Crusading state-level Attorneys General seeking to take down corrupt financial industry - Maddow

This week a major focus on Rachel Maddow's show is the corrupt financial industry that nearly killed the U.S. economy.  The deed was enabled by corrupt business practices that were in turn enabled by relaxed regulatory regime.  Largely speaking, even though many companies in the financial industry died, bankrupted, merged, etc, the people who committed the practices are often still employed in the same financial industry, and the regulatory system around them has changed very little.

As Maddow recounts, earlier in this decade a crusading NY Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, took down several corrupt NYC financial industry titans.  That was before he went on to a prostitute scandal and a stint as a CNN host.  In her coverage this week she focused on two Attorneys General, Eric Schneiderman from New York and Beau Biden from Delaware.   One take-away from this is that Change can happen when bright people pursue a course of correcting wrongs, and use their position of power to enable change in the world.

Of course there is positive change and negative change.  Someone in a position of power can create a corrupt system, or work to remove corruption.  It depends on how they apply the power their position gives them.

These people who are in public service - ideally their job is serving the better interests of all.  Consider the Attorney General job.  It's about seeing justice is served, lawbreakers are found and punished, the law is applied in a just manner, etc.

But history is replete with people who used positions of power to instead feather their own nests, or work with cronies to feather each others nests, or create a regime of dictatorial control, or .. etc .. on and on ..  There have been plenty of Attorneys General who used their positions of power to hide corruption, to stonewall investigations, etc.  Again, it's a matter of how each individual uses their time in the position of power.

During the interviews below, Maddow asked Beau Biden (son of Vice President Biden) why these investigations are happening at the state level rather than the federal level.  Interesting question, and he answered that while there is a lot of state-level investigation, that it seems the state level investigators are cooperating, there is also federal level investigations.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This starts a little slow with analysis of Republican advertisements, the poor pitiful state of Democratic advertisements .. etc ..  The segue point is a Democratic ad that really hits hard on the mortgage crisis corruption.   Almost half of Arizona home-owners are "under water" with foreclosures "everywhere" but Romney's message to Arizona is that he wants the mortgage crisis to "hit bottom" and that home-owners are on their own.

In other words - the banks (e.g. the rich 1%) got bailed out, while we the 99% get foreclosed.

Would it work to brush the corruption under the rug and ignore it?  The business-friendly Republicans want to brush this aside, but does this mean they think "business-friendly" means "corruption-friendly"?

A lot of the base raw feelings driving the Occupy protests is this exact issue.  Rampant financial corruption and corrupt practices.  Who is going to step up to the plate to correct this?  A minute ago I suggested that people in positions of political power have a choice, to use their power for the good of all, or to use their power to protect corrupt practices keeping the game going.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Later in the show they had Glenn Greenwald on to shill for his latest book, but this weaves into the same narrative.  This book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, "lays bare the mechanisms that have come to shield the elite from accountability" and "shows how the media, both political parties, and the courts have abetted a process that has produced torture, war crimes, domestic spying, and financial fraud".

The book has a chapter titled - Too Big To Jail - great meme.

Basically, he was there to talk about officially sanctioned corruption and the general pattern that the rich get away with things we little people would be in jail over.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In this segment Maddow shows, with numbers charted on a graph, the effect of the system.  Note that Greenwald identified a tipping point 40 years ago when Richard Nixon got pardoned, and by being pardoned started this "Too Big To Jail" precedent that's been used to let others get off with little or no punishment for misdeeds.

Here the graph shows how, upon the election of Ronald Reagan, the economic well-being of the 99% and 1% began to diverge.  The Rich got Richer far faster than the rest of us, creating an enormous gap in financial well-being.  Reagan did a lot to remove the regulatory system that had kept the financial system in check, keeping corruption out of finance.  One thing that enabled was for the rich to get richer, and it enabled the rampant corruption.

Oh, and this more-or-less proves how bogus were the "Trickle Down Economics" of the Reagan era.  We see right here that there's no trickle-down.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is the segment where she talks about Elliot Spitzer in the period he was the crusading New York Attorney General, the role now held by Eric Schneiderman above.  The segment starts with a quote from the Chamber of Commerce complaining about Spitzers effectiveness.  From the Chamber of Commerce perspective we can imagine they saw Spitzer as a threat, but that just fits the meme where "business-friendly" really means "corruption-friendly" doesn't it?

Thanks to Spitzer, Wall Street was being "perp walked" for stuff they used to routinely get away with.

