'Fast and furious' has Obama on defensive

[bigrebnc1775]

Looks like the golden child has met his Waterloo, his Gettysburg, his Normandy, His Watergate
Even the news is starting to get it fast and the furious was about control.

It's clear that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives made major, perhaps lethal, misjudgments with its Fast and Furious operation, which was designed to nab cartel leaders abusing lax U.S. gun laws.

What is not clear is who should be held accountable for this disastrous program. President Obama's decision to invoke executive privilege Wednesday will only add to suspicions that the trail of fault leads back to Washington.

'Fast and furious' has Obama on defensive - SFGate

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and the plot thickens

(CBS News) The White House said a former National Security staffer who communicated with ATF's Special Agent in charge of "Fast and Furious" cannot be interviewed by Congressional investigators.
The ATF Special Agent, Bill Newell, testified to Congress in July 2011 that he's a longtime friend with then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly. The two emailed and talked on the phone during the controversial Fast and Furious gunwalking operation, according to documents and Newell's testimony to Congress.

In one email exchange about Fast and Furious on Feb. 11, 2011 O'Reilly asked Newell, "Would ATF be willing to put you or others in front of US media that gets pickup in Mexico (CNN en Espanol, perhaps) to tell this story?"

At the time, the Justice Department and ATF were denying any gunwalking had occurred, and were looking for ways to promote stories about gun traffickers buying weapons in the U.S. and taking them to Mexico.

"Kevin as we discussed last night," answered Newell, "these are some examples of what we could get translated and use in the Mexican media . . . The 'Fast and Furious' indictment is listed under 'U.S. v Avila.'"

W.H.: Ex-staffer can't be questioned on Fast and Furious - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

 

[chanel]

It is disgusting how the MSM has ignored this story for so long. People are only learning about Brian Terry now, and that's due to the work of Fox News and CBS. The other networks are still mum.

Even Bill Mahar admitted he knew little about it. Why is that Bill? You're a smart guy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is disgusting how the MSM has ignored this story for so long. People are only learning about Brian Terry now, and that's due to the work of Fox News and CBS. The other networks are still mum.

Even Bill Mahar admitted he knew little about it. Why is that Bill? You're a smart guy.

Bill marhar is a clown and should never be allowed to discuss politics

 

[Old Rocks]

Looks like the golden child has met his Waterloo, his Gettysburg, his Normandy, His Watergate
Even the news is starting to get it fast and the furious was about control.

It's clear that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives made major, perhaps lethal, misjudgments with its Fast and Furious operation, which was designed to nab cartel leaders abusing lax U.S. gun laws.

What is not clear is who should be held accountable for this disastrous program. President Obama's decision to invoke executive privilege Wednesday will only add to suspicions that the trail of fault leads back to Washington.

'Fast and furious' has Obama on defensive - SFGate

Really?

Florida President Obama 1.8

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Florida: Romney vs. Obama

 

[Old Rocks]

It is disgusting how the MSM has ignored this story for so long. People are only learning about Brian Terry now, and that's due to the work of Fox News and CBS. The other networks are still mum.

Even Bill Mahar admitted he knew little about it. Why is that Bill? You're a smart guy.

Bill marhar is a clown and should never be allowed to discuss politics

Another dumb ass 'Conservative' that does not like the first amendment.

 

[Old Rocks]

President Obama 7.6 Governor Romney -0.2

RealClearPolitics - Obama & Romney: Favorable/Unfavorable

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is disgusting how the MSM has ignored this story for so long. People are only learning about Brian Terry now, and that's due to the work of Fox News and CBS. The other networks are still mum.

Even Bill Mahar admitted he knew little about it. Why is that Bill? You're a smart guy.

Bill marhar is a clown and should never be allowed to discuss politics

Another dumb ass 'Conservative' that does not like the first amendment.

Mahar talking about politics is like yelling fire in a crowded building.

 

[Mac1958]

.

