Greenwald: The new WH Chief of Staff and Citigroup

[whatchamacallit]

Yesterday, the White House announced Daley’s departure — he will now co-chair Obama’s re-election campaign, which basically means raising huge amounts of money from his Wall Street friends — and unveiled his replacement as Chief of Staff: Jacob Lew. In 2010, Lew became head of the Office of Management and Budget when Peter Orszag left and then, a couple months later, accepted a multi-million dollar position as a high-level Citigroup official. Lew has spent many years in various government positions, but he has his own substantial ties to Citigroup. Here is what Lew was doing in 2008 at the time the financial crisis exploded, as detailed by an excellent Huffington Post report from last year:

Lew oversaw a Citigroup unit that profited off the housing collapse and financial crisis by investing in a hedge fund king who correctly predicted the eventual subprime meltdown and now finds himself involved in the center of the U.S. government’s fraud case against Goldman Sachs. . . .

It is his few years at Citi — in particular the one year he spent at its then-$54 billion proprietary trading, hedge fund and private equity unit — that’s likely to raise the most eyebrows in the coming weeks as Lew faces a Senate confirmation hearing.

Especially his unit’s investments in a hedge fund that bet on the housing market to collapse — a reality suffered by millions of American homeowners.

In particular, the Citigroup fund run by Lew, Citi’s Alternative Investments, invested heavily in the hedge fund of John Paulson, “who made billions off the deterioration of the housing industry by making bearish bets on securities tied to home mortgages — particularly subprime home mortgages.” One of Paulson’s largest bets at the time involved Goldman Sachs, which the SEC has now charged with “defrauding investors by creating and selling exotic securities tied to subprime home mortgages in 2007 without disclosing that they were handpicked by a hedge fund (Paulson) that was betting on them to fail.”

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/the_new_wh_chief_of_staff_and_citigroup/singleton/

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[denverbill]

2. I really don't understand how Obama can be so completely clueless.

He's got only himself to blame if he loses in November.

[whatchamacallit]

4. At what point do we stop dismissing the notion

that the country is run by bankers?

[sad sally]

102. It has been - since the beginning. From Mrs. Claven's history lesson, if you're interested.

The Federal Reserve Cartel: Part II: The Freemason BUS & The House of Rothschild
June 8, 2011 — Dean Henderson
(Excerpted from Chapter 19: The Eight Families: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf…)

----

Hamilton was only the first in a series of Eight Families cronies to hold the key position of Treasury Secretary. In recent times Kennedy Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon came from Dillon Read (now part of UBS Warburg). Nixon Treasury Secretaries David Kennedy and William Simon came from Continental Illinois Bank (now part of Bank of America) and Salomon Brothers (now part of Citigroup), respectively. Carter Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal came from Goldman Sachs, Reagan Treasury Secretary Donald Regan came from Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America), Bush Sr. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady came from Dillon Read (UBS Warburg) and both Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Bush Jr. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs. Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner worked at Kissinger Associates and the New York Fed.
----
In 1828 Andrew Jackson took a run at the US Presidency. Throughout his campaign he railed against the international bankers who controlled the BUS. Jackson ranted, “You are a den of vipers. I intend to expose you and by Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people understood the rank injustices of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.”
----
Populism prevailed and Jackson was re-elected. In 1835 he was the target of an assassination attempt. The gunman was Richard Lawrence, who confessed that he was, “in touch with the powers in Europe”. [9]

Still, in 1836 Jackson refused to renew the BUS charter. Under his watch the US national debt went to zero for the first and last time in our nation’s history. This angered the international bankers, whose primary income is derived from interest payments on debt. BUS President Nicholas Biddle cut off funding to the US government in 1842, plunging the US into a depression. Biddle was an agent for the Paris-based Jacob Rothschild. [10]

the rest at:http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/the-federal-reserve-cartel-part-ii-the-freemason-bus-the-house-of-rothschild/?du

[newspeak]

134. very interesting

it seems they're still running the show. And the top echelon have no patriotic ties to any country-they'd see a country go down just to retain the power and profit.

