Re: Lipstick on a Bailout

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:49 pm

It is very likely some, if not all, of these members of Congress were receiving some sort of compensation for turning a blind eye to these crimes. I doubt very much all of this compensation to all of these congressmen was in the form of perfectly legal campaign contributions.

You can "doubt" all you want. But that is not evidence. The millions of dollars that a few dozen individuals in the financial services industry can legally pump into any one Congressional campaign can certainly be an incentive for corruption. Why do it illegally when legal keeps one out of prison?

What was the motive for the fraud they committed? Did they do it out of the great love and admiration they all had for these crooks? These questions deserve answers.

Or maybe it was the great love and admiration for the millions of dollars the crooks legally contributed to Congressmen.

Even if no money or goods or services changed hands illegally, that does not change the fact that their lies and their cover up of the truth were crimes against the American people. Nor does it relieve them of their obligation to fulfill the oath of office they took.

Again, what "crimes against the American people"? Their ass is covered by the campaign finance laws- into the millions of dollars for each Congressman.

For the most part rich people don't have to violate the laws- because they or their surrogates get to MAKE the laws.

When it comes right down to it, it seems that all you are talking about are maybe impeachable offenses. And as a practical matter, impeachment is a political process, not a "legal" process. Good luck with demanding that Congress impeach itself.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:22 pm

Am I the only person here who believes that a thorough investigation of some members of Congress might not lead to the discovery of hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash hidden in freezers, under mattresses, and the odd off-shore account or two?

Why fool with a few measley hundred thousand dollars of illegal money when tens of millions can be funneled quite legally via campaign contributions?

by Aaron Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:24 pm

ziggy wrote:
Am I the only person here who believes that a thorough investigation of some members of Congress might not lead to the discovery of hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash hidden in freezers, under mattresses, and the odd off-shore account or two?

Why fool with a few measley hundred thousand dollars of illegal money when tens of millions can be funneled quite legally via campaign contributions?

But isn't that exactly what you accuse coal companies of doing all the time...BOTH.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:49 pm

No. As far as I know the corruption of federal and state politicians by coal operators is almost totally through the political campaign contribution process- which is, again, a system of legalized bribery and corruption.

by SamCogar Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:48 pm

ziggy wrote:Corruption and bribery is what most of us have been talking about all day here.

And whatever of it is done within and under the campaign finance laws, it is not criminal and it is not evidence of legal malfeasance nor of failure to perform as per some oath. That is one reason why Congress enacted McCain-Feingold legislation- to increase the thresholds of legal bribery and corruption.

Go back to Page 3 and start with Ohio's post of, to wit.

ohio county wrote:Today at 7:36 am I'd really like to see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the hook. And a whole array of privately employed bankers and a whole host of "public servants". I still think the whole crisis was caused exclusively by politicians.

Then tell us how your warped mind connected his statement to campaign finance laws.

.

by SamCogar Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:07 pm

ziggy wrote:
Or maybe it was the great love and admiration for the millions of dollars the crooks legally contributed to Congressmen.

No way in hell can the crooks legally contribute millions of dollars to Congressmen.

Just ask Jack Abramoff by giving him a call at the prison he is currently staying at. Lipstick on a Bailout - Page 4 33948

The crooks can legally contribute millions of dollars to the "election funds" of Congressmen, but not to the Congressmen themselves. Obama received over $60 million from all sources the past month, beating McCain by quite a bit.

Apparently you didn't know there was a difference. But your ignorance wouldn't surprise anyone but yourself.

.

by SamCogar Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:09 pm

SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote:
Or maybe it was the great love and admiration for the millions of dollars the crooks legally contributed to Congressmen.

No way in hell can the crooks legally contribute millions of dollars to Congressmen.

Just ask Jack Abramoff by giving him a call at the prison he is currently staying at.

