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

[placton]

Source: naked capitalism

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. As one correspondent noted by e-mail, “When officials allegiances are to El Supremo rather than the Constitution, you walk the path to fascism.”

Revealingly, one of the Administration’s allies said: “Wall Street is our Main Street.” And the worst is that this remark may not be a cynical Ministry of Truth pronouncement. Team Obama bears all the hallmarks of being so close to banks and big corporations that it has lost all contact with and understanding of mainstream America.

The latest example is its heavy-handed campaign to convert New York state attorney general Eric Schneiderman to a card carrying member of the “be nice to our lords and masters the banksters” club. Schneiderman was the first to take issue with the sham of the so-called 50 state attorney general mortgage settlement. As far as the Administration is concerned, its goal is to give banks a talking point and prove to them that Team Obama is protecting their backs in a way that the chump public hopefully won’t notice.


Read more: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/corrupt-obama-administration-pressuring-new-york-attorney-general-to-support-mortgage-whitewash.html

---

this says it all

[DJ13]

1. K& (sadly) R

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[FarLeftFist]

111. I never believe everything I read on internet.

Administration "allies" = BS un-named source.

[Maat]

152. Look at Obama's BEHAVIOR.

Who did he effectively give TRILLIONS to (I believe it's calculated to be about $18T)? It wasn't to average Americans. It was to WALL STREET. So, what the ally DID jive with this administration's BEHAVIOR.

When will Americans wake up? Politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle are screwing us over.

[Dragonfli]

157. I have been thinking about that alot Maat (by the way it is good to see you again)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1786321&mesg_id=1788751

[Maat]

184. Hey, 'Fli ...

I hope that you are doing well!

[Dragonfli]

191. Not too well, but I am out of bed a few times a week now thanks to hospice help.

I can't get medical treatment until I lose mu UI, but unfortunately that will mark a time when I will be soon homeless, can't seem to win.

I called hospice to get some palliative care and luckily they have started coming by with pain meds, it has made all the difference in the world as far as being able to be somewhat mobile again.
I am just lucky they are run by donations and not Gov't, at least if I must die from stalling treatment until stage 4 I will feel less pain.

[Maat]

205. Oh, you are in my prayers and positive thoughts.

That must be a wonderful organization. I am sad for my country. What a travesty of a healthcare system we have.

[monmouth]

2. And then as a thank you Wall Street supports Romney. Do I have that right?..n/t

[sabrina 1]

11. Probably sending a message 'either stop those AGs from

investigating us, or we will replace you with someone who will'.

I think we are being run by a Giant Mafia.

And if it's true that Admin is pressuring the NY AG to make a deal to get Bankers off the hook, what are we supposed to think at this point?

Shouldn't they be doing the exact opposite?

[Hubert Flottz]

107. "we are being run by a Giant Mafia."

Have you seen "The GawdFather"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFWzDFjBKUw

Maybe they made Obama some offers he couldn't refuse?

[JDPriestly]

118. I think we are being run by a Giant Mafia.

Yes. Makes no difference who is president. Only the Giant Mafia has the money to make an ordinary mortal man look like a candidate who would become a great president.

We have to accept that honest men have failings instead of trying to always elect Super-Man our hero.

Too many including too many DUers looked at the shining image of the man instead of at that man's vision for government.

Obama was always vague. He always flashed more money and more prestige than was realistic.

We need to back a candidate in the primary who does not take money from the rich and powerful especially who does not take money from the rich and powerful on Wall Street, in big pharma, in big agriculture, or in military armaments and supply. The financial barons should do our bidding not we theirs.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

137. Interesting that you have John Edwards as your avatar. Look up "corrupt" in the

dictionary and it'll be *his* face!

Now, that's what one call AUDACITY!!

[zalinda]

141. Wow, you couldn't attack his post, so you attacked his avatar? n/t

[bvar22]

144. SOP.

As predictable as gravity.

"If you give them a seat at the table,
they will eat ALL the food!"---John Edwards
QED: Mandates with no Public Option.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

146. I'm not wasting my time on ODSers. I just think it's interesting--and quite hypocritical--

to call the kettle black!

As for the OP, it's full of shit, but whatever...

[FedUp_Queer]

167. It was either that or his dog.

[JDPriestly]

148. John Edwards is the perfect example of how a person's weaknesses

are turned against them by the Mafia machine. Why couldn't he simply own up to his mistake and be forgiven as millions and millions of American husbands are every year?

Why do we forgive the businessman who meets a hustler on a business trip and gets caught, but not a politician who does the same thing?

Are you so young that you haven't seen your friends weather the mid-life crisis?

Edwards, Clinton, Ensign, Spitzer. . . . and that's just a few politiicians. The list goes on and on.

A common although regrettable weakness is used against these men to end careers of service in shame.

I'm tired of it.

Do I want my husband to cheat on me? No. But it's not the worst thing in the world. And the numbers of successful men who cheat on their wives is so high that I cannot understand why that same conduct ruins political careers.

Several of our presidents had mistresses. That is the way of the world. Regrettable, condemnable, but --- I'd rather a president cheat on his wife with a woman than on the nation by appointing the head of GE -- a primary outsourcer and job and life destroyer -- on an economic commission. Now that is cheating that hurts millions of people.

When one man cheats his wife, he hurts his family and himself and always pays for it -- but he does not throw millions of working people out of their jobs and onto the street and walk off enriched.

[SacoMaine61]

158. Looking for superhumans

There is an expectation that those in public office excel in all areas and be above the common man. Just as we expect star athletes to be shining examples off the court, we want our public officials to be shining examples outside their elected office. Both types may have great gifts in their chosen fields, but we want them to have superhuman abilities across the board! Totally unrealistic and no doubt grounded in some sort of hero worship distortion.

[ctwayne]

162. Cheating Presidents are Often the Best

Presidents who cheated on their wives include FDR, Kennedy, and Eisenhower. Presidents who didn't cheat on their wives (as far as I know) include Hoover, Nixon, and George Bush. Many of our best presidents cheated on their wives and many of our worst didn't.

Cheating presidents, like FDR and LBJ, gave us Social Security, Medicare, and workers rights. Presidents who didn't cheat, like Hoover and Bush, gave us depressions.
Now this does not mean that being a faithful spouse makes you automatically a bad president; but in no way does it make you a good one.

[loudsue]

179. Thank you!!! Very well stated!

Your post needs to be recommended! I was furious with John Edwards....never in my life had I contributed more money to a campaign, nor worked as hard. Then...BOOM! It might as well have been the "Dean Scream". The media DESTROYS those politicians that the big boys don't want running things. I was mad at him, yes. But I already knew the corruption, or corporate leaning, that Obama and Hilary Clinton were so totally wrapped up in. I don't know if they would have gotten to Edwards or not, if he had won the presidency. Before him, I had been for Clark, because I figured he was the only one tough enough to go toe to toe with the MIC. But these days, I'm so disillusioned with ALL politicians, I don't know what to do.

Well. I still love Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Barbara Walters, and a few others. But for the most part, the Dem party has been merged with the republican party, and the big boys are keeping them all well paid and quiet.

[JDPriestly]

198. loudsue, we must be twins. Thanks for your post in support.

I worked for Edwards because of his proposals. He deeply disappointed me, but not nearly as much as Obama has. Infidelity is dishonest, but it is very common -- and can be explained by the basic instinct to reproduce. It is unwise. It is wrong, but it is very, very common and very, very human. And I can forgive it more easily than some of the corruption I see in D.C. and on Wall Street -- which Obama has just ignored.

[loudsue]

201. So true. And until the repukes used it to get rid of bill clinton, it was always

nobody's business when the president had an affair.

[MADem]

210. I don't understand how you can equate the media's manipulation of

a microphone output by Howard Dean (which was not his 'fault') to the fact that Edwards lied, cheated, lied some more, denied his own child, called the mother of that child names, put the paternity off on a subordinate, then called the subordinate and his wife names....I mean, come on.

Edwards is a disgrace--to HIMSELF. He should be ashamed of his behavior, because it was craven and deceitful on a number of levels. He took that money you gave him, and he funnelled it to his girlfriend. Then, when he needed more, he got rich folk to support her and his kid "off the books."

That's some corruption, if you ask me.

[MADem]

208. Naaah. Edwards had other problems. He didn't just cheat, he lied.

And he covered up. And he lied again, and again, and again. And he denied his own child. And he called the mother of that child unsavory names while trying to push back the story. AND he allowed his wife to get pumped full of drugs to carry two children after the loss of his only son--because the first one was an 'unsatisfactory' girl--which caused her to get cancer, and eventually killed her. And he lied to that woman, whose death was a consequence of her efforts to please her cheating husband, and who had quite a following (here, too, as I recall).