I wonder their part in starting wars to make profit. Didn't the rothschilds' ages ago make their wealth from war?

[sad sally]

148. Your wondering (imo) is correct.

The Mexican War was simultaneously sprung on Jackson. A few years later the Civil War was unleashed, with London bankers backing the Union and French bankers backing the South. The Lehman family made a fortune smuggling arms to the south and cotton to the north. By 1861 the US was $100 million in debt. New President Abraham Lincoln snubbed the Euro-bankers again, issuing Lincoln Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills.

The Rothschild-controlled Times of London wrote, “If that mischievous policy, which had its origins in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” [11]

[Puzzledtraveller]

137. Is it blackmail then that forces

Obama to pick these stooges?

[banned from Kos]

21. because maybe 2000 people give a damn about this? Obama's law firm sued Citigroup in the 90s

See? What does that mean?

Nothing. Just like the fact Lew once worked for Citi.

[hugo_from_TN]

50. What makes you think he is clueless?

He's a pretty smart guy. His constituency however...

[blue neen]

122. I guess that depends on who you think makes up his constituency.

I'm not really sure who you are referring to.

[bvar22]

74. President Obama is NOT clueless.

Nobody climbs to the Top of the Pile in Chicago by being clueless, naive, or a wimp.
President Obama knows exactly what he is doing.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[newspeak]

135. Obama is neither weak nor clueless

and the act little boot's displayed for the public, he was not stupid. After years of questioning whether or not little boots was intentionally bringing us down-I'm hedging on the bringing us financially down purposely. How to finally kill labor, how to privatize SS and get rid of all those pesky entitlements, while boosting the power and wealth of those who he deems worthy. Yeah, I'm thinking it was intentional.

Who believes that cutting even more taxes for the wealthy, while building the MIC up and going to war is a prudent thing?

[AtomicKitten]

3. Boo!

[whatchamacallit]

7. It's just information

Information the citizenry can use to effectively participate in democratic governance. If it's "scary", it's vital.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Excellent, mature rebuttal. You've completely discredited Greenwald's article point by point.

Bravo!

[bvar22]

77. Typical.

DU thanks you for your intelligent and provocative addition to this discussion.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. With a history like that, it's obvious he's on the side of the 99% and a true humanitarian.

Well...at least he hasn't been indicted..yet.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Oh, Jesus. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

8. Figured you'd have a lot (of nothing) to say.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Jack Lew's been part of this administration since the beginning.

Greenwald taking this opportunity to sharpen knives for President Obama just shows how petty he is.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Your first point is worthless if meant to comfort

Your second point is an opinion that has no baring on the veracity of the article. Try again.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Anything worthwhile I can get from Glenn Greenwald

I can get somewhere else.

Enjoy your wedge issue!

[whatchamacallit]

19. In a word

weak. In two words - pathetically weak.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Ta ever so. n/t

[JackRiddler]

13. Wait, whose team are you on?

Okay, so this particular bankster just got a promotion but he was already in on the first wave of Wall Street con artists appointed to the Obama administration - along with Geithner and Summers, one of the ideological architects of the banking deregulation disaster.

And this says what? Do you think it makes the administration look better?

[Bolo Boffin]

18. So you're here to make sure the administration looks as bad as possible? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. The administration is doing a fine job of that itself by hiring (unindicted) banksters.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Nice parenthesis. What crimes is Jack Lew being accused of in this screed? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. As I said, "unindicted".

He hasn't been accused..yet.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. So nothing. Lew's being accused of nothing illegal. He's just being smeared.

Thanks for that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Awww..poor public servant being held to account..tsk, tsk.

I take it you like the idea of bankers advising the prez?

[Bolo Boffin]

48. What's Greenwald got? The investment in the Paulson fund and the bonus.

Well, the investment in the Paulson fund was 0.03% of the asset of the Citi fund. See #46 for the details.

So now what's he got for 1200 words? The bonus? Give me a break.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Then why does revealing his (according to you) history become a "smear"?

