Judge lambastes deal in Wall Street fraud case
It always drives me nuts to see stories to the effect that “Corporation X agreed Thursday to pay a $500 gazillion penalty to settle federal fraud charges, but the company admitted no wrongdoing.”
Apparently, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York agrees with me.
In a sharp rebuke to such deals, Rakoff this week rejected a $285 million proposed settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission, calling the deal “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.”
As Rakoff lays out the allegations against Citigroup in his opinion:
“… after Citigroup realized in 2007 that the market for mortgage-backed securities was beginning to weaken, Citigroup created a billion-dollar fund that allowed it to dump some dubious assets on misinformed investors. This was accomplished by Citigroup’s misrepresenting that the fund’s assets were attractive investments rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser, whereas in fact Citigroup had arranged to include in the portfolio a substantial percentage of negative projected assets and had then taken a short position in those very assets it had helped select.”
In other words, it knowingly created and peddled a bad investment to its clients, and then bet against those clients that the investment would fail.
Which of course it did.
Investors lost $700 million in the deal, while Citigroup made a tidy profit of $160 million. Under the settlement negotiated with the SEC but rejected by Rakoff, the company would have to cough up the profits it earned and pay an additional $95 million fine to make it all go away.
Amazingly, the SEC chose to charge Citigroup only with negligence, rather than outright fraud. Not only was the fine it proposed insufficient, Rakoff wrote, the deal ensures that the American public “is deprived of ever knowing the truth in a matter of obvious public importance.”
“In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives,” Rakoff wrote in his opinion, “there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth. In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers. Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found. But the SEC, of all agencies, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges.”
Rakoff went on to note that it was hard to determine what the SEC was getting from the settlement “other than a quick headline.” Citigroup was a repeat offender in such cases, “and yet, in terms of deterrence, the $95 million civil penalty that the Consent Judgment proposes is pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup.”
To some degree, I can sympathize with the SEC’s position. The agency is grossly underfunded and has to deploy its limited resources carefully. Getting involved in a lengthy court fight with a deep-pockets defendant such as Citigroup would eat up a lot of staff time. The temptation is to cut a deal and move on.
And while the Obama administration has requested additional funding for the SEC and its sister agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, House Republicans have refused to approve that request, preferring to keep the Wall Street watchdogs toothless and on a short leash.
Personally, I think we ought to consider solving the funding problem by giving the SEC and CFTC a cut of the money that they recover, just as other law-enforcement agencies get a cut of what they recover in drug-trafficking cases. That’s “running government like a business,” right? If you want them to do a good job, you give them a financial incentive to do their job more aggressively.
Furthermore, since the money being recovered would by definition come from law-breakers rather than those who do business honestly, it could hardly be considered a tax increase.
But as we all know — Judge Rakoff included — that isn’t going to happen.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
275 comments Add your comment
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2011
4:24 pm
Someone’s been buying lots of stocks today. DOW up over 4%.
ragnar danneskjold
November 30th, 2011
4:25 pm
If this is a Jeopardy answer, my question is ,”Who is Robert Rubin?”
Kamchak
November 30th, 2011
4:26 pm
Did someone say ridiculous?
Saturday at Grant Field immediately leaps to mind.
ragnar danneskjold
November 30th, 2011
4:27 pm
To the real issue, “Personally, I think we ought to consider solving the funding problem by giving the SEC and CFTC a cut of the money that they recover, just as other law-enforcement agencies get a cut of what they recover in drug-trafficking cases. That’s “running government like a business,” right?” I respectfully disagree. I think that is a job for private attorneys, and that government has no legitimate interest in diminishing the wealth of any of its citizenry, especially job producers. I would go the other direction entirely, and prohibit any government agency from levying a fine.
GT/MIT
November 30th, 2011
4:29 pm
Kamchak
November 30th, 2011
4:26 pm
“Did someone say ridiculous?
Saturday at Grant Field immediately leaps to mind”
Just wait till next year!