It wasn't 'just' cheating. It was lying, lying, and covering up, and lying some more, and encouraging subordinates to become involved in the whole lying/cheating nightmare. It was craven. The guy was still trying to get on the ticket when he KNEW the tabloids were on his tail. What HUBRIS!!!

If you go back to the "old days" when JFK and his brother(s) were schtupping around, and try to create an equivalence in this day and age, it just does not stand. Politicians KNOW that fooling around is ill-advised. When they do it ANYWAY, it's a failure of judgment, of common sense...and it speaks to an overinflated ego issue that could become problematic in a leader.

Edwards is a failure, and he's one of his own making.

[zalinda]

222. Let's not discount Obama's big lie.

I will not run for President if you elect me to the US Senate in my first term. Big, big difference. Obama lied to the citizens of Illinois, of his own free will. He was not covering up his PRIVATE life. He was lying to get a step up to the most important job in the United States. It was pure EGO. He could have waited 6 years to run, but he CHOSE not to. Forget the promise to the people of Illinois. And that was the beginning. He lied in his campaign for President, and has continues to lie to the American public. He has betrayed more than 50% of the people in the United States. He has catered to the top 2% of the US population.

Obama lies to us every single day. He continues to talk like a Democrat and act like a Republican. People are living in tents, people are committing crimes so they can go to prison to get health care, 45 million people are on food stamps, if you combine the population of all the states except for 4, that is the unemployment rate, but by all means let's talk about John Edwards private life.

And unless you forget, John Edwards was the ONLY candidate that talked about the poor. He was the ONLY candidate who said the worker was just as important as the owner of a company. He was the ONLY candidate who said, if you give them a seat at the table, they will take everything. He was the ONLY candidate that was bringing both sides to the table, the kitchen table. He was the ONLY candidate who wanted to fight the election results in 2004.

I understand it is important for you to put down a man that has no bearing in this conversation, because Obama has turned out to be the weakling in the bunch who ran for President. Hell, even Hillary had more spine.

zalinda

[MADem]

235. Oh, please--EVERY candidate tells those kinds of lies. They do it so they

can get ahead of the journos and plan strategy for the campaign without being continually second-guessed. Clinton used to say "I have no plans to run for President."

And the fact is, when OBAMA said that "awful lie" you can't seem to get over, he was probably telling the truth AT THE TIME HE SAID IT. The reason he decided to run when he did is because JOE BIDEN said "Do it now, BEFORE you have a record they can hang you with." He was convinced by Biden that the time was "NOW" or never for him.

If you want to blame anyone, blame Joe Biden--he's the one that put the idea in Obama's head to go for it NOW--as in, 08.

Don't give me that "Talk like a Dem/Act like a Repub." Your memory apparently is short. I can BREATHE now that Bush is gone. I can also get on a plane without being beaten to death by TSA every fucking time I boarded. Can't believe the memory lapses here. You want Republican? Join the idiots who want Rick Perry elected--then you'll see some serious pain. That'll show ya!

John Edwards did a lot of "talking" about the poor, but he really, at the end of the day, didn't do shit for them, did he? He talked about two Americas, but we know what America he lived in, with that obscene, massive stupid looks-like-a-fucking-nursing-home house with the fucking helo pad. Another idiot who built his "southern White House" before he got the votes. And like I said, he took money from well-meaning people, treated their faith in him like shit, used their money to pay his girlfriend, and lied, lied, and lied some more--right up until the end, when he was caught by a frigging tabloid.

I am not "putting down" Edwards. I am recounting FACT. Brutal, nasty, egomaniacal, failure-of-judgment FACT. He did that shit to himself, and to his late wife, and to his family....AND to the people who thought he was sincere, when all he was, was a power-hungry little egomaniac who looked reporters in the face and LIED, LIED, LIED.

I was a Clinton supporter through the primary process. I often resist the temptation to shove the "Told Ya So" at some of these whiners with their Buyer's Remorse, because there's no point in behaving that way. I'd be lying, though, if I pretended the thought of it never crossed my mind. Don't elect a tabula rasa and then gripe because what you THOUGHT he was all about was what YOU wrote on the slate.

Obama won the nom, Obama was the Dem candidate, and now he's the incumbent President and the leader of the Democratic Party. Here's my personal POV towards anyone (that is to say, a 'generic' anyone) who just "can't" support Obama anymore because he hasn't delivered on all their hopes and dreams: FINE--don't support him. Go support someone else. Sooner is better than later. Stop crying about how you didn't get what you want. Grow up, find a candidate to back and prance off to Anarchist Underground or Green Republic. But ENOUGH with the carping--it's starting to stink like astroturf, and the Pity Party needs to STOP. People who want to retain our Democratic President have work to do, and don't need the continual put-downs and bullshitting. That's my PERSONAL POV, which you can take or leave, but that's how I feel about some of the petty crap I see here lately.

[zalinda]

237. Well, I'm glad he's doing good for you

But from down here, absolutely nothing is changing. It didn't matter when the repub was a President or a dem, we still are fucked, down here at the bottom.

Obama OWNS his Presidency. He chose all his advisers. All most every fucking one of them is to the right of what the dem party used to stand for. I knew what his Presidency was going to look like, however, even I am gobsmacked at how bad he is at it. If he loses the election, it's all on him.

I remember talking to a black woman in the doctor's office waiting room, the tv was on, and they were showing clips of the primary speeches. She said, "You know we really don't need another man in the White House, we need a woman to clean up this mess, that the men left behind." I would have voted for Hillary, but I couldn't vote for Obama, so I voted third party. I figured she didn't stand a chance of winning, but she was the closest to my ideals.

Oh, and btw, the obscene house John Edwards built, was his wife's dream, you know the one that was dying of cancer when he building it.

zalinda

[MADem]

238. If you really think there's no difference, go work for the Republicans, then.

Get it the fuck OVER with. Put a Perry sticker on your car and learn to say YEE HAW.

The hand-wringing here is just bullshit. Nothing Obama does is good enough. You will NEVER be satisfied. You will also not get a primary challenger. Obama IS the incumbent. He will be the Democrat on the ballot. If you can't get behind him, you really should find someone that you can support, and stop harping about shit that will not change.

That horrible house of Edwards' was HIS future Southern White House--EE wouldn't say a word against him, backed him and took the heat for his excesses, never said "That fucker's chauvanist need to have a replacement son gave me cancer and killed me" and stuck by him up until it became obvious that he LIED, LIED, LIED. That's why, the second the shit hit the fan and she knew he had bullshitted her to the Nth degree, she put that so-called "Dream House" on the market and never looked back. But hey, whatever....she's dead now, can't fight back. http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/01/560870/elizabeth-edwards-selling-house.html

[zalinda]

241. It's funny, it's either or

Either your blindly support this President or you are a repub. How silly!

And the anger against Edwards, would make one think that an investment had been made in him.

zalinda

[Maat]

188. Yep.

"I think we are being run by a Giant Mafia."

And, it's world-wide. One can call it "the Corporatocracy," "The Global Elite," "The New World Order," or "the Corporate Oligarchy." Moreover, those are just a few of the names one could use. The point is that this Giant Mafia is run by mulinational corporations, and this mafia appears to use the U.S. military and intelligence operative apparatus as its own personal thugs.

Wake up, World! Let's us loudly state that we no longer want to pay for this nonsense!

[obxhead]

51. Wallstreet is doing the same thing they always do

supporting both sides in their own best interests.

When it comes down to the general election Obama and the pug nominee will both be raking it in hand over fist from wall street.

[Myrina]

131. bingo!

sigh.

[hay rick]

54. There's enough pocket change to buy both candidates. nt

[defendandprotect]

120. True ... Obama is so far to the right, that seems Romney's record in Mass

may actually be looking better to voters -- Dems and independents --

than Obama's record!!


Now -- I, of course, think this is nuts -- because imo Romeny is a RW extremist

just as most of the GOP are -- and is also obviously a part of the fanatical

religious right -- and the religious right also having been financed and created

by RW elite wealthy!

But Obama's attacks on the Democratic Party principles/ideals is really bringing

about a situation where -- to some people, evidently -- Romney's reign in Mass looks

not so frightening in comparison to Obama!!


Yikes!!