[JackRiddler]

49. You may have a point.

Luckily, crime was made legal just before the banksters did their bust-out on America, so Lew's little cut of the pie is no biggie. And long as it was legal, who else should run the White House staff and daily agenda than a little bankster, the big ones after all being occupied with higher offices?

[Bolo Boffin]

52. You may as well

if you can point out what Jack Lew did that would have been illegal before the rules were changed. Go on and click on the magic Internet machine, I'll be here.

Do you think the COO of a $54 billion fund would have even dealt with an $18 million investment by the fund?

[JackRiddler]

53. Looks like he was merely froth on a bigger wave.

Like I said, I'm sure he's totally legal.

Which is all the qualification a bankster should really need to be running the President's staff and agenda.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. So that's a "No, I can't point out a crime he would have been committing under the old rules"? n/t

[xiamiam]

131. how else can you reach the one billion dollar campaign finance goal?

[JackRiddler]

24. Are you supporting puppy murder again?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Hyperbole from a Greenwald supporter. How novel. n/t

[fascisthunter]

38. well, you can't answer direct questions, so now you get hyperbole

[fascisthunter]

37. answer the question!

[Bolo Boffin]

42. What question?

Does it make the administration look better or worse that they move Jack Lew from one important place to another important place? He's still there. He was there before. The administration looks about the same.

Having watched Jack Lew a couple of times before congressional committees, I thought he did a fine job knocking back Republican criticism of the White House. You want a purity ritual? Then Greenwald's definitely your man.

[fascisthunter]

129. ignored

since you aren't gonna be honest with yourself or others. It is a waste of time.

[Hawkowl]

86. That explains a lot.

Like Geithner was one of Obama's first appointments. I knew it was over at that point. Fuck each and every last one of the banksters-- and the politicians that enable them.

[Autumn]

106. At least Obama didn't appoint Ron Paul. If he had done that

we would all be required to sing his praises.

[xiamiam]

132. thats funny..but true..nt

[SidDithers]

10. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

12. Dithers. LOL...nt

[truth2power]

20. Perfect! LOL! Thanks. n/t

[sabrina 1]

107. Lol!

[joshcryer]

121. I thought we were supposed to rise above school-yard rhetoric?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. Which part isn't true?

I'll wait here for something you can't deliver.

[cthulu2016]

15. This is, however, better than the alternative

If forced to make the choice, I would rather have a man that profited from the decline than a man that continued betting into the delusion that real estate would continue to go up. (There were plenty of the super-rich in that idiot's club)

[JackRiddler]

51. You realize it sounds like you're trying to make a moral distinction...

between the guy who heaped the tinder on the house and the guy who struck the match.

And for many the "delusion" in the incredible forever-floating housing price inflation was merely about when the inevitable crash would happen, when they should stop pumping and start dumping.

[sabrina 1]

108. Profiting from failure V profiting from hoping for success.

The latter, had they been right, were at least not betting on the disaster that the Financial Meltdown has caused for so many Americans.

But both represent all that is wrong with this country, where money is everything and people are merely commodities.

[FarLeftFist]

16. Alot of cyber-security employees are ex-hackers.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. LOL. But they don't get paid to keep the floodgates open while they await their...

... $50 million dollar pay-outs either.

[arely staircase]

26. and Greenwald used to work for a racist murderer, so what? nt

[sabrina 1]

109. He's a lawyer, I applaud all lawyers who believe in our system of justice where even the worst

and most hateful of defendants are entitled to a defense. I guess he believes in the Constitution, although lately that sort of puts him in the minority sadly.

[arely staircase]

111. lawyers are not ethically bound to represent anyone - only to represent their clients to the best

of their abilities. representing murderous white supremacists does not make him some sort of beknighted last of the constitution believers. it just makes him a murdering white supremacist's lawyer.

[sabrina 1]

112. Yes, in fact they are ethically bound to defend people, especially those who are the least likely

to find a lawyer without the courage to defend them. Without lawyers with the ability to do that, there would be no democracy in this country.