Paul
November 30th, 2011
4:31 pm
ragnar
Lemme know if you catch anything with that bait.
ragnar danneskjold
November 30th, 2011
4:31 pm
“Running government like a business,” means eliminating wasteful positions, which is essentially the entirety of the non-military government.
Kamchak
November 30th, 2011
4:33 pm
GT/MIT
Sure, but y’all are gonna hafta do it between the hedges.
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2011
4:34 pm
I would go the other direction entirely, and prohibit any government agency from levying a fine.
Let the individuals settle it just like you would if one person gets called out for cheating at cards. Is that it, ragnar. True free market solution. Winner take all.
That Black guy
November 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
Brosephus
November 30th, 2011
12:59 pm
If you think it’s a Democrat or Republican thing, then you’re part of the problem and definitely clueless when it comes to the solution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS ALL FOKIN DAY AND TWICE ON SUNDAY.
BOTH sides are in the pocket of Wall Street and monied intrest. And NEITHER side wants to do diddly about it. If you are sitting flinging poo screaming “cons” or “dems” don’t forget to lick your fingers when you finish.
“Its BOTH parties, STUPID!”
Paul
November 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
ragnar
Oh, a fine case can be made that many of the military positions are pretty wasteful, also. ‘Tis the nature of large bureaucracies.
St Simons - we're on Island time
November 30th, 2011
4:38 pm
Well, after this, there is obviously too much regulation of the financial ind.
In civilized countries, short selling against your own deal is a felony.
But not in con-world jesus banana republic, no sir. Thanks a lot, cons.
There is one party that is for more regulation of these people.
There is one party that is against more regulation of this.
If this angers you, Vote for the one you think is on the honest side.
If you’re looking for a difference in Party philosophy, ding ding here tis
Joe Hussein Mama
November 30th, 2011
4:39 pm
R. Danneskjold — ” government has no legitimate interest in diminishing the wealth of any of its citizenry”
Yes, it does.
Tax cheats and criminals.
Try harder, Raggie. You aren’t even making me work up a sweat.
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2011
4:45 pm
“Running government like a business,” means eliminating wasteful positions, which is essentially the entirety of the non-military government.
I prefer that 50/50 deal that the Republicans agreed to — 50% cut in the DoD and 50% tax hikes on the wealthiest to pay down the GOP debt.
Paul
November 30th, 2011
4:48 pm
Yup. Not to be taken seriously. Obviously just chumming the waters to see if anyone would bite.
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2011
4:54 pm
I doubt ragnar’s call to set Madoff free would get him many friends in Florida. Perhaps he thinks that approach will get him a customer. But will Ragnar work for a cut of what he recovers or would Madoff’s attornies be too much for him. Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of “Ragnar’s Day in Court, Part Deux.”
Jackie
November 30th, 2011
4:57 pm
If the government, ostensibly you and me, did not pay for all the infrastructure required to form and execute a business, how would the rich get rich?
Crenshaw8
November 30th, 2011
4:58 pm
To some degree, I can sympathize with the SEC’s position. The agency is grossly underfunded and has to deploy its limited resources carefully.
Obama’s appointment of Mary Shapiro has always raised questions.
Just like a lib to claim gross underfunding. According to Shapiro, she was constrained by statute, not money.
Welcome to the Occupation
November 30th, 2011
5:02 pm
USMC: “GINGRICH 45 OBAMA 43″
And just think, if the 45 percent get their way, big money smiles. And if the 43 percent get their way, well guess who smiles?
You guessed it – big money.
GT/MIT
November 30th, 2011
5:03 pm
Kamchak,
The good news, MIT remains undefeated.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:08 pm
Wall St hates their shiny new regulatory bill (Dodd-Frank) that Obama signed.
Its 50x stronger than Glass-Steagall and is already paying off.
Kamchak
November 30th, 2011
5:13 pm
The good news, MIT remains undefeated.