[Dragonfli]

161. I think what is most frightening is that a right winger can cause so much MORE damage from within

If a Republican did many of the things that Obama gets a pass for, the Democrats would be mounting an opposition instead, even if only a half-hearted one.

This site alone would be united in opposition to the right wing policy rather than having half defend such dangerous policies and actions, while the other half that still are anti right wing agenda no matter where it comes from would not be chastised and demonized as they are now.

Something I have been thinking about, something that has me more concerned than the life threatening policies themselves as it decreases our ability to fight against such policies in addition to everything else

[Divernan]

187. That's what will decide MY presidential vote.

[defendandprotect]

204. +1 -- k/r

[tcaudilllg]

232. Yeah I noticed that too

Obama has made the left weaker.

[Pharaoh]

3. Yes

The whole system is corrupt. Capitalism is a parasite on humanity and the planet. Time to band together and create a better way.

[Donnachaidh]

4. k&r n/t.

[Hawkowl]

5. The truth will out

The administration can apparently twist arms when it want to. It just doesn't want to for the people.

[truedelphi]

6. Can we blame a guy for appointing a good buddy of his,

Tim Geithner, to be the Secretary of the Treasury? Even though that good buddy should have been hit with a RICO lawsuit and a prison outfit for his corruption while heading the New York Fed? After all, the two were good friends.

Of course we can.

Can we blame a guy for appointing the Monsanto-clone Valsick to the highest office in Agriculture?
After all, how else could he repay favors offered when he was running in the Iowa primary?

Of course we can.

Can we blame a guy who publicly proclaimed he was not at all involved in the discussion regarding the legislation about Health Care Reform, as that was the purview of COngress, while meanwhile his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel had back room deals, left and right, making sure that the Big Insurers and the Big Pharmaceutical interests gained a lot more than the average person did from the HCR efforts?

Of course we can.

Can we blame a guy whose EPA signed off on a powerful and untested chemical agent, Corexit, so his friends over at British Petroleum could mix it into the water and have that chemical dilute the oil spill such that they saved tens of billions of dollars of penalties on that oil spill? After all, the EPA looked into the safety of Corexit for seven long days. And they found nothing wrong after those seven long days...

Of course we can.



Can we blame a guy who said last fall, that the 150 Billions of dollars that he offered up to the nuke warhead manufacturers was a necessity so that he can have a strong hand at the negotiating table on his SALT TREATY?

Of course we can.

Can we blame a guy who claimed his first business once in the nation's Highest Office would be to "immediately end the war in Iraq"?? After all, he didn't start the war, so how can we expect him to end it? Those campaign bucks from Blackwater, Halliburton and Kellogg Brown and Root look awfully appealing for his campaign chest circa 2012...

Of course we can.

And then there is the matter of Eric Holder, a man who once served as legal representative for the people south of our border who put Death Squads into being. Can we blame Obama for that?

Of course we can. Especially since the man is far more interested in his Justice Dept. going after some minor league hacker, rather than the Big Banks.

Of course we can.

There ar others who can run for the nation's Highest Office, and many DU'er s have suggested one senator I admire. And posts containing the man's name always gets dozens of rec's.

So we are not limited to the man who has failed on far too many levels, has lied too many times, and has ignored the needs of the Middle Class every day since early on in his Administration.

[Demeter]

21. +15 Trillion Brazillion

[begin_within]

37. Well said!

[obxhead]

53. We can and some of us do.

With a Dem like this in the WH who needs a Pub.

[Maven]

58. Brilliantly said, THANK YOU

:applause:

[Joe Fields]

59. Awesome reply. What do the enablers have to say about this?

How can anyone refute it. Are they going to believe Obama's lying tongue, or his actions?

Nevermind. I know what they will believe. They're more like Stepford voters.

[OwnedByFerrets]

72. Wow, what a strong post.

[woo me with science]

74. Superb post. nt

[Hawkowl]

80. Well done!

Eloquent.

[pa28]

83. Nicely said and I got the sense you could have gone further but got tired of typing. n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

213. How strange.

I got the same sense.

[Pooka Fey]

86. + 1000

[Enthusiast]

92. Now now. Can't we just get along?

:+

[immoderate]

103. What you said.

--imm

[Jakes Progress]

105. + 110 Golly, but some hate to hear this.

Your "list" is more pertinent than theirs.

[Hubert Flottz]

109. Needs it's own thread.

Obama ask for the job...but so far he's failed to deliver.

If you were doing his evaluation would he get a raise or an Atta-Boy?

I give him about an Awe Shit!

[MissDeeds]

112. Much needed reality check

Well done!

:thumbsup:

[JDPriestly]

121. Oh, but the list. Remember Lily Ledbetter?

Lily Ledbetter is virtually the only rag Obama tossed to the "little people."

Oh, and the stimulus which employed a few people for a short time and transferred a lot of money to construction firms and the already wealthy through short-term contracts and tax breaks.

Road work and tax breaks -- a few teachers hired for one year longer. That was about what the stimulus amounted to.

The trade agreements are sheer corruption. They will harm Americans and help the multinationals.

[Lorien]

154. And Lily Ledbetter doesn't even guarantee us women equal pay for equal labor

so it's a hollow "victory".

[truedelphi]

185. I am guilty of not offering praise for the Obama Stem Cell Research decision.

Which is damn important.

But it certainly does not make up for all the other broken promises.

[OnyxCollie]

217. Lily Ledbetter.

Nearly two years ago, I told a DUer that the Lily Ledbetter Act would be the candy sprinkles on a shit sundae.

Fucking prescient, I am.

[Aleric]

143. + one google

Yeah, google, like democrat used to mean something entirely different than it does today.

[Lorien]

153. Bravo! This deserves a thread of it's own

And I would add/ edit:

"we are not limited to the man who has failed on far too many levels, has lied too many times, and has ignored the needs of the Middle Class every day since early on in his Administration.

There are others who can run for the nation's Highest Office, and many DU'er s have suggested one senator I admire. And posts containing the man's name always gets dozens of rec's. Can we organize to vote for the candidate of OUR choosing? Are we free to elect someone who represents We the People?

Of course we can"

The fact is that we DON'T have to wait to be given permission by the elites to elect a candidate that we choose. The elites don't own our votes. We still have the internet, we can still organize for real Change (anyone who doubts this hasn't paid attention to the Arab Spring). We CAN do something that has never been done before in America: choose a candidate who represents the people, not the powerful. And to make the playing field more level we can encourage the Right to work to elect Ron Paul. I'm not a fan of Paul, but if we were still a Democracy he would be the GOP candidate. He won their debates and came in a close second in their straw poll, so he should be their frontrunner...but this isn't a Democracy in the eyes of the elites. They own the media, so they believe that they own us. We CAN prove them wrong.

[RufusTFirefly]

159. Oh, come now! What about "clean coal" and offshore drilling?

I mean, what's not to like?

[DeSwiss]

166. Yes We Can. Yes We Can. Yes We Can. Yes We Can. Yes We Can. Yes We Can.

And yes we MUST.

- If we have any dignity and respect for the truth at all left......

[truedelphi]

231. I think we have reached a tipping point here on DU -

A month ago this post would have been met with maybe twelve responses, and six of them would ahve been people telling me that I am a troll working for Bachman, or else that I am the Anti-Christ (I am INDEED the ANTI-CHIRST, BUT THAT'S A MATTER RELATED TO MY TEMPERMENT, AND NOT MY POLITICAL CONVICTIONS.)

[DeSwiss]

239. Yep.

Maybe we should start a pool?

[BobbyBoring]

172. Well said

[Raster]

182. Thank you!

[loudsue]

189. I recommend this post. to the 10th power.

No shit. That is all true.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

8. knr nt

[slipslidingaway]

9. knr nt

[FreeStateDemocrat]

10. The full tilt boogie hustle and the numbers keep getting bigger billions into trillions.

Wall Street doesn't make campaign contributions they make investments when they buy politicians that payoff.

[bbgrunt]

12. k and r. a criminal mafia, indeed.

[alarimer]

13. He's a politician, who are by definition corrupt.

I know of none that are not on the take from someone. Until we get corporate money out of politics, it will always be corrupt.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. There are about 4.

Sanders, Feingold, Kucinich, Grayson spring immediately to mind. I'm sure I could think of some others.

Significantly, 2 of my 4 are currently out of office.

[Demeter]

23. Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown

I think it's safe to add them to the list....