John Adams made himself very unpopular when he took on the defense of the 'enemy' accused of shooting into a crowd of protesters. I can't think of a more unpopular or politically charged case than that was at the time. But he believed in what he preached I guess. Today we like to claim we are the 'greatest democracy in the world' but when we are put to the test we fail most of the time. It is lawyers like Greenwald we can point to when we are accused of being hypocritical, but they are few and far between.

Of course if all he cared about was money, he could played it safe and just taken clients who were more socially acceptable. But he was actually practicing what he claims to believe in, our system of justice. And I'm glad there are always a few like him, and hope we never reach the point where none can be found. That would be a sad day for this democracy.

[arely staircase]

115. so you think attornies are ethically bound to take any client that walks through the door?

they are not.

[fascisthunter]

143. verrrry dishonest

[arely staircase]

147. which part iincorrect? nt

[LiberalAndProud]

28. This is the thing I don't understand about the Citigroup criticism.

Jacob Lew is moving from House Budget Director to CoS. Doesn't this make his nefarious Citigroup connections somewhat less controversial? It seems he is moving into a role that serves less to form policy than to implement policy. I think the more important question may be who will be filling the director's role in the Budget Office.

[div class="excerpt" style="border: solid 1px #cccccc; border-radius:0.5385em; box-shadow: 3px 3px 3px #cccccc inset, 1px 1px 1px #cccccc;"]So far, media reports have surfaced a couple of possible candidates ranging from Obama administration veteran Gene Sperling, who is currently working as the director of the National Economic Council, to Lew's deputy at OMB, Heather Higginbottom.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/11/news/economy/obama_budget_chief/

If this CNN report is right, I would be interesting in learning about these possible candidates' ties to the banking industry now rather than later.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Did Greenwald happen to mention that Lew had Paul Wellstone as a faculty adviser in college?

No?

How about his work with Tip O'Neill as a policy adviser in the early 1980's?

No? How strange.

It's really just sad to come to DU and see good Democrats smeared like this.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. If you make big bank with Citigroup, you're not a good Democrat

[whatchamacallit]

34. You must be joking...

I guess when it comes to protecting banksters in the administration, any absurd approach is worthy. Before we are overcome with guilt for the vile besmirching of a "good democrat", maybe you'd like to explain what part of the article is a smear.

[fascisthunter]

39. Do you Support the Idea of Bankers Advising Obama or Not?

[_ed_]

40. This guy shorted the housing market,

made crappy bets on it, lost millions, and got a $900,000 bonus paid for by the taxpayer.

I really don't give a damn what he did when he was 20 years old.

[Enrique]

41. you don't understand what Greenwald is saying

if you think those facts are relevant to Greenwald's critiques, then you don't understand them.

I'm sure Joe Lieberman has all kinds of things in his background that prove he's a "good Democrat", does that mean that we are smearing him when we criticize him?

[Bolo Boffin]

44. I understand what Greenwald's doing, all right.

When smearing someone, never mention things that might mitigate criticism unless you just have to.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Quite a conundrum you've got there

If the recounting of Lew's activities with Citi are a smear, but you can't dispute them...

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Ahem, #46. n/t

[frylock]

87. i heard that lew loves his mommy too..

something he shares in common with GWB.

[JackRiddler]

54. What difference does his college adviser make?

It's nonsense. That was in college. Can you also dig up who his social studies teacher was in 9th grade? People graduate school and go out and do things, and you shall know them not by their school counselors but by their works.

How about his work 30 years ago as a policy adviser to Tip O'Neill? Do you actually know anything about it, or about how would it mitigate the criticisms brought forth against Lew about his later activities?

[Bolo Boffin]

60. I don't see why Lew's crimes -- oh, that's right, not crimes, not now, not before --

So I guess, "indiscretions"? I don't see why his indiscretions don't sully Wellstone and O'Neill.

I mean, as long as we're connecting the dots to smear people, why not?

[JackRiddler]

65. Top Citibank fund managers should not have jobs in the White House.

Yes or no?

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Longtime Democratic public servants should not have jobs in a Democratic White House.

Yes or no?