Uh, you sure you wanna stick with that assertion?
http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/index
Welcome to the Occupation
November 30th, 2011
5:19 pm
Neal Boortz: “Its 50x stronger than Glass-Steagall and is already paying off.”
How do you figure that exactly?
barking frog
November 30th, 2011
5:21 pm
The sad part of all this is that this was an excellent way to
handle long term mortgage financing. Now we throw the baby
out with the bath water.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:26 pm
How?
Its scope.
Unlike G-S, D-F handles shadow banking (Lehman), capital requirements, the crooked Credit Raters, consumer protection (Warren), prop trading, has Liquidation Authority over weak banks, debit fee limits, foreign ownership, commodity position limits and margins, much more.
D-F is very comprehensive.
Mighty Righty
November 30th, 2011
5:26 pm
I agree with Jay’s position but with one caveat, the additional funds requested by Obama should come in the form of a entry in his budget which has not yet been submitted and further should come from one of the existent agencys budget. This administration wants funding to come like manna from the sky. This is a good use of federal money, but it sould be part of the budget process the same as any other expenditure.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:29 pm
BTW, the best part of Glass-Steagall is still here (the FDIC).
Still, no insured depositor has ever lost a dime (since the 1930’s)
Midori
November 30th, 2011
5:29 pm
ragnar
Lemme know if you catch anything with that bait.
PAUL!!
USMC
November 30th, 2011
5:29 pm
“And just think, if the 45 percent get their way, big money smiles. And if the 43 percent get their way, well guess who smiles? You guessed it – big money.” Welcome to Occupation
Wise words, Trotsky
GT/MIT
November 30th, 2011
5:32 pm
Kamchak
November 30th, 2011
5:13 pm
Oh I see, you’re still talkin football, I kinda wanted to go with academics. In that case their record pretty much stinks. Oh well……………
TruthBe
November 30th, 2011
5:32 pm
Jay, Bloomberg reported that the Federal Reserve and the Largest Banks made 13 Billion Profit off of the taxpayers bail-outs by the Obama Adminstration. Most of the Profiteers were Obama and Democrat Donors and Supporters. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/28/BUGK1M523B.DTL Can you say CORRUPTION.
TruthBe
November 30th, 2011
5:34 pm
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:29 pm
BTW, the best part of Glass-Steagall is still here (the FDIC).
Still, no insured depositor has ever lost a dime (since the 1930’s)
Oh Yeah. What about the Share Holders??? Stocks of Big Banks and GM???
Mighty Righty
November 30th, 2011
5:34 pm
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2011
4:45 pm
As far as I know, every penny of the fifteen trillion dollar debt was approved with elected Democrat votes and most likely a majority of elected Democrat votes.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:37 pm
“Oh Yeah. What about the Share Holders??? Stocks of Big Banks and GM???”
Wiped out by incompetent executives. No equity should ever be publicly insured.
Welcome to the Occupation
November 30th, 2011
5:40 pm
USMC : “Wise words, Trotsky”
Careful with those words, USMC.. they might be misconstrued as praise.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:41 pm
The $13B “profit” from the Fed loans were lost opportunity profits due to below market interest rates.
In other words, there is no profit.
Its like if you bought something too cheap – the money you saved is not really a “profit”.
Jay
November 30th, 2011
5:42 pm
TruthBe, I don’t know why I bother, because you are absolutely hopeless.
From the piece that you yourself cite:
“The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required emergency loans of a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day.”
Who was president on Dec. 5, 2008, TruthBe?
In addition, the loans were made by the Federal Reserve, a quasi-independent agency, not by the Executive Branch. But who had nominated all of the Federal Reserve Board at that time, as well as its chairman?
Paul
November 30th, 2011
5:43 pm
“Investors lost $700 million in the deal, while Citigroup made a tidy profit of $160 million. Under the settlement negotiated with the SEC but rejected by Rakoff, the company would have to cough up the profits it earned and pay an additional $95 million fine to make it all go away.”
Nope.
$700 million fine to be returned to the swindled investors.
An equal civil penalty because of their contribution to the financial meltdown.