[Enthusiast]

93. And Jan Schakowski.....nt

[defendandprotect]

115. I'd take Whitehouse in 2012 -- thing is, looks like corporate $$ is keeping Obama cemented in WH ..!

[secondwind]

14. I stand squarely behind this POTUS. Tired of hearing all the negative s**t. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

18. Same here!

[pasto76]

32. with you on this

SGT PASTO

[cstanleytech]

34. Oh I agree its gotten tiresome to hear them however that aside the fact is

he (Obama) has done some things and not dont some things he said he would do like close Gitmo and thats a fact regardless of how much we might hate to admit it, it doesnt mean I dont support him though because at the time he was (and still is imo) a far sight better than the other option of McCain/Palin.

[dennis4868]

186. How is Obama suppose to close....

Gittmo if congress will not fund it? Obama has on multiple occassions requested funds to clkose Gittmo but the checken shit and spineless dems in congress reject the funds. I checked into it but Obama is not wealthy enough to spend his own money to close Gittmo. I know, on this site we don't blame Congress, we ONLY blame Obama but facts are the facts.

[Doctor_J]

244. He's the leader of the party and had a huge mandate in Jan 2009

and he never once spoke passionately about any key issues that could have made him a historic president. His press conference are horrifying spectacles of waffling, throat-clearing, stammering, half-hearted "centrism" and "bi-partisanship". The people voted him into office to destroy the damage of GWB, and instead Obama embraced much of it.

[bhikkhu]

47. I agree as well - the level of skewed criticism and hate is way out of proportion

...and I still regularly hear the same crappy Obama=bush, or whatever other nutjob incompetent repug. I wonder if people really realize what they are saying sometimes.

[quakerboy]

177. What criticism would be considered in proportion?

That's at the heart of this mess, I think

If you could corral out the paid disruptors among us, you would still be left with 2.5 parties of people. One of whom will brook no criticism no matter how justified it might be, and consider any dissent from the president to be treason, and another who is feeling desperate and betrayed and will take up any banner of criticism no matter how petty or trivial or tertiary it may be. And of course the people who are just trying to make sense of it all.

How do you bring these parties together if one side will hear absolutely no criticism, and the other will fall over themselves for any criticism?

[Joe Fields]

61. So, like the Greeks and Romans, kill the fucking messengers...

You just can't handle the truth.

Like I said a couple of days ago, I'm sick of the enablers.

[CatWoman]

75. oh come now

they killed more than messengers

they killed their mothers, too

and some are equally sick of you

[_ed_]

95. Don't you care about the entanglement of Wall Street

and this administration? Would you rather just hide your head in the sand and pretend everything is ok?

[cyberpj]

98. Remember when we were amazed when all Republicans said the same about Bush? DU is a good example

of Democrats being Democrats. When the issues are worth outing and expressing our opinions that's what we do.

I am one of the greatly disappointed in the difference between what Obama promised and what Obama has done.

I've wondered if he has been threatened, once in office...

I've wondered if he was actually a brilliant plant...

I've wondered if he was simply a good speaker and a lousy administrator...

And lately I'm wondering if I'm ready to vote for a third party candidate if anyone worthy of my vote runs.


I thought we were here to discuss the issues and how our party is performing --not stand blindly behind Obama merely because he is a Democratic President.

Remember when we were amazed when all Republicans said the same about Bush?

[russspeakeasy]

130. cyberpj...best response so far....

:evilgrin:

[frylock]

156. nailed it

[DeSwiss]

164. Exactly.

''What sort of moral compass allows us to condemn actions by one administration only to be silent (complicit?) when our own candidate commits them?''

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/30-2">~Norman Mathews, Time to Reset Our Moral Compass ~

[loudsue]

181. I've wondered all of those same things.

This does not anywhere NEAR resemble the man who ran for president in 2008. Aliens have taken over the body of our president, is how it looks.

[no limit]

100. When did simple facts become negative shit? And when did DU resemble freepers?

There is absolutely no attempt by people like you to address anything outlined in the OP. Instead you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "NEGATIVE BULLSHIT!!!! NEGATIVE BULLSHIT!!!!".

We used to frawn on that sort of intellectual dishonesty when Bush was in office because this is what freepers would do. So what's different now?

[Aleric]

145. This comment is very telling

It cheers support from it's subject line and has no substance to back it up.

[tcaudilllg]

233. Not with you at all. n/t

[MADem]

236. Me too! nt

[al bupp]

15. So, my question is what do you propose be done about it?

Do you seriously believe that any Republican president would have any better record or policy in regards to any of these areas? Will not supporting a primary opponent to Obama likely have the same effect that it did to Carter? Aging myself, I will admit that I actually voted for Anderson that year, and it was a very difficult lesson indeed. I learned the hard way what results from a split vote (a much greater split than the one in 2000).

We have the best government that money can buy. The sad fact is that just doesn't turn out to be very good for, except for the benefactors of the system, for whom it works perfectly. The only way that will ever change is through massive mobilizations putting pressure on the political system, probably over considerable time. The political powers that be have to this point been extremely successful at forestalling this via tactics of division and distraction that keep people focused on apparent scape-goats and bogey-men, while playing-up fears and suspicions among ethic and cultural groups.

That the current political system has produced such compromised "leaders" should surprise nobody. Rather it is the exception, such as Senator Sander that surprises, and he may only be possible in a small and quirky state such as Vermont. Unfortunately, he is something of a voice in the wilderness these days.

[Auntie Bush]

27. Agreed with what you said except the last sentence.

Vermont is not quirky...just good democrats!

[pasto76]

33. "doing something" means actually DOING SOMETHING

not just bitching and moaning.

[fasttense]

90. I propose prolonged occupation of Washington DC.

We must stand against corruption even if our duly elected president is participating in it.

http://october2011.org/welcome

[BobbyBoring]

173. I will be there

I hope millions show up as this is the last hoorah for the US as we knew it~

[zipplewrath]

119. Teddy wasn't Carter's problem, neither was Anderson

"Do you seriously believe that any Republican president would have any better record or policy in regards to any of these areas? Will not supporting a primary opponent to Obama likely have the same effect that it did to Carter? Aging myself, I will admit that I actually voted for Anderson that year, and it was a very difficult lesson indeed. I learned the hard way what results from a split vote (a much greater split than the one in 2000).

Carter lost because Carter lost, not because Teddy ran against him in the primary. Teddy ran against him because much of the party leadership asked him to. They asked him to because they saw that Carter was going to lose. Even Jimmy will tell you that Teddy wasn't the problem.

All those claiming that NOT having a primary for Obama is such a good idea, lose sight of the fact that we could STILL lose the election. Our best chance of holding it is if the GOP actually nominate another one of the crazies. (Which they are very likely to do).

[loudsue]

200. I don't think so. I think the repukes are going to run Jeb bush.

The bush family mafia hasn't finished turning the country into the fascist state that their forefathers wanted, when they were part of the assassination plot against FDR.

If they don't run Jeb in 2012, which I think they will, then they're just going to run him in 2016. I just don't think they're going to wait that long. The media is already being positioned to make the whole repuke line-up look like a bunch of loonies so Jeb can step in and "save the day".

[CatWoman]

16. you know, I come to DU to try to get away from the insanity

only to find EVEN MORE FUCKING INSANITY on this so called "dEMOCRATIC" board.

I've come to understand why so many have abandoned this place.

this is nothing but BULLSHIT.

[Liberal Veteran]

63. Don't let the doomsayers get you down, CW. Most of us supporters are still here and we are LEGION!

:)

[CatWoman]

65. tthanks LV

I needed that :hug:

these fucking morons are trying to put yet another Republican back in the WH and it scares the crap out of me :cry:

[russspeakeasy]

132. You should leave your house once every year...and look at

what is going on around you...:evilgrin:

[BobbyBoring]

175. FYI

We have a Republican in the White House. At least if one voted for a Republican, they would know what they're going to get. Obama is a DINO.

[MADem]

207. No, we don't. Anyone who thinks that has a very short memory or

an inability to understand the basic differences between the parties.

[DeSwiss]

168. More's the pity.

But then it was the rich and the politically blind who put him office to begin with, and the morally blind who are still defending his atrocious record -- so no surprise here. But since we're such a minor nuisance, there was really no need for you to comment, now was there?

- Hmmmmm......

[Liberal Veteran]

228. I wasn't aware I had to get your okay to post my opinion.

I will be sure to make a note of that for future reference and give it as much consideration as it deserves. (I assume the sarcasm smiley is unneeded).

[Number23]

82. This thread is a Who's Who of Insanity

From the OP to the folks a-kicking and a-rec'ing.

Don't let it get you down. This is the only place IN THE WORLD that they aren't in the minority which is why they are so shrill, loud and obnoxious here.