[JackRiddler]

93. Are you implying that the overlap of these two sets...

is so great that you can't find a Democratic public servant who wasn't also a Wall Street executive during the greatest general banking fraud in history, at one of the worst culprit institutions that required one of the most expensive side-bailouts all its own?

"D" public servant, sure, Wall Street banker in 2009 or 2012: No.

.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. What were Jack Lew's duties at Citibank? COOs have different descriptions everywhere you go.

What precisely did he do? What exactly was he responsible for?

[whatchamacallit]

104. Only a moron

wouldn't recognize the song and dance you're performing...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

117. just as its quite obvious who on this thread is declaring(smearing) people as guilty by association

[whatchamacallit]

61. Love it!

[sabrina 1]

110. Too bad he didn't listen more to Paul Wellstone. Somehow I cannot imagine Wellstone betting on

failure and profiting from the disaster that struck so many Americans.

But it is a bi-partisan thing, Cantor apparently did the same thing airc, but when he did it, was so immoral.

[Bolo Boffin]

124. This is how a smear works.

Jack Lew has been working for Democratic causes his whole life. Greenwald picks up this single investment at a single fund at the $54 billion branch of Citibank he worked at for a year, and Greenwald works the dot-connecting all the way to Goldman Sachs in an effort to get as many bad names as possible connected to Lew.

Meanwhile, the initial investment, made before Lew joined up, was not betting on the failure of the homeowners, but of the banks screwing them. But that's immaterial for Greenwald.

Meanwhile who is it introducing President Obama's plan to start treating hedge fund manager income like regular income, taxed at normal brackets rather than 15%? Jack Lew. If the investment bankers paid him all that money to protect their interests, wow, did they not get their money's worth.

[sabrina 1]

125. I don't like smears either but I've seen an awful lot of them on this board over the past few weeks.

In fact I objected over and over again to using smear tactics against people like Greenwald, Swanson, Cenk Uygar and anyone who dared to state their opinions if they were not 100% supportive of this president. I don't recall much support from you when I tried to explain why smear campaigns should be beneath us.

What bothers people is this. Why can this president not find a person to fill any important position who is a simple, ordinary working guy or woman who is not filthy rich and who can relate to the American people? There are more of that kind of person in this country than there are wealthy bankers. I don't mind a few bankers being appointed, what I mind is that the people are not equally or even close to being equally represented in this administration.

What that says to people is that this administration believes that wealthy people know better what is best for the rest of us. Clearly if that were the case the country would not be in the mess it is now in, mostly for ordinary people.

I expected when I supported this president to see a far more democratic cabinet, much more representative of the people. Instead we got a Wall Street cabinet and no seat at the table for ordinary people when some of the most important issues that affect their lives were being decided. For the people out here in the real world, not much has changed for the better as naturally, Wall Street alumni are going to be looking out for their own interests, as they have. They got bailed out, we got sold out. It's that simple really, no need for personal smear campaigns, the facts speak for themselves.

[Bolo Boffin]

127. The problem is not that Greenwald is not 100% for President Obama.

I could deal with that. President Obama has done things of his own volition I don't like. Criticism from a basis in reality I can accept.

But Glenn Greenwald is far from "100% for" President Obama. I would go so far to say that he's 95% against him. The man can hardly find a supportive word for the President, and it is ALWAYS something he slips begrudgingly into another of his smear articles.

Of course, if I start listing all the incredible accomplishments of President Obama, and giving reasons for other things not being accomplished (the big one here is the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the civilian trials of the 9/11 plotters), it never seems to be enough. The goalposts always, ALWAYS get shifted with this president. The criticism of Greenwald never comes from a place like, "President Obama has done some real good, been blocked in others, and has made some disappointing decisions. Let's work to get him a better Congress so that he can make better decisions and break through the barriers as well."

Face it, the people you lionize are pushing a wedge issue to split the Democratic Party as best they can for their own personal power. The result will be President Romney doing far worse damage to the country, and this will be fine by Glenn Greenwald and company, because they get paid for griping no matter who is in office.