Net income for 2010 was $10.6 billion.
Now for the penalties to go to the govt’s mortgage stabilization program…
TaxPayer
November 30th, 2011
5:43 pm
As far as I know
I think that says it all, mighty.
Michael
November 30th, 2011
5:44 pm
Investment bankers are the 16 year old boys of the auto driving set. There is a reason that auto insurance rates go through the roof when your 16 year old boy gets a driver’s license. There was also a reason why the Roosevelt administration separated the investment bankers from the savings banks which had access to insured savings.
Reagan tried deregulating the S&Ls and the industry collapsed within 10 years, thanks in no small part to jumbo CDs being pimped by Wall Street.
Gramm and Gingrich opened up the insured deposits to the investment bankers in the late 90s, and the result was an $800 billion bailout by the taxpayers. The combined losses of deregulation totalled about $900 billion. Anybody proposing more deregulation is mentally challenged.
USMC
November 30th, 2011
5:46 pm
“Careful with those words, USMC.. they might be misconstrued as praise.”
–Welcome to the Occupation
Well, when your Bolshevik friends come to take my property for redistribution, I will have your name to drop.
USMC
November 30th, 2011
5:50 pm
Boy, If you have never been to “Eats” on Ponce, do yourself a favor and go try the Jerk Chicken and Veggies.
I just had Jerk Chicken with collards, mashed potatoes and gravy, and green beans… don’t forget the cornbread and iced tea!
pogo
November 30th, 2011
5:53 pm
On the one hand Obama preaches to his acolytes his gospel of hating big money, but on the other he has and continutes to feed it with our tax dollars. Big Money has many faces; it can be banks, it can be corporations like GE or it can be the unions. Some of Obama’s biggest contributors in 08 were the big banks and now, after the numbers were released earlier this week of what the bank bailout cost us taxpayers (something like 1.2 TRILLION), we can see why. And GE? Immelt’s support of Obama in 08 has caused his company’s stock to double in 3 short years. After seeing what has been going on the last three years, it is understandable when you hear of people being suckered by TV Evangelists. Obama is the ultimate TV Evangelist.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:55 pm
Incidentally, Canada had no mortgage crisis and has the most regulated banking system in the world. Canada is also monopolized by Big Banks (Royal Bank, Toronto Dominion, 1-2 more).
Welcome to the Occupation
November 30th, 2011
5:55 pm
USMC: “Well, when your Bolshevik friends come to take my property for redistribution, I will have your name to drop.”
You have my word.
When property is boxed and crated and located in a giant warehouse — Indiana Jones style — I’ll make sure your name is on it and it’s safeguarded!
Paul
November 30th, 2011
5:56 pm
pogo
“On the one hand Obama preaches to his acolytes his gospel of hating big money,”
sigh…
Reference?
Corporate after-tax earnings highest in decades.
I’m sure big money would like a little more hate -
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
5:58 pm
Pogo — All the bank “bailout” funds were approved by Bush or the Fed in 2008.
And Obama took no corporate money at all – only individual contributions
USMC
November 30th, 2011
5:59 pm
“When property is boxed and crated and located in a giant warehouse — Indiana Jones style — I’ll make sure your name is on it and it’s safeguarded!”–Welcome to the Occupation
Actually Trotsky, they can have the stuff, just don’t let them put me on the Siberian bound train for Marxist/Political Re-education Camp.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 30th, 2011
5:59 pm
Some of Obama’s biggest contributors in 08 were the big banks and now, after the numbers were released earlier this week of what the bank bailout cost us taxpayers (something like 1.2 TRILLION), we can see why.
Pogo, another rant without fact. [sigh] Did you bother to read Jay’s 5:42? You do know who made those loans to the banks right? Oh wait, apparently you don’t and you don’t care about reality and facts
getalife
November 30th, 2011
6:00 pm
Dow back up to 12000.