No one should be prohibited from saying anything.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

President Obama 7.6 Governor Romney -0.2

RealClearPolitics - Obama & Romney: Favorable/Unfavorable

Let's see obama run on his economic policy

 

[Mac1958]

Let's see obama run on his economic policy

Obama is asking whether we want to return to the policies that drove our economy off the cliff. That question can be debated, but it's reasonable, he's running with it, and it damn well may work for him. The GOP has nothing to be proud of, and the electorate damn well knows it.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Flooding the board with dozens of duplicate threads is not going to make this rightwing conspiracy theory any more real than the birther conspiracy rants did.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Flooding the board with dozens of duplicate threads is not going to make this rightwing conspiracy theory any more real than the birther conspiracy rants did.

Yes there are a few Fast and the furious threads but
My threads are separate and specific

 

[peach174]

Let's see obama run on his economic policy

Obama is asking whether we want to return to the policies that drove our economy off the cliff. That question can be debated, but it's reasonable, he's running with it, and it damn well may work for him. The GOP has nothing to be proud of, and the electorate damn well knows it.


.

It was not the Repubs who caused our economy to go off the cliff.
It's was the Dems and Fannie and Freddy that did this.
The Dems blamed the banks and the Repubs.
It's never their fault it is always something or some one else.
Learn the truth, instead of believing the the political spins and out right lies.
Your precious Dems are lying through their teeth about the this.
You Dems need to get it through your heads, that both parties are liars & spinners and so is our media.

2002 – 2005:
The Bush Administration and Republicans Push to Regulate GSEs
2002
The Enron Scandal Uncovered it All

Fannie Mae’s success reaching amazing housing goals began to come under scrutiny in 2002, in the wake of accounting scandals at Enron and Fannie’s GSE cousin, Freddie Mac. Enron had filed for bankruptcy late in 2001, after regulators proved management used illegal accounting to spice reported earnings. Freddie Mac and Enron had the same auditor. When it was found that Enron’s auditor was complicit, there was significant concern about Freddie who had a close relationship with that auditor since 1970. Freddie had to change auditors in February 2002. The new one, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, took as its first task a major scrubbing of Freddie’s books.

PriceWaterhouse quickly found that Freddie used improper hedge accounting with regard to Treasuries. The rules governing this process are rather straight forward, so Freddie’s violations stuck out like a sore thumb.

Freddie’s management reported unaudited record earnings for the 2002 fiscal year, putting PriceWaterhouse in a make or break position of either certifying that report, or invalidating it and issuing its own. In 2002, it was highly suspect for any major mortgage house to post record earnings. Interest rates had moved sharply lower. By all rights and reason, the move should have negatively affected GSE’s earnings, since the companies that buy mortgages lose money when they are forced to reinvest the proceeds of mortgage interest payments at lower rates. When Freddie and Fannie kept posting higher earnings that just met management compensation incentive targets, Wall Street investors became skeptical. Short positions — which involve “selling” stock and then “buying” it back later, hopefully at a lower price — in Fannie Mae began to rise sharply. When Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) asked for details on how many losses Fannie accounted for in the negative interest rate environment, the company said the information was “confidential and proprietary.”

By then, auditors were deep into another Freddie accounting scandal. Management had improperly failed to recognize declines in value on a meaningful portion of the $260 billion in mortgages it owned. Through its accounting methods, management was squeezing optimal earnings out of the machine, but illegally glossing over Freddie’s true financial position…health…in other words, it was juicing the income statement by bastardizing the balance sheet.
2003


The Freddie Mac Scandal Caused Democrats to Circle the Wagons

By June 2003, the Freddie accounting investigation had forced management to admit to having misstated $5 billion of earnings. Of course, many analysts and investors began to look very closely at Fannie’s accounting.