[sabrina 1]

138. First I don't lionize anyone. But I will defend people who are being unfairly attacked

and present facts whenever they are needed. Greenwald is not saying anything now that he did not say when Bush was shredding the Constitution and the left cheered him on. He is not singling out this President, he writes about issues that are important to this country's survival as one that respects the law.

I think where you are wrong is to assume that just because people are critical of the President means they will let Romney win. Most people know the whole system is broken and they are perfectly capable of recognizing that the solution is not to elect Republicans.

But if we ignore that our own party is sliding into Bush territory when it comes to the Constitution, how do we even begin to turn things around? Not discussing these issues and figuring out how to elect people on our side is only going to allow the weak in Congress to assume we don't care, that all we care about is winning. Pushing them to do what is right, is the job of every citizen.

But attacking the messenger is what we objected to so much when the right did it. We were all able to recognize that this was simply an attempt to divert attention away from some really serious problems created by the criminal Bush administration. Did it change a single mind? They were preaching to a choir and in 2006 and 2008 by sticking to facts, by working hard to show people why the Republican party was a real threat to this country, Democrats won overwhelmingly. Now we are seeing our own party continue some of those policies, that doesn't mean either that we do not recognize the good things they are doing, or that turning things around is no easy task.

But to not speak out and/or let them know that we the people are not going to remain silent when our Party is on the wrong track, is harmful not just to the party but more importantly to the country.

I don't see why it is not possible to discuss these issues respectfully and decide how best to deal with them. How to push our party, because let's face it, they are all we have to work with, to stand up for what is right. But as soon as people start using the tactic of attacking the many, many Progressives who are writing about them, as they should, all that happens is a huge division in the party, and nothing weakens a party more than that kind of division. You can love someone and still correct them when they are wrong. The worst kind of parent eg, is the one who defends every action of their child no matter how wrong and who then wonders how that child ended up in trouble when they reach their teenage years.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. "I don't see why it is not possible to discuss these issues respectfully"

"I don't see why it is not possible to discuss these issues respectfully and decide how best to deal with them."

I would LOVE to do that. It's all about getting President Obama a better Congress. Personally I think a push to repeal the AUMF is the best place to start work. Repeal is the only way to get rid of the damned thing, since it's so open-ended, and all the indefinite detention powers are based on it, not the NDAA.

But the scorched-earth polemics of Glenn Greenwald is not conducive to that kind of discussion. And he is no progressive. He absolutely is not. This article on Jack Lew is a prime example of how corrosive and untrustworthy I find his writing to be. As I've said before, anything worth getting from Glenn Greenwald can be found somewhere else.

[sabrina 1]

141. I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph regarding the AUMF. Bush policies that badly need

be rescinded. You are correct that we are in a sense, hacking at the branches rather than dealing with the poisoned roots when we are distracted by the extensions to these horrible laws.

And I would love to see more discussion of how to go about doing that by people who are more knowledgeable about these matters. That is what I think is missing on DU as we all take positions to attack or defend what are relatively unimportant issues and people. But the personal attacks on every writer who points out and tries to address these issues do tend to distract from real discussions. I know, I am also to blame so not just pointing fingers at others.

As for Greenwald, well if he was the only one, I would agree. But when so many progressive writers and even members or former members of Congress are all saying pretty much the same thing and then totally dismissed or smeared, people just throw their hands in the air and wonder about the motivations of those refusing to address what they are saying and resorting to such tactics. If they are wrong, focus on their errors, not their personal lives.

As for Lew, I agree that smearing him is the wrong thing to do. He may be the nicest person in the world for all we know. I have worked around and for multi-millionaires, most of them Democrats and they are for the most part, decent people. But they live in a different world to the average person and while their input is valuable, they truly cannot relate to the problems of the working class the way an actual working class person can.

My problem with our government right now is that so many of them are millionaires and since that is such a small demographic in this country, it is overly represented in Congress and most often the WH. They are human and belong to a pretty exclusive club in this country and as such are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as first looking out for their own interests.

What I hoped for was more appointments of people who better represent the majority. Not all of us aspire to be millionaires, if we did, some of us could probably do so. Most of us just want a decent life for our families and the inequality in today's America makes that almost impossible for an awful lot of people.