The crooks can legally contribute millions of dollars to the "election funds" of Congressmen, but not to the Congressmen themselves. Obama campaign fund received over $60 million from all sources the past month, beating McCain by quite a bit.

Apparently you didn't know there was a difference. But your ignorance wouldn't surprise anyone but yourself.

.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:12 pm

SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote:Corruption and bribery is what most of us have been talking about all day here.

And whatever of it is done within and under the campaign finance laws, it is not criminal and it is not evidence of legal malfeasance nor of failure to perform as per some oath. That is one reason why Congress enacted McCain-Feingold legislation- to increase the thresholds of legal bribery and corruption.

Go back to Page 3 and start with Ohio's post of, to wit.

ohio county wrote:Today at 7:36 am I'd really like to see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the hook. And a whole array of privately employed bankers and a whole host of "public servants". I still think the whole crisis was caused exclusively by politicians.

Then tell us how your warped mind connected his statement to campaign finance laws.

.

Just look at the string of posts from there on, Sam. You are the only one who seems to be having trouble following it.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:26 pm

The crooks can legally contribute millions of dollars to the "election funds" of Congressmen, but not to the Congressmen themselves. Obama campaign fund received over $60 million from all sources the past month, beating McCain by quite a bit.

Apparently you didn't know there was a difference. But your ignorance wouldn't surprise anyone but yourself.

Like my "idiocy" you pointed out earlier today, Sam, I have to live with my ignorance, too, every day. So you don't know even the half of it- of my ignorance. It is more than you could ever comprehend.

But in spite of my ignorance, I do know what a Congressman's campaign committee (or "election fund" if you prefer) is. And saying that crooks can legally contribute millions of dollars to the "election funds" of Congressmen, but not to the Congressmen themselves is about like saying that a crook can contribute millions to a Congressman's favorite charity, but not to the Congressmen themselves. There is a distinction without a practical political difference. When the campaign contributions influence the Congressman's official acts, then it is bribery and corruption none the less.

But if you are telling us that campaign contributions in the millions of dollars do not influence politicians' official acts, then- well, bring it on.

by **Stephanie** Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:31 pm

Campaign finance laws will not protect them if they lie and cover up the bad acts of others. They took an oath, they swore to uphold the law, they failed to do that. The evidence was there before them. Sworn testimony was given. Financial experts testified. Franks, Meeks, Waters, Clay and many others denied, lied, and now they're trying to hide.

Let the FBI investigate that. The transcripts of the hearings exist, as do the reports. The sworn testimony is also available on video tape. The FBI has a duty to investigate these thugs and they must. The evidence is there.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:24 pm

Campaign finance laws will not protect them if they lie and cover up the bad acts of others. They took an oath, they swore to uphold the law, they failed to do that.

OK. So what laws did they not uphold? Congress is a lawmaking body, not a regulatory agency nor a law enforcement agency.

The evidence was there before them. Sworn testimony was given. Financial experts testified. Franks, Meeks, Waters, Clay and many others denied, lied, and now they're trying to hide.

If the President can get by with lying, denying and hiding, then why not Congress?

by **Stephanie** Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:13 am

Ziggy,

Why are you trying to make excuses for them?

by sodbuster Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:27 am

Well Steph I know zig well enough to say he is not "trying to make excuses for them."

by **Stephanie** Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:44 am

You know, I thought that too, at first.

However, what thought crossed my mind when I read his latest response to me is that he wants them to skate away on this because he believes Bush lied about WMD in Iraq and has gotten away with it.

The evidence against Bush is a lot murkier than it is against these members of Congress. While I suspect Bush lied, and agree there is some evidence, what I have seen doesn't lead me to believe there could ever be a convicition. I do believe there is plenty of evidence to convict many members of Congress.