Republicans moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary. One way to counter the increased risk perception was to directly state that, while the government does not guarantee Fannie’s individual securitized mortgage issues, the federal government would, in fact, step in to bail Fannie out if it got into serious financial trouble. During a Congressional hearing, Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

At risk for Democrats included the following:

Democrats had changed the law governing Fannie Mae’s mission (the CRA) to pressure management to take more risks, but did nothing to adapt the regulatory structure to the new mission. Allowing the discovery of aggressive accounting at both Freddie and Fannie, without a fight, would place Democrat party at political risk ahead of a Presidential election cycle.
Democrats had appointed Fannie’s senior executives and much of the board of directors, who would had to have been involved with the illegalities – and may easily be publicly viewed as such if no fight had been put up to reframe the issue.
Publicly, Democrats fiercely defended the increased home ownership rates in poor neighborhoods, which were based upon investors having trust in purchasing Fannie’s repackaged mortgages. This easy access to funding would dry up if investors viewed investments in the securities Fannie issued as increasingly risky.
The CRA changes had significantly boosted community organizers, such as ACORN, which were rapidly becoming a Democrat party power base.
Local Democrat-linked political power brokers, such as Valerie Jarrett and friends, were making fortunes in the Chicago subprime housing market, where ACORN was a major player.

Clinton appointee Franklin Raines, and Congressional Democrats moved swiftly with the “best defense is a good offense” strategy. They painted anyone who presented evidence against Fannie Mae as being motivated by politics or greed. The same day auditors released the full Freddie Mac report, Franklin Raines held a press conference in which he accused Freddie of impeding Fannie’s lofty mission by causing “collateral damage.” Fannie’s management changed the Frequently Asked Questions section of the company’s website to include the following statement: “Fannie Mae’s reported financial results follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to the letter…. There should be no question about our accounting.” They were wrong.

In October 2003 — less than four months after Freddie’s admission — Mr. Raines wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow that began,

“Dear John,

From the beginning of our discussions, you and I have agreed to avoid disrupting the capital markets by indicating a wish to change Fannie Mae’s charter, status, or mission.“ After complaining about a comment that Raines said a high Treasury official had made about Fannie’s government-extended line of credit, he wrote, “The result of his comment was that trading in our debt came to a halt for an extended period of time. I am disappointed and hope we can change course.

Very truly yours, Frank.”

According to renown financial market and (at the time) Fortune Magazine reporter, Bethany McLean, “In political terms, the letter was an astonishment — what other CEO would dare dress down the Treasury Secretary, much less address him as “Dear John?”

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's see obama run on his economic policy

Obama is asking whether we want to return to the policies that drove our economy off the cliff. That question can be debated, but it's reasonable, he's running with it, and it damn well may work for him. The GOP has nothing to be proud of, and the electorate damn well knows it.


.

It was not the Repubs who caused our economy to go off the cliff.
It's was the Dems and Fannie and Freddy that did this.
The Dems blamed the banks and the Repubs.
It's never their fault it is always something or some one else.
Learn the truth, instead of believing the the political spins and out right lies.
Your precious Dems are lying through their teeth about the this.
You Dems need to get it through your heads, that both parties are liars & spinners and so is our media.

2002 – 2005:
The Bush Administration and Republicans Push to Regulate GSEs
2002
The Enron Scandal Uncovered it All

Fannie Mae’s success reaching amazing housing goals began to come under scrutiny in 2002, in the wake of accounting scandals at Enron and Fannie’s GSE cousin, Freddie Mac. Enron had filed for bankruptcy late in 2001, after regulators proved management used illegal accounting to spice reported earnings. Freddie Mac and Enron had the same auditor. When it was found that Enron’s auditor was complicit, there was significant concern about Freddie who had a close relationship with that auditor since 1970. Freddie had to change auditors in February 2002. The new one, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, took as its first task a major scrubbing of Freddie’s books.

PriceWaterhouse quickly found that Freddie used improper hedge accounting with regard to Treasuries. The rules governing this process are rather straight forward, so Freddie’s violations stuck out like a sore thumb.