[girl gone mad]

84. You need to get out into the world.

This is mild compared to what I'm seeing elsewhere. People are demanding Wylde's resignation over this story. Schneiderman's phones were completely tied up all day with calls of support. Everyone is pissed at the administration for trying to force their hand on this crap deal. If it isn't corruption, what the hell is it?

[MADem]

211. I really, truly hope like hell that someone is making a list and checking it twice.

Because this shit is crazy. If not for the graphics, I would think I was at a hybrid Free Republic/Dumbass Anarchists website from some of the bullshit I see here of late.

I don't understand why this is "ok" though. They may as well toss out those rules, since they aren't using them, apparently.

[Number23]

226. I don't know. I think a list is meaningless at this point

They need to just shut this MF down. I'm actually surprised that Skinner hasn't done so already. Spend five minutes in ATA and you can tell that he thinks this place is as embarrassingly loony as the rest of us do.

hybrid Free Republic/Dumbass Anarchists website

I know. It's almost hilarious, isn't it?? But personally, I love how so many of the borderline unhinged, desperately clueless here just can't pat themselves on the back hard enough with how "informed" and "ahead of the curve" they are. If by "ahead of the curve" they mean orbiting Jupiter's' 11th moon, then yes they are definitely "ahead of the curve."

[MADem]

234. Ha ha ha!!!!

Thank you for that....the Jupiter's 11th moon called to mind the phrase "circling Uranus looking for Klingons"--a poop ref that never fails to make me laugh (I can be immature, too).

I really used to like this joint. Loved the discussions, exchanges of ideas, little strategy back-n-forths, predictions of how things would progress. Now it's almost like a training ground for disruptors who are never, ever right but just love to cause hate, discontent, and agita--while they're criticizing the President for everything from his brief vacations (fewest in modern history so far) to his clothing. And of course, EVERYTHING he does is wrong, bad, and 'the worst ever'--even though that's not at all true. I just don't understand why people are acting like this, here. And I don't get why it's "ok."

I never could get into reading over at that three letter orange site, they always seemed too "insider" for their own good, and I sensed a rather undeserved pecking order -- professional whinging was par for the course over there, too, from what I saw, plus, the site is cumbersome to navigate. I like the perspectives of people from all walks of life, who share the core goals of the Democratic Party, from the left side of the tent to the right, and that's what we used to find here.

No more, though....it's just f'd up. Sad.

[timber84]

99. Yep

Sadly I believe you are spot on. DU used to be a place where I found people who basically had my same beliefs not always identical but close.

[JDPriestly]

127. What are your beliefs, timber84?

And how does Obama promote your beliefs?

[JDPriestly]

124. The insanity is on Wall Street and Texas and above all D.C.

including in the White House. The point of the OP is quite correct. It does not matter which Party gets voted into office. Most of the "leadership" of both parties is extremely, hopelessly corrupt.

Did you see the list of the wealthiest people in the legislature that was posted yesterday?

It is sickening. Why do we elect people who are so wealthy? It makes no difference whether they claim to be Republicans or Democrats. The first and primary focus of these wealthy people is protecting their own wealth. They are not philanthropists for the most part (I think Kerry and his wife are somewhat generous, but I could be wrong).

Unity is wonderful. But in 2008, our desire to be unified, to fall in line with our Party caused us to elect someone who does not stand for our ideals, who seems helpless in the face of the corruption if he is not a part of that corruption himself.

We have to do better.

There is so much talk about austerity for the sake of our grandchildren and future generations. Well, that may be, but the first step before austerity can be fairly distributed among us, is to have a government that is on the side of the people. We definitely do not have that with the crew manning our ship in D.C. at this time.

That goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Had Obama done a good job in his first two years, the Republicans would not have taken the majority in 2010. Obama's voters, especially his young voters, would have voted in force. The 2010 election was a referendum on Obama's performance. And it was not positive.

So, who is being negative here? The people who want to continue with an unDemocrat as our candidate -- and experience the same apathy that brought in Republicans to the House in 2010 -- or the people who want to find a candidate who is a true Democrat and not sold out to big business so that people, especially young people, can get excited and vote again.

[Richardo]

170. What you said

:applause: :pals: :loveya: :hi:

[MADem]

206. Not one thin dime from me--I agree with you wholeheartedly.

This is bullshit on toast. And even the toast is overcooked.

Did DU get sold while we weren't looking, or something?

[OnyxCollie]

219. Protecting Bushco from torture investigations is BULLSHIT.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

Keep denying reality. It's entertaining.

[Demeter]

17. You're Braver than I

I didn't dare post this on SMW for fear of tombstoning or other moderator displeasure....

[SavWriter]

20. Major K and R

What else can we think when Jeff Immelt is in the White House every week to consult? He's in the Jobs business while wiping out tens of thousands of jobs to move them to China.

[NICO9000]

151. I was thinking the same thing

Immelt just might be the ultimate "tell" in Obama's poker hand. Appointing a job killer to help "create" jobs is just insane.

[Akoto]

22. When this is considered front page material, DU has jumped the shark. n/t

[Demeter]

28. Not DU: Obama has jumped the shark

Truth is a biter pill to swallow after all those sweet lies....

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[taught_me_patience]

39. Shooting the messanger while sticking your head in the sand about the message

This administration is continuing to actively protect the bankers from state prosecution. Complete and utter bullshit.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[taught_me_patience]

55. Why don't you comment on the article?

Here's a link to the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/business/schneiderman-is-said-to-face-pressure-to-back-bank-deal.html

[cstanleytech]

42. So, would you rather have McCain Palin? Because that was the only

real option other than a write in campaign which probably would have worked as well imo as selling snow cones to Eskimos in the middle of winter.

[hay rick]

50. It's still not too late for Rick Perry!

boogity boogey boogey boogey

boogity boogey

boogity

boogey

[russspeakeasy]

133. a false argument

:evilgrin:

[SavWriter]

242. No we turned our back on Howard Dead

Because we Hoped that President Obama was the more effective Liberal Candidate. We were wrong. He was the most infected by Corporations candidate.

[cstanleytech]

245. No, out of the two options we had the one most infected in your words

would probably have been McCain and Palin, I believe that Obamas main problem was that he underestimated the ability of the opposition (the republicans in this case) to stymie the office of the president when they really want to.

[emilyg]

64. +10

[pasto76]

29. concur

obama bashing has become the main focus here. After participating for 8 years, I think I'll delete this bookmark.

Its just never enough with some people. Their disconnect is evident. If they had all suffered so badly under the Bush and republicans, they would be just a scoche more positive. I sure as hell am.

[JDPriestly]

128. What are your values, and how does Obama represent and serve those values?

I have yet to find an Obama supporter who can tell me how Obama serves the values that the supporter holds dear.

I just get a list of unremarkable, rather paltry "accomplishments." It's boilerplate. The list was produced by some corporate supporter of Obama. Straight from the propaganda mill.

I want to know in your own words what your vision of our country is and whether you honestly see Obama serving that vision.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[_ed_]

96. Can you specifically refute the claims of the piece?

Or are you just reflexively defending Obama no matter what he does?

[BlueCaliDem]

114. My sentiment exactly. I'm astounded at how many

anti-Obama posts are making the front page. Just...astounded.

[fascisthunter]

126. how about explaining why you think this

is there something in the article you disagree with? And if so what is your counter argument?

[Tiggeroshii]

24. How is this LBN?

[pasto76]

none of you have any idea what corruption is apparently

[russspeakeasy]

134. enlighten us..please

:evilgrin:

[OnyxCollie]

220. Is this corruption?

'Cause it sure seems like it. Perhaps you can explain how it's n-dimensional chess.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

[taught_me_patience]

25. This is sickening beyond words

This isn't the change I voted for.

[lib2DaBone]

26. I'm so glad our president is on top of the CIA/NATO overthrow of Libyia....

It's not like anything important is going on the would interrupt Obama's vacation...

[bhikkhu]

49. I'm so glad we helped the Libyans to get rid of a brutal dictator

...and now they have the opportunity for a free and fair democracy - well earned. The constitution they prepared in Benghazi, if it is finally approved by the Libyans, is an admirable and very liberal document.

[humbled_opinion]

68. Your kidding right???

That crap your spouting, is the same NEOCON nonsense that Bushco used for it's illegal wars, so now you're saying it's OK because it's Obama? If you believe that this Libyan excursion was anything more than a war for Libyan Oil then you are really disillusioned and need to wake up before you find yourself in the gas house.