Sure, investments are not a sure thing and investors should certainly know this.  THe one thing investors deserve is honest advice.  Instead what they got was crap self serving advice that actively misled investors to investing in crap.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Immediately after the prior segment, we have Beau Biden (VP Biden's son) on to talk about what Delaware is doing.  Where Delaware enters the picture is jurisdiction.  Where Delaware is the preferred state to register corporations, those corporations are subject to accountability by Delaware's judicial system.

Beau Biden as the Delaware Attorney General has just launched a lawsuit against the entire mortgage industry.

The allegation is that in the mid 90's the banks privatized regulation of mortgage notes, so that mortgages could be securitized so that they can be traded on the open market.  A result of the securitization was that it's now nigh-on-impossible to determine who actually owns a given house, because the mortgage originator securitizes the mortgage to sell the mortgage securities on the market.

 

Dylan Ratigan explains the mess we're in, on air - your Congress is bought, incapable of making legislation, etc...

This is a piece from the Dylan Ratigan show from August 9, 2011, which I first heard in episode 280 of the C-Realm Podcast (see http://politics.7gen.com/2011/10/kmo-covers-occupy-wall-street-protest.html).

I don't know who this guy is - but I'm totally impressed by what he has to say.  If one is wondering why so many are worried or up in arms, well, it's the discussion Ratigan makes here on his show.  I think even those who cannot articulate their thoughts this well, understand this intuitively.

 

He then further explained himself a few days later.

Hypocratic lying government officials, and why it matters (do we live in a Hypocracy or Democracy?)

Politicians lie, right? That statement is frequently used to sweep hypocrisy and lies under the rug. Why bother complaining because they all do it? Maybe the general consensus is that these lies don't matter and not worth the bother. To me it is important and galling some of the lies being perpetrated.

When the Congressman serving as the House Majority Leader suggests to a news reporter a course of action that's patently unconstitutional, is that important? When a politician calls for bombing a particular country, then two weeks later says we shouldn't be bombing that country, is that important? When a political party makes a lot of electoral hay calling for Constitutional rule, enacts rules of Congressional conduct requiring citations of Constitutional justification, and then does not follow their own newly enacted rule, is that important? When a Congressperson has a public facade of "Family Values" complaining about extramarital sexual affairs of others, but then gets caught redhanded in their own sexual pecadillo escapade and refuses to acknowledge it or resign or anything, is that important?

A couple definitions might bring this into focus:

Hypocracy (urban dictionary):

What Democracy turns into when all of the politicians in your country are liars.

When no party/President that wins the election manages to keep its/his own ideology, and instead, keeps changing it every time it/he feels like it, that's no democracy. That's hypocracy.

A democracy governed by hypocrites.

The British government advocates moral standards to which it does not conform. Britain's political system is therefore a hypocracy.

Hypocrisy (dictionary.com)

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

What these definitions are saying is a disconnect between stated ideology and actual action.

The writings of Christianity include a principle: By their fruits ye shall know them

This comes from traditional agriculture. How do you decide whether to grow one plant or another? It's whether the plant is useful for food production, or, whether the fruit of the tree is edible, nutritious and tasty, or whether it's poisonous or repugnant. You can only tell this from the fruit.

What is the "fruit" of hypocritical politicians?

What's engendered by the atmosphere indicated by the synonyms of 'hypocrisy'? (affectation, bad faith, bigotry, cant, casuistry, deceit, deception, dishonesty, display, dissembling, dissimulation, double-dealing, duplicity, false profession, falsity, fraud, glibness, imposture, insincerity, irreverence, lie, lip service, mockery, pharisaicalness, pharisaism, phoniness, pietism, quackery, sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, speciousness, unctuousness - from http://thesaurus.com/browse/hypocrisy)

Iran Nuclear threat a hoax? Or not?

Iran. Nuclear weapons. Sigh. Iran is part of the so-called axis of evil, which included Iraq and North Korea. North Korea has been pronounced to be a threat, they recently set off a small nuclear weapon of some kind, and this week Pres. George W. Bush was reported to have repeated the statement that growth of nuclear capabilities in North Korea is a major problem. Ditto the growth of nuclear capabilities in Iran.

Yet, the same week Congress finally voted approval for a deal Pres. Bush made with India to provide them with some nuclear technology. It's funny how India has nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaties, and the U.S. is providing them with nuclear technology. It's especially funny how Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaties, has not yet created nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. is threatening to invade Iran. Oh, and Pakistan, the country that was the worst proliferator of nuclear technology, without whom North Korea would not have gotten anywhere, is a partner to the U.S.

Very strange.