All I'm saying is, why choose another millionaire right now when there are so many great Americans who could relate better to the people and who would not give even the impression, that our government continues to allow in, only those who belong to the Millionaire's Club?

Anyhow, thank you for a civil discussion and if you ever write an OP on the AUMF I would love to get involved in a discussion about that and would gladly rec it.

[newspeak]

133. oh, sabrina

don't forget belafonte (whom I greatly admire) and matt damon are also under the bus.

[sabrina 1]

142. That's a shame, two more people of principle.

Who are we supposed to trust anymore?

Guess I will stick with those whose positions on core principles have remained consistent

[choie]

113. what the hell

does the fact that Lew had Wellstone as a faculty adviser have ANYTHING to do with this conversation? and what the hell makes a banker qualified to be a "chief of staff". Aren't there any candidates that might have been more qualified. This stinks to high heaven!

[Bolo Boffin]

120. How does one year working at a bank make someone a banker?

Why don't the decades he spent working as a Democratic public servant count for you?

[Bolo Boffin]

128. Also, it's a comment on the dot connecting in Greenwald's article

Lew worked at Citibank's Alternative Investment arm, (a $54B business) which had a fund called the Multi-Adviser fund, which had $18M in a Paulson fund. Paulson made a lot of money by "shorting the housing market," and one of his deals was with Goldman Sachs, who was selling derivatives they were betting against.

Now, do you see how we got to the Goldman Sachs deals? What the everlovin fuck do they have to do with Jack Lew? Why are they even mentioned? How is he in any way culpable for them?

Answer: he's not. This is dot-connecting worthy of 9/11 Truth. THAT is how Greenwald makes this something beyond a simple revelation of the facts. He's a polemicist working overtime to split the Democratic Party, and this particular smear shows he doesn't care about truth in the process.

Fuck Glenn Greenwald and the Ron Paul horse he rode in on.

[fascisthunter]

36. K & R (nt)

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Oh, Jesus Christ.

According to the Greenwald screed, when Lew was at Citibank's Alt Fund, it was worth $54 billion dollars.

So how much did the fund invest in the Paulson fund that shorted the housing market?

"the unit invested $18 million in a fund run by hedge fund titan John Paulson in 2007."

http://news.hedgefund.net/default.aspx?story=13218

Yes, that's right. 0.03% of the firm's assets went to the Paulson fund.

Lew's being smeared over a fucking rounding error.

[JackRiddler]

55. Oh, Holy Romney.

What's $18 million between friends?

You're probably right, working as a Citibank fund executive is moral indictment enough. Certainly an excellent reason in itself to keep him far away from public office.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Of course $18M is a lot in one context.

But in the context of the total investments of Lew's fund, it's only 0.03%. Which is not a lot at all.

[JackRiddler]

63. Keep digging.

Now $54 bn, that's real money. Pretty much.

Having managed that sum on behalf of one of the major crime banks - still insolvent and only existing today because the banksters used a hostage government and central bank to bail them out - is the best thinkable qualification on earth, first, for running the executive budget planning office, and second, for running the president's staff and agenda.

Oh and I'm sure the Paulson business was in no way indicative of the fund's general practices or strategies. A rounding error. Loose change in the couch folds.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Oh, how I've missed your high dudgeon, Jack. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

58. Ah the numbers game...

Let the obfuscation begin! Apparently, someone who poisons a lake, when they could have poisoned an ocean, is not so bad. Intent and character aren't measured in percentages. It's sad you don't know that... 18 million dollars is a considerable investment. Lew's mindset and behavior are the issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. In a fund of $500 million, an $18 million investment would be a considerable investment.

In a $54 billion fund? Not so considerable.

Don't start no obfuscation, won't be no obfuscation.

[JackRiddler]

64. Fiduciary responsibility rests with the executive officer.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Lew was the COO, not the CEO. n/t

[JackRiddler]

81. Hmm, what's the middle O for?

CEOs, COOs and CFOs bear fiduciary responsibility.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. Nonetheless, he was the chief operating officer, not the chief executive officer. n/t

[JackRiddler]

94. Operating, hm, what does that imply?

CEO-CFO-COO = fiduciary responsibility for whole shebang.