Then there is the issue of what happens in the future. No matter what, Bush is gone and his presidency is over in a few months. Barney Franks & Maxine Waters & Chris Dodd hold positions without term limits. Their constituents will not kick them out without a full fledged investigation that fully exposes all of their crimes. Even that, I fear, will not be enough to oust Franks & some of the others. So unless legal action is taken against them, they will not escape punishment for their crimes, but they will continue to hold positions of great power where they can continue to perpetrate more crimes against our nation and her people.

by Aaron Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:30 am

ziggy wrote:No. As far as I know the corruption of federal and state politicians by coal operators is almost totally through the political campaign contribution process- which is, again, a system of legalized bribery and corruption.

So how is Massey buying mine inspectors via campaign contributions? The same way the FM's buying investigators without campaign contributions.

And as Sam pointed out Frank, if it could all be done nice and legal like, why is Jack Abramoff in jail?

by **Stephanie** Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:44 am

Good morning, Aaron. lol

by Aaron Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:48 am

Good morning.

by ziggy Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:55 am

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Why are you trying to make excuses for them?

I am not "making excuses" for anyone. I am following up on your and others' allegations here last week that Frank and Dodd and others were the largest recipiients of $$$ from financial houses via campaign comtributions, and Jimmy's assertion yesterday that they should be "on the hook" for something or other.

I have long held that public financing of election campaigns would cost the taxpayers and the public treasury far less than today's system of after elction paybacks to campaign contributors from the public treasury. And I think that once again we are seeing that "up close and personal".

I think it was you, Stephanie, who showed us that the financial lobby has slopped all this money onto these finance committee chairs and ranking members via campaign contributions. Is all that somehow of no importance this week?

It was only when you said that Congressmen should be charged for lying, denying and hiding that I brought G. Bush into it. It is just so natural an association that ignoring it would be unnatural.

by ziggy Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:17 am

Aaron wrote:And as Sam pointed out Frank, if it could all be done nice and legal like, why is Jack Abramoff in jail?

Abramoff is not in jail for giving $$$ to elected public officials.

On January 3, 2006, Abramoff pled guilty to three felony counts, conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, involving charges stemming principally from his lobbying activities in Washington on behalf of Native American tribes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

And if Bob Ney had insisted that the $50,000 gambling spree Abramoff treated him to had, instead, gone to his re-election campaign, Ney would still be in Congress today.

by Aaron Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:32 am

I think what you're not getting Frank is that there are those of that believe that people such as Franklin Raines, along with many others, committed criminal fraud and lied by overstating their earnings to increase their compensation and that Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and others KNEW they were committing fraud and lying and that is the crime Dodd, Frank and others should answer for.

This has nothing to do with campaign finance laws, other then political donations was the motivation for Dodd, Frank and others to committ the crimes and COVER up for Wall Streets lies to begin with.

We have stated this over and over and you've confused the issue by interjecting campaign finance laws into the conversation in your efforts to excuse government employees for their crimes.

Not only have you attempted to excuse government employees and blame campaign finance laws and cry for reform in that area, which happens to have been your work for the past ~20 years, you’ve stated that there are no criminal wrong doings involving members of Congress and as proof, you cite Jack Abramoff's guilty plea to defrauding an Indian tribe.

You left out the fact that his guilty plea included corrpution of a "public officials" along with the common knowledge of everyone here that when a defendent pleads guilty to one crime, many others are dropped by the prosecution.

I don't believe for a second that you believe Abramoff didn't puchase congressmen with the $85 million he fleeced from American Indians. You're not that stupid Frank.

by SamCogar Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:33 am

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

Why are you trying to make excuses for them?

Well "DUH", ....... like always, ....... to CHA for posting idiotic statements and to attempt to distract and confuse anyone who jumps his arse for said by trying to change the subject of the discussion to something that he can claim to be right about.

But even then he gets confused about what his "claims" are and will oftentimes attempt to take credit for what someone else posted and/or blame someone else for what he posted.

A phoney picture is worth 1,000 dubious words from him.

Lipstick on a Bailout - Page 4 33948

.

by SamCogar Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:48 am

ziggy wrote:Abramoff is not in jail for giving $$$ to elected public officials.

