help homeowners. Later in 2012, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed a homeowners bill of rights law that Harris helped to craft. It included some of the nation’s strongest protections against practices that lenders used during the housing meltdown.

Gonzalez-Brito, the advocate for low-income California communities, praised it.

“That is an example where she was a leader and stood her ground against the monied interests,” Gonzalez-Brito said. “She was on the side of Main Street there.”

[mr_lebowski]

13. I was kidding, but thanks :) (nt)

[Eliot Rosewater]

36. I wasnt sure either, if you were kidding. this is FUCKING MADNESS

Russia is taking over our country, the WORLD, FASCISM is

and we are arguing about what again?


Nah, human race too dumb to survive, we do not deserve to.

But yes of course you were kidding, YOU are a liberal. YOU are a sane person. Not many of us left I think.

[mr_lebowski]

37. You know I share your frustration ER :) (nt)

[WheelWalker]

29. Exactly this. Read the whole article, the whole truth. I support Kamala Harris. I favor Biden

but I support Harris as well. Time for Democrats to go back to back.

[Chipper Chat]

6. I dont give a squat what Harris did with One West Bank.

I do care how she feels about the West Bank
However .

[DURHAM D]

15. Okay

“There is no question that I had very serious concerns about their conduct, and I am pretty certain based on what we knew that there should have been some accountability and consequence,” Harris told The Chronicle in an interview.

But, she said, her department’s hands were tied.

“We didn’t have the legal ability because of the way the rules were written in favor of the banks in terms of our subpoena powers as the state attorney general,” Harris said.

[Dawson Leery]

7. It's nothing.

I fully support her.

[Andy823]

10. I support here also

She has what it takes to go after trump, even if someone here seems to have a problem with her the last couple of days, she can take trump on and she can WIN!

[Andy823]

11. Strange

This is at least the second hit job by you on Harris in the last few days. Do you have a problem with here, or are you still ticked of that some of her supporters here were upset with your candidate about something he said about Hillary?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. The hits keep coming. One candidate one day, the

next the other day. I know who I like and I know what baggage I have to rationalize/defend. Don't really need anymore from anyone else.

[Power 2 the People]

14. The most troubling part is that her staff wanted to prosecute and she overruled them

The memo, written by Justice Department consumer law attorneys, said there was “evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” in how OneWest processed loans. They said OneWest had violated state laws at least 1,000 times in mortgage foreclosures, including reducing homeowners’ chances to challenge foreclosures by backdating documents and manipulating bids at property auctions.

The memo’s authors, however, said the state investigation was “hampered by our inability to subpoena OneWest.”

“We therefore recommend that the attorney general authorize the filing of a civil enforcement against OneWest,” the lawyers wrote. If Harris approved their proposal, they said, “we will be allowed to conduct full discovery” and be in a better position to learn about other potential violations of the law.

And after she went against the recommendations of her staff to prosecute, Steve Mnuchin got away with his crimes. In the 2016 election cycle, Mnuchin donated to only one Democratic Senate candidate, Kamala Harris. Mnuchin gave Harris’ campaign $2,000 according to records from the Federal Election Commission, making her the only Democrat who ran on the national level to receive money from him that cycle.

All of us have our preferred candidates and each of them have their warts. But objectively we as Democrats have to admit this is troubling.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Then she might be asked about it at some point.

[wasupaloopa]

28. Sure if you pick the parts of the article you can use against her.

I have never trusted a Bernie supporter and you make the case

[SidDithers]

44. +1...nt

Sid

[namahage]

31. Do you know how long that civil enforcement would have taken?

Even the attorneys filing the memo admitted that there was substantial risk of litigation:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3250383-OneWest-Package-Memo.html

Expected Outcome and Timeline: If the proposed enforcement action is authorized, the primary goals will be to obtain liability findings and to hold OneWest publicly accountable for its misconduct. If we succeed, we will seek extensive injunctive relief, penalties, restitution, and costs. We anticipate a removal fight, substantial motion practice, a civil discovery
process (because of our inability to subpoena OneWest and its obstructive conduct), and a trial. Absent settlement, we expect that the litigation will last 3 to 5 years.