Freddie’s management reported unaudited record earnings for the 2002 fiscal year, putting PriceWaterhouse in a make or break position of either certifying that report, or invalidating it and issuing its own. In 2002, it was highly suspect for any major mortgage house to post record earnings. Interest rates had moved sharply lower. By all rights and reason, the move should have negatively affected GSE’s earnings, since the companies that buy mortgages lose money when they are forced to reinvest the proceeds of mortgage interest payments at lower rates. When Freddie and Fannie kept posting higher earnings that just met management compensation incentive targets, Wall Street investors became skeptical. Short positions — which involve “selling” stock and then “buying” it back later, hopefully at a lower price — in Fannie Mae began to rise sharply. When Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) asked for details on how many losses Fannie accounted for in the negative interest rate environment, the company said the information was “confidential and proprietary.”

By then, auditors were deep into another Freddie accounting scandal. Management had improperly failed to recognize declines in value on a meaningful portion of the $260 billion in mortgages it owned. Through its accounting methods, management was squeezing optimal earnings out of the machine, but illegally glossing over Freddie’s true financial position…health…in other words, it was juicing the income statement by bastardizing the balance sheet.
2003


The Freddie Mac Scandal Caused Democrats to Circle the Wagons

By June 2003, the Freddie accounting investigation had forced management to admit to having misstated $5 billion of earnings. Of course, many analysts and investors began to look very closely at Fannie’s accounting.

Republicans moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary. One way to counter the increased risk perception was to directly state that, while the government does not guarantee Fannie’s individual securitized mortgage issues, the federal government would, in fact, step in to bail Fannie out if it got into serious financial trouble. During a Congressional hearing, Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

At risk for Democrats included the following:

Democrats had changed the law governing Fannie Mae’s mission (the CRA) to pressure management to take more risks, but did nothing to adapt the regulatory structure to the new mission. Allowing the discovery of aggressive accounting at both Freddie and Fannie, without a fight, would place Democrat party at political risk ahead of a Presidential election cycle.
Democrats had appointed Fannie’s senior executives and much of the board of directors, who would had to have been involved with the illegalities – and may easily be publicly viewed as such if no fight had been put up to reframe the issue.
Publicly, Democrats fiercely defended the increased home ownership rates in poor neighborhoods, which were based upon investors having trust in purchasing Fannie’s repackaged mortgages. This easy access to funding would dry up if investors viewed investments in the securities Fannie issued as increasingly risky.
The CRA changes had significantly boosted community organizers, such as ACORN, which were rapidly becoming a Democrat party power base.
Local Democrat-linked political power brokers, such as Valerie Jarrett and friends, were making fortunes in the Chicago subprime housing market, where ACORN was a major player.

Clinton appointee Franklin Raines, and Congressional Democrats moved swiftly with the “best defense is a good offense” strategy. They painted anyone who presented evidence against Fannie Mae as being motivated by politics or greed. The same day auditors released the full Freddie Mac report, Franklin Raines held a press conference in which he accused Freddie of impeding Fannie’s lofty mission by causing “collateral damage.” Fannie’s management changed the Frequently Asked Questions section of the company’s website to include the following statement: “Fannie Mae’s reported financial results follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to the letter…. There should be no question about our accounting.” They were wrong.

In October 2003 — less than four months after Freddie’s admission — Mr. Raines wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow that began,

“Dear John,

From the beginning of our discussions, you and I have agreed to avoid disrupting the capital markets by indicating a wish to change Fannie Mae’s charter, status, or mission.“ After complaining about a comment that Raines said a high Treasury official had made about Fannie’s government-extended line of credit, he wrote, “The result of his comment was that trading in our debt came to a halt for an extended period of time. I am disappointed and hope we can change course.

Very truly yours, Frank.”

According to renown financial market and (at the time) Fortune Magazine reporter, Bethany McLean, “In political terms, the letter was an astonishment — what other CEO would dare dress down the Treasury Secretary, much less address him as “Dear John?”

I think obama is done.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[HUGGY]

How many threads do we need on this subject?

 

[Truthmatters]

enough for them to drown themslves with later when it panns out VERY badly for the right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How many threads do we need on this subject?

Just because it has fast and the furious in the thread doesn't mean it's like the other threads. It's specific dealing with an specific event of the issue