And if Bob Ney had insisted that the $50,000 gambling spree Abramoff treated him to had, instead, gone to his re-election campaign, Ney would still be in Congress today.

by **Stephanie** Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:08 pm

Ziggy,

Are you telling me that it is legal for political office holders to use the campaign contributions they receive for vactions, boats, cars, condos, casinos, wine, women & or song?

Is that what you're saying?

Fraud & conspiracy.......if nothing else Franks, Waters, Lacy, Meeks, could certainly be convicted of conspiracy and fraud for statements they made during House hearings about the accounting practices and management of the GSE's way back in 2004. They should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted if there is enough evidence to make cases against them. At this point there is at the very least enough evidence for a judge to issue warrants and subpeonas.

So let them get on with it. Raines & Gorelick and those who preceded them and those who followed them would never have been able to get away with their crimes on such a grand scale for so long without the aid of Barney & Chris & Co. The regulators brought forward evidence, and they denied and lied and hid the misfeasance and malfeasance of these sorry excuses for human beings.

The regulators did their job. If only Congress did theirs we wouldn't be in the pathetic state of affairs we're in today. Now, as if all of that isn't bad enough, we, the victims of their crimes, now must sit by and watch many of the same individuals who perpetrated these crimes vote on how to "fix" things? I just don't know what it's going to take.

I'm beginning to think there truly is no hope left for America. Every time I think there is a glimmer of hope, like the past week with the massive public outcry over the bailout, or a year ago with the tremendous public outcry over amnesty for the criminals who violated our laws and threaten our sovereignty, the American people slip right back into complacency after the appearance of the most minor of victories. Or they cower in fear at the dire consequences and end of civilization as we know it by the fear mongers.

Perhaps there really is no hope left for us.

We're just screwed 8 ways to Sunday.

The bailout will pass. Barney Frank will be reelected. The executives and trustees will get to keep their bonuses and their assets and all that they lied and cheated and stole in order to acquire. It will be business as usual in DC and on Wall Street and 30 years from now, if I'm still alive, I'll be ashamed to look my grandchildren in the eye because they're still paying the price of the greed and avarice of others.

by ziggy Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:17 pm

This has nothing to do with campaign finance laws, other then political donations was the motivation .......................

Duhh, yeah. That's what I said all day yesterday.

....................................for Dodd, Frank and others to committ the crimes and COVER up for Wall Streets lies to begin with.

As to "covering up" for Wall Street "lies", show us. What crimes? You haven't shown any. Show us that anything "illegal" has taken place in the context of (1) political differences of opinion about monetary policy, and (2) Congressional powers and duties- which do not include law enforcement and regulatory duties beyond lawmaking or (3) anything else based on the law and the facts.

Over the past 15 years Congress has gutted most of whatever regulatory powers ever existed over Wall Street investment banking institutions. How can much of anything "illegal" have taken place when most of the regulatory laws have been repealed anyway?

by ziggy Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:37 pm

Ziggy,

Are you telling me that it is legal for political office holders to use the campaign contributions they receive for vactions, boats, cars, condos, casinos, wine, women & or song?

No. But if Joe Smith wants to run for election or re-election to Congress, it might cost him $5-10 million dollars for a campaign. Now Joe Smith could spend his own millions for that campaign, and forego those vacations, boats, cars, condos, casinos, wine, women & songs.

But if candidate Joe can get the entities that are affected by what Congress does to contribute $5-10 million dollars to his "campaign", then Joe can have it both ways. He can have a multi-million dollar Congressional campaign financed by lobbyists' dollars, and still enjoy those vacations, boats, cars, condos, casinos, wine, women & songs with his own dollars.

So pretending that there is a wall of separation between a candidates campaign funds and personal funds- or that a candidate's personal wealth is not affected by contributions of campaign committee funds by others- is willful delusion.

by Sponsored content