Yesterday, 40 organizations sent a letter to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the House Financial Services Committee urging members to include whistle-blower protection in the bailout legislation.
"At a minimum, any credible solution must address one of the current crisis' fundamental causes -- corruption and other abuses of power sustained by secrecy," the letter said. "Otherwise, the taxpayers could end up giving $700 billion more to repeat the same disasters. Congress must prove it has learned this lesson. Any genuine solution must be grounded in transparency, with all relevant records publicly available and best practice whistleblower protection for all employees connected with the new law."
The letter was signed by a variety of organizations from across the political spectrum. They include the American Library Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Liberty Coalition, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Government Accountability Project and the Project on Government Oversight.
Good.
And if Paulson whines that it's a poison pill, then so much the better.
- lambert's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
was the FBI thing instigated by the administration,
or by Congress? or who?
that'll tell us whether it was intended to forestall any oversight in the bill since they're already investigating and they can say "let the process/investigation/trials play out" as usual--or whether it was intended to help kill the bill (altho our Dems in Congress aren't smart enough for that--Spitzer would have done it, tho, since he went to law enforcement immediately always--and they did the same to him)
Congress Doesn't Typically Start FBI Investigations
They can refer things like anyone else.
My own suspicion is that the FBI started these investigations. What the FBI cares most about is the FBI. Its white collar enforcement has taken a hit since 9/11 as resources have been pulled to the CT mission (which not all FBI agents are happy about). The FBI loves these kinds of high profile cases. It's a prime opportunity for the agents who want to go back to or do more white collar work to do that and it's high enough profile that the agency is unlikely to be criticized. I'd expect a new budget request in the next fiscal year for more resources to expand the FBI. Usually, that's how they work - always looking for more money and people. Here's a prime opportunity for them to get both. They will say they need it because otherwise they'd have to pull agents off the CT mission for these fraud investigations and surely no one wants that. Likewise, without more agents they won't be able to work these Wall Street fraud cases and surely no one wants that. So write them a check and authorize more agents!
I've seen it a million times. With the exception of the Pentagon, no other federal agency is better at leveraging national crises for more resources.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
but it was the GOP/Roger Stone who
got the FBI to start the Spitzer stuff rolling, even before there was hard evidence of anything.
That's What Stone Claimed
I'm not sure I believe him. Although any citizen can make a referral. And there was some evidence against Spitzer, his bank filed suspicious activity reports on him regarding his large cash transactions. I've always believed it was much more likely the SARs led to the Spitzer investigation than Stone (not that Stone probably didn't funnel info to the FBI). But the USAO in New York reviews every SAR filed and if one came in with the Governor's name on it, that was bound to get some interest, don't you think?
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
and this is still not officially confirmed, is it?
it could just be smoke to prevent any punitive stuff in the bailout.
But Why Would The FBI Want To Prevent Punitive Stuff?
they get more money and publicity if they do these investigations. And they aren't going to care about the Bush Administration. Nobody does anymore because all career people know whatever else happens the current crew is out in four months (albeit Mueller will stay on because of his term limit).
Now, the new US Attorneys might not want to prosecute certain people for political reasons next year. And the new DOJ might not want these investigations to continue next year. Either of which could kill them.
But the FBI will be out for the FBI. And this has budget increase written all over it. Which doesn't mean it will lead to successful prosecutions. The FBI can start the investigations, plead poverty and get $ and still not produce any cases to prosecute next year. And it will be next year. Fraud cases take at least months, if not years to do.
So I'm not suggesting that this means that there will be any punishment (that will mostly depend on the next round of USAs and DOJ appointments), only that the FBI has a strong incentive to at least investigate. It's not just Wall Street that's going to see $$$ in this mess.
The FBI like every other government agency sees these kinds of crises as opportunities to get bigger budgets. That's far more important to the FBI than politics. Politicians come and go, but the Bureau is forever.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
but someone always goes to them first--
they themselves have never made a peep about Wall St lately, and the timing is way too perfect--for me at least.
Since when do they out of the blue decide to start investigations themselves on the very same issue that the administration is pushing so very very hard this very minute? There has to be pressure to do it -- and a hope of either success and evidence to be found -- or -- a reason for them to do it now that will help someone achieve what they want or forestall what they don't want.
Someone Does Not Always Go To Them First
The only thing you need to have to have an FBI investigation is an FBI agent interested in doing it. Now, maybe the Bush Administration asked the FBI to investigate. Maybe the FBI is worried Congress and the media will criticize it for not doing anything and so started a probe to cover its ass. Maybe the FBI chiefs are reading the news and decided that this should be investigated. Or maybe disgruntled former employees of these Wall Street firms are flooding them with information to get even with their former employers.
Or some combination thereof.
But, IMO, the FBI was always going to get involved because 1) there's potentially money and people in it for the Bureau, 2) they will want to keep other agencies like IRS or Secret Service out of it, and 3) they will want to stop any potential criticisms for not having done anything before now (which is what should really be explored). What actually triggered the probe, I don't know, but this was inevitable, IMO. There's too much upside for the Bureau as a bureaucracy not to do it. The real question is whether it leads to any meaningful prosecutions. That's when we'll know whether the DOJ is serious about it and that won't be until next year.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
if the Wall St stuff was being painted as a crime or illegal,
then i'd agree with you--except that this has explicitly not been--in fact, they've clearly explained that it was totally legal because of the previous relaxing of the regulatory laws and banking restrictions that don't exist anymore.
And if a crime was committed, it would be the criminal lack of oversight and action by the administration and agencies tasked with that as their jobs.
If they're looking for crimes, eventually they'll find them, whether it's cooking the books or whatever--that still makes the FBI's investigation announcement right now (if it's even really happening, that is) as something that would have to be either triggered by outsiders, or something that important/powerful people desire to get out into the news right now.
also, the DOJ is named in some of the stories--
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?i... -- "... According to FBI and Justice Department officials, the FBI investigation is multifaceted and the net is much deeper than the major firms officials confirmed today. ...
After the collapse of the subprime markets in 2007, the FBI set up a task force to examine how brokers set up and sold mortgage and asset-based securities. ..."
and attributing this news to "law enforcement officials" says DOJ/administration sources and not FBI ones--to me, at least.
and if they started this last year they would have gotten more mileage for their budget by announcing it when subprime only news was big, no?