The process with Iran is seemingly the same as it was for Iraq leading up to the 2003 invasion of that country. There are shady exile groups making bold claims against the Iranian leadership, just as there were for Iraqi leadership. There are pronouncements and demonization by the U.S. leadership, just as there was for Iraq. etc. Yet we learned later that the whole story spun about Iraq was a total fabrication, and that seemingly the U.S. leadership knew they were lying while they were spinning their web of lies. The question is, how truthful are they being about Iran, or is this story just another big web of lies?

Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons Reports that a classified CIA document finds there is no developing nuclear threat in Iran. Further, the Bush Administration realized before the election that it's likely they would lose, and that Cheney threatened that their loss "would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran" that "the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions" preventing Congress from getting in their way.

Hurm.. sounds like a constitutional crisis brewing here.

The system of checks and balances are supposed to keep one branch of U.S. government from riding roughshod over the others. But the last few years we've had a Congress that rubber stamped everything the administration told them to do. And among those things were suspensions or deletions of some of the checks and balances.

The Next Act is a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh that was used as the source for the above article.

35-nations meet on denying Iran nuclear assistance "A push by Western nations to deny Iran technical help in building a plutonium-producing reactor has gathered enough support to be approved by the 35-nation board of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, diplomats said. Still, differences both within the Western camp and more broadly among different factions on the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on how harshly to punish Iran for its nuclear defiance persisted on the eve of the opening meeting Monday, the diplomats said. "

IAEA likely to block Iran atom aid at meeting "The U.N. nuclear watchdog is likely at a politically charged meeting this week to put on ice Iran's request for help with a heavy-water plant due to fears it could yield plutonium for atom bombs, diplomats say. The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation governing board urged Iran in February to "reconsider" the Arak reactor project. But Tehran vows to complete it and applied for IAEA technical expertise to ensure the plant meets safety standards. Although IAEA approval of such requests is usually routine, Western board members say the Arak case must be rejected given Iran's record of evading IAEA non-proliferation inspections and its defiance of U.N. demands to stop enriching uranium. "

The "case" for War

[July 16, 2004]

The news media finally got off their collective butt's and decided to fact-check Powell's speech to the United Nations in Feb 2003 which led to the Iraq Invasion. As you can see below, in August 2003 it was already clear he'd told the world a pack of lies.

This article digs into the recently released U.S. Senate report on the Iraq War (invasion). It cites a series of articles and meetings where the CIA was actively persuading the Administration that the case for war was anything but sound. Well, duh. It's nice to know that the CIA was doing their job and trying to warn the administration.

The meetings worked in a sense, in that a large number of claims were either rejected outright, or modified. Still the CIA did warn that many of the remaining claims were weak.

[August 21, 2003]

The current situation is that the U.S. is fighting two overt wars, one in Afghanistan, the other in Iraq, and no doubt there's much covert stuff going on as well. The prompting for this is supposedly the attack of September 11, 2001 (on the World Trade Center). On the other hand, as was discussed in the other articles in this series, the "neo-conservatives" currently in charge of the U.S. government have been planning an assault on the world amazingly alike what is being pursued on the world stage.

Tonights purpose is to go over the "case" that was laid before the U.S. people, the U.N., and others around the world. As I discussed elsewhere, a number of claims were made about Iraq, and none of them have been found to be true. To my eye this is a "high crime", namely lying and deceiving the whole world in order to launch a war that has killed tens of thousands of people. And what's worse is that it apparently was launched to prop up a failing energy policy based on fossil fuel abuse.

In the February 17, 2003 issue of Newsweek is an article, "Judging the CASE" detailing the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations. It's important to note that two weeks before the Dept of Homeland Defense moved the "terror threat level" to "Orange", that troops were beginning the steps to deployment in Kuwait (and thence to Iraq), and that people were generally jittery. This article is available at Newsweek's web site, simply go to the "SEARCH THE ARCHIVES" box and type "Judging the Case". I cannot make a direct link to the article as it is available only for a fee.

[Feb 5, 2003; Time Magazine; time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,419939,00.html] What Powell Achieved He may not have swayed doubters, but the Secretary of State shortened the odds on a UN resolution authorizing force against Iraq

[Feb 5, 2003; CNN; cnn.com/2003/US/02/06/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html] Bush to U.N.: We will not wait U.S. sending more troops, ships to region

[Feb 5, 2003; CNN; cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.key.points.txt/index.html] Powell's key points on Iraq UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Although he said in advance that there would be no "smoking gun," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell raised numerous points Wednesday in making his case against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council. Here are some of the highlights ... This is CNN's summary of Powell's presentation to the United Nations

Clearly, if the claims made by the U.S. and British leaders were to have been true, Iraq would have been a very dangerous country indeed. Maybe dangerous enough, combined with its evasive and wiley dictatorial government, to have been worth of engaging in war. However, the truth has not met up with the claims, hence this article.