Likelihood of Success: Moderate. The proposed enforcement action would be the first of its kind in California and it raises complex legal and factual issues which may lessen the prospect of settlement and/or require appellate review. If we take the enforcement action to trial, we face a higher than average risk that the court may choose to award minimal amounts in restitution and/or penalties. We nevertheless expect to obtain a liability finding and secure injunctive relief. We believe that there is substantial public justice value in fully investigating OneWest's conduct through the use of civil discovery and holding it publicly accountable, even if sizable penalties and restitution are not awarded.

Resources: We expect resource intensive and prolonged litigation. We will need 2-3 full-time DAGs, substantial SDAG time, auditor time, and paralegal time. Outside expert (testifying and consulting) support will be required to assist us as we review and evaluate data regarding the tens of thousands of relevant foreclosures conducted by OneWest.

...

CONS:

...

High potential for delays. For example, it could easily be a year or two before we get past the removal and pleadings stages into merits discovery.

We may be at odds with certain federal agencies. It is possible that the OCC will side with OneWest or that the FDIC will intervene.

Harris got a big win, instead of trying to pursue a costly, time-consuming, risky enforcement that could very well have failed. How many homeowners were you willing to sacrifice for your symbolic victory?

Oh, and that contribution from Mnuchin went really far, considering she then introduced a bill to make it easier for future state AGs to subpoena national banks (which had tied her office's hands previously), not to mention voting against his confirmation as Treasury Secretary.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Let's just keep those hit jobs coming, folks.

Harris decided not to take a case. Prosecutors make those decisions all the time, for any number of reasons. So Harris didn't take one that some people thought she should have, and OH NOES SHE CAN'T BE PRESIDENT NOW!

Shall we stop eating our own before there's nobody left to eat?

[Hassler]

18. +1

[UniteFightBack]

19. I support all Democrats and I support Kamala Harris I don't give a fuck about this. nt

[BlueFlorida]

20. There are many reasons to not sue besides

a favoritism that you seem to imply with innuendo.

Lack of sufficient evidence and lack of assets to satisfy a judgment are the primary reasons but there are many other legitimate reasons to not sue.

She won $20 billion for Californians ... more than any other state.

One doesn't have to go search for a dark cloud every time one sees a silver lining.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Another reason could have been that her office didn't have the budget

to pursue the investigation and prosecution of a complex financial matter and she had to choose other priorities.

[jalan48]

21. Has she said why she didn't go after Steven Mnuchin?

[redstateblues]

23. You're not helping your candidate posting this kind of stuff on other candidates.

[jaceaf]

25. Comes from the candidate, like Pete

When the boss does hit jobs on fellow democrats, the followers follow the lead.

[redstateblues]

33. ''Tis true

[bigtree]

26. lol

This is a roundabout way to lamely blame her for not prosecuting Muchin.

“We didn’t have the legal ability because of the way the rules were written in favor of the banks in terms of our subpoena powers as the state attorney general,” Harris said.

Daily Kos:

First and foremost, let’s point out that of all the attorney generals and elected representatives in the country during the financial crisis, there was ONE who chose to investigate and who went after the banks for a settlement. That was Kamala Harris. She didn’t get any prosecutions or convictions, but she did strong-arm the banks into turning a $2 billion settlement proposal into $25 billion of immediate payments.

This can’t be overlooked. Sen. Harris was entirely responsible for pulling out of negotiations in 2011 in order to force the banks to pay more. And it worked. So before you get all high and mighty about how you would have for sure jailed some bankers, weigh what good it did California families to get $25 billion compared to what they would have gotten from watching a complex civil proceeding play out over five years.

She got money to people losing their homes, and that was more important.