[OwnedByFerrets]

73. Thank you

[bhikkhu]

81. If it was a war for oil, it was the most boneheaded one yet

...as Gadhafi was already selling his oil. The war took it off the market, costing oil consumers billions in "security premiums", and damaged the oil infrastructure, which will also be very expensive.

The NTC has said that they will honor all previous contracts, so after all that lost money and time, things are back where they started. I know there is that Gadhafi had asked to renegotiate oil contracts, but that happens all the time when market conditions change; and in any case the big consumers have always been quite happy to deal with dictators - even perhaps preferring to deal with dictators - and they are historically more predictable than democracies.

The "its the oil, stupid" is the argument of a simpleton, who can't or won't look beyond a pinched and cynical little worldview. The people threw off a brutal dictator, after great efforts, and with our help. The outcome is that they have an opportunity to go forward as a self-governing and free people. There's no guarantees, but sometimes good things happen in the world!

[humbled_opinion]

215. My estimation is based on a very broad look at the

entire debacle, your narrow view clouds the issue. To follow your nonsensical view of the situation the U.S. should be sending in drones to help the revolting Syrians, why aren't we? Oil !!, The arab spring uprisings would have be squashed by Khadaffi if the U.N. Led by France and the Europeans who's access to the Libyan oil was going to be endangered by their call for massive sanctions against Khaddafi as he struck back at and slaughtered the rebels who were rising up. The U.S. has no interest in Libya, why were we involved? The U.N. led by the Europeans were in checkmate thats why and the answer of why they were in checkmate is......

Drum roll Please............ OIL>>>>>>

Now what don't you understand?

[cstanleytech]

31. If he is corrupt (and I am not agreeing that he is) then

we share some of the blame because we elected him and we cant claim he was selected for us like we could with Bush.

[mikesm]

36. This is the price of doing business in America...

Every party has to be close to the bankers, or they will not get enough money to pay for all the electoral advertising etc... to get in front of people. When running a presidential campaign costs a billion dollars, we should not be surprised at the outcome.

This is the result of the lack of public financing for candidates, and the Supreme court decisions about corporations being "people".

We should get real and realize that ANY serious candidate will cozy up to the money merchants. What else do you expect Obama to do?

[midnight]

69. If your going to allow electronic election fraud you do...

[DeSwiss]

171. I dunno, maybe you should consult the Constitution. n/t

[mfcorey1]

38. throw out all the crap you can find and continue the brainwash. If you sucker them,

they will follow you right off the cliff.

[Liberal Veteran]

40. I don't put much faith in folks who don't know the difference between LBN and Opinion pieces

[hay rick]

44. You can comment on the article now, it's been moved.

[Akoto]

43. Thanks to whoever moved this to its proper place. n/t

[MADem]

240. Someone who has been here since nearly the start of things should have

known better than to try to pass this kind of unmitigated garbage off as LBN.

That's what I don't get....how you can be here for ten years and not know where shit goes.

[laylah]

45. I KNOW I will get flamed...

it is a sport here; however, all I would like to know is, is this publication reputable? My heart breaks more and more every damn day... :cry:

[laylah]

Okay,

Google IS my friend...Beam me up, Scotty.

[laylah]

46. Hiccup...sorry

Google IS my friend...Beam me up, Scotty.

[taught_me_patience]

48. Naked Capitalism is a good source

This story has been on several sources on the internet today.

Here's the NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/business/schneiderman-is-said-to-face-pressure-to-back-bank-deal.html


As usual, DU deniers are out in force on this thread... trashing the fact that it's in LBN... the content is real.

[TacticalPeek]

56. For some people this is Late Breaking News . . .

other people seem to put it in a missing category: Heart Breaking News.

And then there are the people for whom it is nothing.

[Liberal Veteran]

66. Our country was built on theft, genocide, and slave labor.

The bottom line is NO ONE is going to be a paragon of virtue that rises to office of the President.

Even our beloved FDR was soiled. As was Carter. As was Kennedy.

If you want purity, look to the metaphysical, don't go looking in the Oval Office (or even the Capitol Rotunda).

[Sal Minella]

70. Odd, I was thinking about this only this morning -- we stole the land

and then we stole the people to work the land, and then the unscrupulous stole all the profits -- and the Tea Partiers want the world to believe God created this country to dominate all other people and countries on Earth???

[BobbyBoring]

176. I've thought about it for years

Our true history is not really a proud one and our indoctrination system (School) has been used for years to twist it.

Now, we're right back where we were before the great depression when the robber barons had taken just about all the spoils. Sadly, we don't have the leadership to get us out of it and far too many blame our problems on the poor instead of the modern day robber barons.

[Pooka Fey]

88. Nice justification. How unreasonable of us to condemn corruption.

We want an investigation. Not purity. Try to understand the difference. :eyes:

[russspeakeasy]

135. who the hell is looking for "purity" ? I'd settle for honesty.

:evilgrin:

[Pooka Fey]

87. + 1000 Thanks for posting this link

[defendandprotect]

123. +1000% -- and whole article is worth reading -- so is "naked capitalism" website -- !!

If the AGs stick to this stance, there is no deal. The article maintains the AGs still want damages of $20 to $25 billion. The banks aren’t going to pay much if anything to settle on robosigning, and the AGs haven’t done the legwork to make a case on loss mitigation.

So the bullying of Schneiderman looks to be misguided, since the settlement is likely to fall apart. But it is nevertheless germane because it reveals the Administration’s warped thinking and sense of priorities. As we’ve said, the Administration’s decision to cast its lot with the banks in early 2009 dictated its course of action:

Obama’s incentives are to come up with “solutions” that paper over problems, avoid meaningful conflict with the industry, minimize complaints, and restore the old practice of using leverage and investment gains to cover up stagnation in worker incomes. Potemkin reforms dovetail with the financial service industry’s goal of forestalling any measures that would interfere with its looting. So the only problem with this picture was how to fool the now-impoverished public into thinking a program of Mussolini-style corporatism represented progress.

[JDPriestly]

142. Remember Enron? Remember how California's Democratic Governor Davis

was preparing to fight for justice and remuneration from Enron? And suddenly Schwarzenegger cooked up some scandal and terminated Davis from his post as governor? Schwarzenegger then turned around to bankrupt our state with his horrible mismanagement and willingness to borrow to fund costs rather than do without or impose new taxes.

It takes a very dedicated person to avoid becoming part of the Mafia (I'm using the term "Mafia" as a shorthand for corrupting influences, not just the traditional Italian Mafia).

Think about how the Mafia works. It turns the weaknesses, greed for example, of its victims against them.

People gamble out of greed and lust for money or thirst for alcohol and the loss of inhibition. The Mafia set up casinos and gambling ventures. People choose to gamble. But they feel guilty about their gambling and the greed that motivates them to do it. When the victims realize what they have lost, they feel ashamed. So the next step is that they have to rationalize their conduct. They tell themselves it was fun, then they tell themselves they can't help their behavior, then they blame others and then they just give in and feel desperately lost and ashamed and they indulge their weaknesses again. So the Mafia turns the greed and shame of its clients and customers against them and ultimately takes control of the person by twisting the person's weaknesses against them.

That is why the Mafia favors the extremist, Ayn Rand type of free market philosophy. It advocates allowing greed to run free. Think only of yourself, your momentary desires and give in to them, Ayn Rand says -- and you run right into the Mafia trap.

And Obama, with his admiration for Chicago school economics, leans toward this philosophy -- at least far more than traditional Democrats. His attitude seems to be "Why fight any battle for the moral high ground? Let your corrupt, greedy, base instincts run free."

That is why Obama wants to cut back on the regulations that protect consumers and give more license to dishonest, uncaring corporations.

But that way of life is dangerous. Greed (and other unbridled urges) destroys the gambler. Any urge you cannot control destroys you.

The weakness of many of our politicians is their desire to be viewed as powerful. Mafia types cynically make these individuals feel and appear "powerful" (and rich to boot) and the poor fools are caught in the trap. They cannot bring any measure of rational judgment to bear on making a decision if they are persuaded that their power, their appearance of being powerful is in jeopardy. Better take the route that attracts the most campaign funds.

That is how the Mafia corrupts our politicians. They say, "Do as we wish or you will lose your power or we will expose your personal weaknesses to the public and you will no longer be viewed as virtuous and strong."

Look at our politicians. Those whose petty weaknesses are exposed are often those who have been the least vulnerable to the Mafia pressure: Anthony Weiner, for example.

We have to think about how the Mafia works in order to avoid being fooled by it in the future.