Happy Days are here again
Brosephus
November 30th, 2011
6:03 pm
kayaker @ 3:46
I don’t see a difference between the two. Both instances are the government subsidizing something they should not. Aside from the fact that USMC wants to label Americans who need assistance as lazy when he knows absolutely nothing about their circumstances, I think his post was nothing more than bloviating about something without thinking about what he was actually saying.
A true conservative would not subsidize any business. If the business is viable, then it will provide services on it’s own without government financing it. If the government has to subsidize a private business in order for it to function, then it should fail on it’s own without the government propping it up. If the entire industry can not function on its own, then nationalize it and let the government run it if it’s gonna end up paying for it. My tax dollars should not be used to pad anybody’s pockets in the form of profits.
When it comes to people, I see things a bit different. If you don’t want illegals to get access to welfare, then tell your state and local leaders to legislate it. As it stands now, many states have the rules set up to where they don’t exclude people here with no legal status to obtaining benefits. Medicaid can be obtained by anybody if their situation is deemed a medical emergency, for example. Pregnacy is considered an emergency in many states, so a foreigner can come here, have a baby, and get Medicaid to cover the expenses without paying a single penny into the system. That’s just how the laws are written.
Strawman @ 3:55
I understand. I would not subsidize either, although I know that providing assistance to people who truly need it will put money right back into the economy. On the other hand, subsidizing GA Power to build a reactor does nothing but pad their bottom line. The government should not subsidize ANY business.
Brosephus
November 30th, 2011
6:07 pm
“Running government like a business,” means eliminating wasteful positions, which is essentially the entirety of the non-military government.
That’s more baloney that Oscar Meyer has produced in the entire existence of the company. Border security is not part of the military, so that one example blows your whole idea out of Earth’s orbit.
Welcome to the Occupation
November 30th, 2011
6:11 pm
USMC: “Actually Trotsky, they can have the stuff, just don’t let them put me on the Siberian bound train for Marxist/Political Re-education Camp”
Ah it’s not so bad. You know, I’ve got some friends who’ll treat you right while you’re there. They can supply you with endless amounts of vodka which makes the early morning calisthenics at 35 below not half bad.
Jm
November 30th, 2011
6:12 pm
Jay
You ever figure out if these are retail or institutional Investors?
There is a distinction.
USMC
November 30th, 2011
6:17 pm
Brocephus@6:03
I think you misunderstood me. I am not necessarily FOR subsidizing business. Actually I am against the idea in general.
However, it is clearly disingenuous and typical for Jay to equate subsidizing businesses that pay taxes, CREATE jobs and taxpayers to that of the Welfare and Entitlement community who produce NOTHING. That’s all.
I know that all welfare recipients aren’t lazy, but I still think welfare is just plain wrong. I also know that many welfare recipients “game” the system. We just disagree.
Sorry I didn’t answer you earlier as I had to go meet with a client; work.
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
6:17 pm
In the Goldman Abacus MBS, the institutional investors never sought a civil case. Goldman happily paid a $550 million fine to the SEC to get rid of Congress.
Jay
November 30th, 2011
6:19 pm
jm, considering the scale of the offering — $1 billion — I imagine it was a mixture of both. And in the end, it doesn’t matter. Fraud is fraud. Telling the investors the mortgages were selected by a third-party expert when in fact they were not is a gross misrepresentation. Caveat emptor, if that’s where you’re going, doesn’t apply to fraud. If that’s your argument, you might as well take all the fraud statutes off the books.
JamVet
November 30th, 2011
6:20 pm
LOL at Jay’s exasperation.
The right wing parallel reality is alive and well at the Bookman blog.
Herman Cains’ last press conference: “I…did…not…have…sexual relations with these women…Ms. White, Donella, Kraushaar, Bialek, Smith, Jones, Johnson, Rogers, Williams, Thomas, Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria.”
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
November 30th, 2011
6:21 pm
Jay,
Did you see where the Iowa ethanol producers endorsed Newt with an ‘A’ rating for subsidies today?
The GOP subsidy anti free market folk LOVE Newt!