On the OneWest issue, it’s a misnomer (ie, lie) that Harris “didn’t prosecute Mnuchin.” He was never under investigation, and Harris didn’t receive a referral to criminally prosecute anyone. What she got was a recommendation to file a civil enforcement action against OneWest. In such a filing, no one person is accused of anything. Instead, an entire company is looked at, and perhaps fined for wrongdoing.

So why didn’t she file the action? Well, Senator Harris isn’t exactly free to openly discuss that, because we don’t openly discuss investigations. It’s not appropriate to discuss partial evidence, suspicions, or rumors. This harms the party under investigation, who has a right to a presumption of innocence.

But the reasons this didn’t go anywhere are likely far simpler...

read more: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/21/1827095/-Kamala-Harris-and-the-big-lie-that-she-didn-t-prosecute-Mnuchin

[DURHAM D]

32. Thanks.

I don't think this thread is working out the way some wanted it to.

[tirebiter]

34. Who else has this in their resume?

"No attorney general secured more for their state from Wall Street after the mortgage crisis."

The lady kicked butt as a prosecutor taking down them that needed prosecutin'.

[WeekiWater]

38. You are on fire!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128748620

Great job pointing out how tough Harris was and is.

"she wrestled $20 billion from the nation’s big banks in 2012 after the housing meltdown — after initially walking away from negotiations when the institutions offered $2 billion to settle. No attorney general secured more for their state from Wall Street after the mortgage crisis. "

[Andy823]

39. She really does have what it takes

Harris is the kind of person we need in the WH, and she has the experience to fix the mess trump has made of our country.

[comradebillyboy]

40. So Kamala didn't pursue shaky litigation or use her office to

conduct a political prosecutions she would probably lose. Sounds smart to me.

[Blue_true]

41. Did she have enough evidence on OneWest?

It is one thing to "feel" that something is wrong, it's another case entirely to PROVE that sonething is wrong. Maybe Harris didn't feel she had enough to nail that one bank and would have opened up a disadvantageous can of worms had she gone after it and lost.

[namahage]

42. And if the enforcement ultimately failed,

or produced disappointing returns, the message would instead be that Harris sacrificed homeowners for her own personal failed crusade that even her own staff said was risky. And I bet Mnuchin would be in no one's mouths as they said so.

[Blue_true]

45. The thing it is sad to see people that say they are democrats doing this type of nonsense.

They don't care about the facts that Harris and her legal staff saw, they just want to paint aspersions on her. Like you pointed out, if she had sued that bank without an ironclads case and lost, the boo birds would now being on her for putting ambition above all else.

It never ceases to amaze me how some pull events out of the past and deform to fit their storyline, but legitimate past questions about one candidate are always poo-pooed as a character assination.

[peggysue2]

43. Rebuttal on the issue

The following was written by Roger Sollenberger, a self-proclaimed progressive (bold is my addition):

But Harris chose not to prosecute OneWest Bank or its CEO—who was at the time our current Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin—even though her department recommended prosecuting him. (Harris was the only Democratic Senate candidate Mnuchin donated to in 2016, but she still voted against Mnuchin in his Senate confirmation.)

When asked about the case, Harris said her department followed the evidence where it led. There’s reason to trust her. Ian Sams, the Harris campaign’s national press secretary, told CNBC, “There was no question One West conducted predatory lending, and Senator Harris believes they should be punished. Unfortunately, the law was squarely on their side and they were shielded from state subpoenas because they’re a federal bank.” A memo the California Justice Department wrote at the time backs this up, saying, “the investigation was hampered by our inability to subpoena OneWest.”

And guess what? Once Harris got to the Senate she acted to fix this awful flaw. She co-sponsored a bill with Elizabeth Warren and Dianne Feinstein—called the “Accountability for Wall Street Executives Act”—that would let state law enforcement agencies issue subpoenas in bank fraud investigations.

A few details makes this far less accusatory and/or negligent on Harris' part, and the fact that once in the Senate she worked diligently to correct the legal flaw is a definite check mark in her favor.

Source here:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/02/the-case-for-kamala-harris.html