Obama is a talented man, but he really wants to succeed and to be admired. He is not driven by ideals. Maybe he was at one time, but he is not now.

Our great presidents, Lincoln and FDR, for example, faced terrible pressure and made many mistakes. But they did not become overly corrupt because they focused on their ideals. In FDR's case, this may have been due to the influence and pressure of his wife, Eleanor.

Obama does not have a soul in his entourage who speaks as a dedicated Democrat to conscience, to ideals. That tells the whole story right there. He has surrounded himself with corrupt people and sycophants. That is how the Mafia works. They lull their victims into giving way to their basest desires.

[Joe Fields]

57. First of all, this shouldn't have been moved.

Aside from that, this piece is spot on and really should send alarm bells throughout the party. Unfortunately, it won't. The administration is tone deaf to those of us who are begging, pleading, even demanding that Obama look away from Wall Street and glance toward us.

It's not about getting a pony. It's about this administration living up to its promises. It's about this administration turning its back on the homeless, the hungry, the jobless, those who are living in fear that their SS check will be ruthlessly slashed. It's about so many things. But Obama and his cronies could not care less.

And now we need to hold Obama accountable for his actions. I just hope that this time we have the guts to do so, even if it means four years of a republican with an R behind their name in the White House. It won't be pretty, many more people will suffer greatly, but goddammit, when are we going to stand up for our principles again?

[CatWoman]

77. as a former mod

I would have moved this in a heartbeat.

There are rules, you know.

[Maeve]

97. So would I, my feline friend eom

[Kolesar]

102. I alerted it and advised that this thing be moved from LBN

DU needs a "fucked premises" forum for stuff like this.

[Jakes Progress]

106. So if you disagree with something, it gets moved?

Is that the new rule.

Sounds pretty "fucked" to me.

[Kolesar]

108. And it troubles you so!

:cry:

[Jakes Progress]

194. Glad to see this working for you.

Buck up.

[CatWoman]

169. TRY TO KEEP UP

first, read the criteria for posting in LBN.

then we can talk.

on edit - it's attitudes like yours that makes being a moderator so difficult.

[Jakes Progress]

195. I can't hear you.

Somebody is being rude and shouting.

Then don't take the job. Oh. And stop whining.

[OnyxCollie]

221. It's not in the Dungeon.

Yet...

[defendandprotect]

125. Dem Party has been SILENCED long ago -- this isn't only Obama ...

The party has been carved out by RW Koch Bros. funding of DLC --

and Koch DLC infiltration and influence over the party for 20 years and more!

[blkmusclmachine]

60. Obama is the bridge between 2 Texas Presidents.

Tell me about 9/11 again.

[Mosaic]

71. Bullshit

There is no way the cowboy from texas can win after the last cowboy left us devastated.

[laureloak]

89. Oh yes he can. There's plenty of nostalgia for Bush on the

republican websites.

[OwnedByFerrets]

78. And Americans are just stupid enough to do it too

[emilyg]

62. k/r

[saras]

67. The problem is that the DLC doesn't BELIEVE in corruption. Money is how politics is SUPPOSED to work

A lot of them - not so much the Tea Party as the corporatists, D & R, think that money is SUPPOSED to buy influence and power, and that because other despotisms all work this way, that it is somehow normal and acceptable to everyone.

It's the old "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", except mine doesn't itch and if it did, I wouldn't want their Ebola-infected nails clawing at it anyways.

[woo me with science]

76. K&R

People need to wake up.

[avaistheone1]

79. k&r

[Pooka Fey]

85. I read the whole article - it's worth reading. K&R

If you are a New York resident, I hope you’ll call (800 771-7755 or 212 416-8000) or e-mail Schneiderman and thank him for standing up to the corruption of the banks and their enablers in the Administration. I think he will appreciate the show of support.

[Enthusiast]

91. The last nail in the coffin of the rule of law in this country. nt

[bertman]

94. Immelt, Daley, Summers, Geithner, Vilsack. The list goes on and on and on.

The sad part is that it is now getting worse at all levels of government now that the criminals see they can do their business with no fear of prosecution.

REC.

[Major Hogwash]

101. Brought to you by: Anon A Moose

Another idgit.

[closeupready]

104. K&R

nt

[defendandprotect]

113. K/R -- sadly -- and we need to be moving on from Obama ---

http://www.stophoping.org

[bachart]

116. OH wow...let's just trounce Obama

and blame him for a system that was there long before he became President, and let's just demand he change it so you can be happy all the corruption is gone. You want the president to declare war on wall street and bankers so he will never see a second term.
Where were you all these years leading the charge against all this corruption, as I watched Bush Administration commit every illegal act and nobody did anything out of fear and reprisal????? Sometimes I just want to puke on some of these people that think they are Democrats with the same hatred that Republicans constantly go on and on about, and do nothing!!!!!! Sheesh????

[MissDeeds]

117. K&R

[defendandprotect]

122. Corruption of government is abounding and I'd suggest that Global Warming is behind the push ....

I think if and when the public wakes up to the reality of it and what has to be done --

that change and accountability -- overall -- would follow.

We may be too late -- but we can still make a difference in many ways --


There are also suggestions that the past 20 years of Global Warming's effects -- damage

to life and property -- have severely impacted insurance companies and banks -- and that

in some part this may have something to do with their efforts to confiscate pension funds!!

[mckara]

129. I Disagree. They Merely Bought into the Neo-liberal Economic Playbook

We must find a way to change conventional thinking in Washington and in European Central Banks. None of the Obama Administration's decision-making was inconsistent with the Washington Consensus.

[Taverner]

136. Go read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and you will understand this and every admin

That book was a complete eye opener...

[gateley]

138. I disagree, but I hope Obama sees this to better understand

how the administration is being viewed by many.

[Doctor_J]

139. I thought the president's personal morality could overcome the core rot of DC

At this point I am convinced our government is beyond hope.

[Action]

140. Take Michigan Map off

You are embarrassing all of us who live in Michigan.

Get real. Many of us don't have time to play the "punish Obama" games that seem to be floating around.

Either you want a tea bagging repub in the White House who will literally destroy all our hope of old age dignity or we vote for Obama who is fighting for most of us. I say most of us, because too many folks think he could get all the things they wanted done by himself.

We don't know how our government works and it shows by how we fight back.

[Dragonfli]

149. How is protecting criminals from justice "fighting for most of us" exactly?

One could say that in New York, where I live someone is trying to fight for most of us and is being obstructed from doing so by Obama, is that a "great goodness" in your mind?

[raouldukelives]

147. K&R

[Maat]

150. It's sad that I can only recommend this once. (n/t)

[DeSwiss]

155. Thank you for your post.

Aside from telling the truth, it allows me to further cleanse the ranks of the hypocrites of Democratic and Progressive ideals, who are still handing down lame-ass excuses for this "Obamanation" and placing them onto my Ignore list where they'll worry me no further. Revealingly, I haven't even cracked 0.0004 yet (I'm at 0.000378319), but this one thread should do it.


- I couldn't choose because both of the below quotes seemed apt here......


K&R

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~George Bernard Shaw

"Which is worse—the perpetrators of injustice or those who are blind to it?" ~Dorothy Parker

[cliffordu]

160. Time to call this OP by it's proper name:

horeshit.

[Dragonfli]

165. Simply because you make a one word announcement? How then do you defend his actions or refute the OP

Or do you have nothing but a blind-spot and a desire to label what you can not discuss?

[DeSwiss]

174. And it's time to call your post response.....

...by what it is: poorly spelled.

- Oh, and BTW -- welcome to IGNORELAND......

[cliffordu]

178. Bummer.

[a2liberal]

180. K&R and I find it interesting

that most of the defenders in this thread are just saying "I'm tired of the criticism" but have no defense of the actual policy.

[Dragonfli]

183. Funny that, and I notice when any are asked about that...... silence /nt

[dennis4868]

190. I have been a memner of DU...

since just about day 1 and this post has to be the craziest one of all time...no matter who is president they are going to get basjed by DU as corrupt...many here just do not like authority and will not put up with it....so much hyperspeculation everyday, damn the facts...any source will do if it makes the president look bad....feel bad for so many here...

[Dragonfli]

196. Eric Schneiderman is trying to fight criminals, does that make him an enemy as well? How exactly do

you defend the obstruction directed towards his investigations? None of you dare touch the issue, I do not expect you to.
Without discussing the issue your post is completely meaningless and nothing more than blind propaganda.