USMC
November 30th, 2011
6:21 pm
“Ah it’s not so bad. You know, I’ve got some friends who’ll treat you right while you’re there. They can supply you with endless amounts of vodka which makes the early morning calisthenics at 35 below not half bad.”–Welcome to the Occupation
SCREEN CLEANER, PLEASE!
I guess I might have watched Dr. Zhivago(one of my favorite movies) too many times…
philosopher
November 30th, 2011
6:24 pm
williebkind? Obviously not.
Ross Perot
November 30th, 2011
6:32 pm
Is it wrong to use the terms Herman Cain and morass in the same sentence?
Jm
November 30th, 2011
6:34 pm
Actually given the scale of the offering I’d guess institutional.
And different investment rules apply to institutional investors
Citi may or may not have committed fraud
But a tougher standard of guilt will be applied to this if it’s all institutional
Jay
November 30th, 2011
6:36 pm
There’s no different standard for fraud, jm.
Jay
November 30th, 2011
6:36 pm
Paul/Gingrich sheets….
JamVet
November 30th, 2011
6:37 pm
Herman must be PO’d. He’s gotta be wondering how that fat old white dork from Marietta got away with it…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
November 30th, 2011
6:37 pm
A tougher standard of guilt? That’s a new one to me. Perhaps the poster means the standard of proof.
Brosephus
November 30th, 2011
6:38 pm
USMC
Glad to see you answered. From the way you responded to Jay, it did seem as if you were in agreement with subsidizing business, i.e. nuclear power. I may have not understood the context of your post that day. I’d love to see any proof you have of the percentage of those on welfare that are gaming the system. I’m not oblivious to the fact that fraud exists in that system, as I know it is there.
Also, as far as welfare receivers producing nothing, ask those business owners who’s profits come from those who swipe those EBT cards in their stores. The dollar store chain that I worked for saw an increase in business when they decided to accept EBT as payment. People who receive welfare usually have more than one income source, contrary to popular opinion. As a supposedly Christian nation, you also have:
Matthew 25:40 “And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.”
Proverbs 14:31 “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”
and
Proverbs 19:17 “He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.”
ld
November 30th, 2011
6:51 pm
And here I thought all judges had become whores to bu$ine$$e$.
Will wonders never cease.
TruthBe
November 30th, 2011
6:59 pm
Jay, 2008 Tarp = Bush
2009 Bank Bail-outs = Obama
We the People = Screwed
Hopeless
ld
November 30th, 2011
7:02 pm
Legally, speaking, a “contract” requires a “meeting of the minds”. I’ve never understood how a “contract” that enables the financial institution to alter the original terms in their favor at their discretion met this criteria.
TruthBe
November 30th, 2011
7:25 pm
Id, Also look at the Broken Contact on State Toll Road 400. The GaSLOST/DOT lied to all of us just like all State and Federal DOTs do when it comes to toll roads. They will NEVER take the Tolls down on GA400. We set back and let these lying shack of you know whats screw us daily. We had a written legal contract with the GaSLOST/ DOT for a LIMITED time so that the project would be paid in full and theTolls would be removed. But they used the money for other projects and added new ones so that they could contiune the Tolls. Contracts mean nothing with State, Local, or Federal Governments. They break them all the time because there isn’t anybody to punish them for frauld. Wake Up People!
TruthBe
November 30th, 2011
7:41 pm
Jay, Obama and Acorn two of the same. Corrupt and Dishonest.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/28/obama-uses-taxpayer-cash-to-back-acorn-name-change/
Joel Edge
December 1st, 2011
6:26 am
“giving the SEC and CFTC a cut of the money that they recover”
That’s about as bright as giving the local cop a percentage of the speeding tickets he writes.
Adam
December 1st, 2011
10:21 am
Who was president on Dec. 5, 2008, TruthBe?
Jay, don’t you know we’re not allowed to talk about that. It’s in the PAST, or something. Bush is blameless because he isn’t in office right NOW, don’t you see?
DON’T YOU SEE?