The following is a table detailing the claims, and current truth (as of August 21, 2003). If you count this up, the vast majority of the claims have not been shown to be true, and in some cases were shown to be outright lies, and that the administration knew very well that they were lying. Only one of the claims, Ansar al-Islam's presence in Iraq and supposed connection with al Queda, has been shown to have any truth, and that link is tenuous at best.

Source	Claim	Current truth
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Denial, deception and doubts", in which the claim is made that "U.S. spy satellites have caught apparent 'housecleaning' efforts" just before visits by U.N. inspectors. The inspectors were trying to find Iraq's posession of banned weapons. Those weapons were banned by a U.N. Security Council resolution (1441), and it was for the purpose of enforcing that ban which the inspection process was undertaken.	No trace of any of the banned weapons have been found. Even after the 4 months that the U.S. has been in control of Iraq. None.
CNN [Feb 5, 2003] "Powell's key points on Iraq"	"Recorded conversations" is that, as part of the denial and deception Iraq sowed to hinder the U.N. inspectors, the U.S. had recorded conversations between various Iraqi military officials passing along orders to cover up banned weapons.	In the Newsweek article it is said "The intercepts clearly refer to stray items, not big caches" and that Iraqi's disputed the translation accuracy. Again, no trace of the banned weapons have been found even after four months of U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Death on wheels" is the claim that the "germ warfare factories" had been installed in trucks so they can be mobile and evade the U.N. inspectors. As Newsweek says, "it seems like the perfect dodge, 'Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands that trvel the roads of Iraq every day'".	In the early days of the war two trucks were found containing chemical production equipment. Initial thought was "these are those trucks", but they have since been found to be used to produce hydrogen for weather balloons.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Lethal Ingredients" is about chemical weapons. "No country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq", and yes indeed that is true. So it seemed feasible that Iraq could have still been producing and/or hiding chemical weapons.	No chemical weapons were used, and none were found at any munitions depot in Iraq. Many old chemical weapons suits were found, of course, since Iraq had done so much with those type of weapons in the past.
CNN [Feb 5, 2003] "Bush to U.N.: We will not wait"	"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have," Bush said.	No chemical weapons were used, and none were found at any munitions depot in Iraq. Many old chemical weapons suits were found, of course, since Iraq had done so much with those weapons in the past.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Centrifugal Force" is the claim that Iraq has been trying to import "sophisticated parts" for Uranium enrichment, as well as uranium itself. Much was made of some aluminum tubes which were made to a "high tolerance" beyond that required for rocketry.	Recent news since the middle of June has (see Is this "war" Impeachable?) made it clear that every claim made about the Uranium was false, and known by the administration to be false, but they made it anway.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"Delivery units" is the claim of both missiles and drone aircraft that could deliver weapons. Presumably the target would be Israel, but the implication is these delivery vehicles are a threat to the United States. The U.N. resolutions banned Iraq from possessing any delivery vehicle having a range greater than approximately 150 kilometers (93 miles).	The rocket issue is an unknown (to me) at this moment. The drone aircraft were found to be exceedingly harmless. In one of the "rebuttals" staged by Iraq shortly before the invasion, they rolled out the drone aircraft for reporters to view. The Christian Science Monitor says "held together with tin foil and duct tape, and two wooden propellers bolted to engines far smaller than those of a lawn mower - looked more like a high-school science project than the "smoking gun" that could spark a war", and goes on to detail a whole lot of confusion around this issue.
Newsweek [February 17, 2003] "Judging the CASE"	"The bin Laden connection" is the claim that Iraq was harboring some small number of al-Queda people, and helped one al-Queda leader (Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) to get medical treatment.	Newsweek itself pointed out that Zarqawi "is the head of Al Tawhid, a terror group sometimes (but not always) allied with Al Queda", so even that claim is a tenuous link. That's ignoring the well known fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have widely differing goals, and openly despise one another, and therefore have little if any reason to cooperate with one another. There has been occasional claims made in the press of Al Queda operatives active in Iraq. Certainly a geurilla war is being fought against the U.S., British and U.N. interests in Iraq. A CNN news article [August 20, 2003] claims "possible al Queda link in Baghdad blast". Given the past accuracy of the administration, how can we trust the accuracy of this claim of a "possible link"? In any case the article says they are possibly linking "Ansar al-Islam", the same group referred to here, is not al Queda and only sometimes linked with al Queda. Human Rights Watch report on Ansar al-Islam. Their report confirms the group has a tendency to violence, hardline Islam, and a link of unknown quality with al Queda. U.S. Executive Order 13224 named this group an official "Terrorist Group" on February 20, 2003.