What about the story exactly is false? Or is it that you think white collar crimes are not crimes?
Well sport? do have anything to contribute to the actual issue discussed in the op?

[dennis4868]

202. what part of the story is...

exactly true?

[Dragonfli]

227. All of it, you didn't read it did you? I am from NY State, this has been a problem Try reading at

least this to catch up:

Schneiderman was the first to take issue with the sham of the so-called 50 state attorney general mortgage settlement. As far as the Administration is concerned, its goal is to give banks a talking point and prove to them that Team Obama is protecting their backs in a way that the chump public hopefully won’t notice.

The Administration joined this effort to hurry it forward and assure it resulted in a suitably financier-friendly outcome. And it has done so despite recentHUD inspector general’s audits finding that the five biggest servicers were defrauding taxpayers.

[dennis4868]

229. I read it....

I also read a report today that the earth is flat...just because it's in print. does not mean it's a true story...I see no reliable sources...you fit in good here where hyperspeculation rules the day.

[Dragonfli]

230. It is actually happening, how dense are you? You really think that HUD made that shit up?

[dennis4868]

243. HAHA...

I read the NY times article on this issue and the article the original poster posted is definitely slanted against Obama...NY Times reporting that Obama and his people want a quick settlement so that they can get the money from the banks so that they can give it to homeowners having problems staying in their homes...they need the money now and fast; therefore there is a rush to get a full and complete settlement...the way you and the original post/article make it sound it's as if Obama is trying to protect the banks...what utter bullshit but this is common here at DU...

[Dragonfli]

246. So that is what the kids are calling corruption now

Immunity for a penny a dollar, rule of law ignored, bank contributors made happy, homeowners screwed, you really do deny reality with an extra special zeal don't you?

[dennis4868]

247. I'm saying read...

the NY times article on this matter...it's not so slanted like the one the original poster posted...The banks are being fine and being held responsible, the Obama admin simply wants a quick settlement to get the money from the banks to help homeowners...it's pretty simple...now if you hate Obama so much you are going to interpret this in the most negative light possible against Obama...that's what people do here. DUers are corrupt, not Obama!

THANK GOD FOR OBAMA
www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

[yurbud]

192. Obama could have guaranteed a second term if he put Lloyd Blankfein's head on a stick

instead, he's letting the economic terrorists who broke our economy and the world's dictate policy.

Bush's presidency was a farce, Obama's is a tragedy.

[The Backlash Cometh]

193. I don't know if it's corrupt, but it is becoming part of the problem.

[okieinpain]

197. lol. n/t.

[noiretextatique]

199. interesting...not one of the "how dare you" posts refutes anything in the article

so i have to assume that *whatever* this administration does is perfectly fine and cannot be criticized. it's seems the angry mob may not be "the professional left" after all. aside from what i assume is the offending word "corrupt," does anyone who is upset about this article care to explain why? is this administration trying to broker a deal that highly favors wall street..or not? if so, do you have any opinion about that?

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

209. Time to call this type of hyperbole what it really is

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

....ludicrous!

From the NYT article.

<...>

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Donovan defended his discussions with the attorney general, saying they were motivated by a desire to speed up help for troubled homeowners. But he said he had not spoken to bank officials or their representatives about trying to persuade Mr. Schneiderman to get on board with the deal.

“Eric and I agree on a tremendous amount here,” Mr. Donovan said. “The disagreement is around whether we should wait to settle and resolve the issues around the servicing practices for him — and potentially other A.G.’s and other federal agencies — to complete investigations on the securitization side. He might argue that he has more leverage that way, but our view is we have the immediate opportunity to help a huge number of borrowers to stay in their homes, to help their neighborhoods and the housing market.”

And Alisa Finelli, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. said: “The Justice Department, along with our federal agency partners and state attorneys general, are committed to achieving a resolution that will hold servicers accountable for the harm they have done consumers and bring billions of dollars of relief to struggling homeowners — and bring relief swiftly because homeowners continue to suffer more each day that these issues are not resolved.”

<...>

Yves Smith spends all her time spinning corruption by cherry picking rumor from MSM articles and anti-Obama blog posts. The basic premise is to give the impression that the admistration is doing nothing about the financial fraud that led to the crisis. Her hyperbole based on the NYT article is absurd!

Foreclosure Talks Snag on Bank Liability

<...>

U.S. and state officials dismissed the push for broad immunity as a "nonstarter," according to a federal official involved in the talks, but they have countered with a narrower offer. It would cover robo-signing and other servicer-related conduct but leave banks open to potential legal action for wrongdoing in fair lending and securitization, according to people familiar with the situation. Attorneys general in California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have said they are investigating mortgage-securitization practices.

<...>

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said she is "going to be very cautious" about any release that could affect investigations or litigation. Ms. Masto has alleged that Bank of America violated the law in its handling of troubled loans. "A broad release isn't going to do … any good (for me) or the people of my state."

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley recently said she won't let banks escape potential legal liability for claims related to securitization and use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems "until we know all the facts and all of the damage." Doing otherwise "is like buying a used car without looking under the hood. There's a good chance you will get a lemon."

<...>

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden has also begun investigating securitization and other mortgage-industry practices. "We would oppose any settlement that would release claims broader than servicing conduct," says Delaware Deputy Attorney General Ian McConnel."That would include origination, securitization and (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) claims."

Why the bank-settlement talks are likely to drag on indefinitely

Today brings dueling stories in the NYT and the WSJ on the status of the bank foreclosure-settlement talks. At issue is the question of whether the banks should be given immunity with respect to lawsuits surrounding their securitization shenanigans. Here’s the WSJ, saying quite clearly that they won’t:

U.S. and state officials dismissed the push for broad immunity as a “nonstarter,” according to a federal official involved in the talks, but they have countered with a narrower offer. It would cover robo-signing and other servicer-related conduct but leave banks open to potential legal action for wrongdoing in fair lending and securitization, according to people familiar with the situation. Attorneys general in California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have said they are investigating mortgage-securitization practices.

In the NYT, by contrast, Gretchen Morgenson says that New York’s Eric Schneiderman is pushing back against a federal attempt to give banks immunity on such matters:

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.

So, is immunity with respect to mortgage securitization a nonstarter, or is it the whole reason why banks would dream of signing the settlement in the first place? I suspect it might be both. If I was a bank, I wouldn’t dream of paying billions of dollars in return for a narrow settlement precluding further prosecution about robo-signing and the like: it just wouldn’t make economic sense to do so. At the same time, if I were Schneiderman, in the middle of a detailed investigation into what banks’ mortgage departments got up to in the run-up to the crisis, I certainly wouldn’t want that investigation rendered moot and toothless before it had even been concluded.

<...>

[smiley_glad_hands]

214. +1

[a2liberal]

248. Oh, come on!

Your articles are the ones spewing excuses. Be honest with yourself for just a moment. Don't even answer here if you don't want, but be honest with YOURSELF and ask yourself this question: If it was Bush pushing this sort of settlement (wholesale immunity for all sorts of bank crimes in return for a token PR settlement, and cutting off any real investigation into the depths of how they pulled their crimes off so they can be prevented in the future), and using his influence to get the Democrat who was actually pushing for real accountability kicked off the panel, would you not be up in arms about the whole thing? I don't know you, but I believe if you're really honest with yourself you'll find that the answer is that yes, you would. I think it's hypocritical when some of us are so eager to defend anything Obama does that we'll openly endorse and defend policies that we would have screamed about under Bush.

Note to those who will claim I'm trying to make Democrats lose: I don't think it's true that pointing something out for what it truly is means I want them to lose. It's quite possible that a corporatist is still much better than a right-wing nut job. But it's just blind stupidity to not recognize that most Democrats are unfortunately obviously corporatists and to just put your fingers in your ears and try to ignore any facts and behaviors that prove it.

[treestar]

212. Wait a minute, I thought Presidential Pressure was the Bully Pulpit

???

Why cannot the President try to influence any Executive Branch decision? They all work for him.

[RBInMaine]

216. Oh nice. More crazy shit from the ultra fringe club. Kindly find your local planet.

[WillyT]

218. Yep... K & R !!!

:kick:

[HughBeaumont]

223. "The Obama Administration"?

Try "Our Entire Compromised-from-Hair-to-Sole Plutocratic System".

ReagaFriedmanomics as the rule of law is the problem. We won't even consider anything else.

Maybe the Iron Law of Oligarchy IS true.

[ObaMania]

224. Highly rec'd and wholeheartedly agree.

:fistbump:

[pam4water]

225. Kick to late to r it :(

[yurbud]

249. kick