Hint: He wasn't the Chief Absentee Officer. It was his business to know what he was managing.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. What DOES that imply?

Give us a rundown of Jack Lew's precise responsibilities at Alternative Investment.

[JackRiddler]

98. "Ignoring mere $18 million investments" probably didn't top the list.

You seem to know what the Chief Operating Officer did (at least, you are certain of what things he must have been dismally unaware of) so well, so why do you need me to speculate?

Should high-ranking Citibank financial managers receive White House appointments in the wake of the 2008 crash - yes or no?

[Bolo Boffin]

100. That's not a precise list of Lew's duties at COO.

You're the guys asserting he made these investments. Why you think he'd be intimately involved in 0.003% of his business, I don't know.

[JackRiddler]

101. I asked you about 20 rounds ago, and you still haven't answered.

It's 2009, right after the 2008 banking crash, typified by entities like Citigroup. The Bush banking bailouts are underway and sadly turning into the Obama banking bailouts. Should a high-level Citigroup fund manager be under consideration as a White House appointment for budget office, chief of staff, or anything else?

[whatchamacallit]

67. So if he'd wagered more

we might have a point? Embarrassing lack of reasoning...

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Except he didn't wager it. See Enrique below.

The money was already invested in the Paulson fund when Lew joined. And there's no evidence he added more to the investment, only that it grew.

My, this smear does seem to be falling apart much like a smear does...

[whatchamacallit]

79. And if he had

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

then we'd have a point? Still trying to get to the essence of your argument...

BTW people who find it necessary to start shouting "I'm winning, I'm winning!" rarely are.

[Enrique]

82. my post showed that Greenwald was correct

and that you had your numbers wrong.

There's no doubt about that, your $18 million figure was wrong, and now you are changing your argument. You used that figure to accuse Greenwald of smearing Lew, and that number was wrong, and you haven't retracted your accusation.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. The $18M was there when Lew joined.

During his time there, the Multi-Adviser fund invested $23.5M more in the Paulson fund. By March 2009, they had pulled $23M of that back out, leaving their cash investment at $18.5M.

And it's all paltry shit compared to the "$54 billion behemoth" Lew was overseeing.

[whatchamacallit]

92. So...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002153500#post67

[Bolo Boffin]

97. How about demonstrating that he "wagered" anything?

If you can produce a precise list of his responsibilities, you could help JackRiddler out.

[Enrique]

66. no, $18 million was when Lew started there

he increased it greatly. From $18 million to $60 million. A 333% increase. Enough to justify Greenwald's claim that the fund "invested heavily" in it.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/flashback-lews-time-citi-and-other-disappointments

(...)

That Multi-Adviser fund in particular had $407 million by the end of 2007, a week before Lew was named as Alternative Investments' chief operating officer…At that time, it had $18 million invested in Paulson Advantage Plus LP, worth $26.4 million, comprising about 6.5 percent of the Multi-Adviser fund's total capital.


(...)

Under Lew, the Multi-Adviser fund doubled its investment in Paulson's fund to nearly $42 million by March 2008; by the next quarter, it'd cranked that investment up to just over $60 million, making it the biggest piece of the Multi-Adviser fund, Nasiripour reported. So how'd it go for Lew and Citi?:

[banned from Kos]

69. it probably earned that much - 300% on a hedge fund shorting the mortgage market was

a piece of cake.

[JackRiddler]

71. Bravo! Cake! Hooray!

[JackRiddler]

70. Banksters should resent the implication that they're lazy.

They're actually very hard working guys, nowadays. No matter the size of the funds under management, they have a lot of hours to consider all components, and assistants to present to them the relevant facts. Just because they're managing X billion they're not laughing off decisions involving "mere" millions as trivial. A relatively small proportion can produce a big part of the annual earnings margin, which is what it is all about (and is often the basis for bonuses). Given that even an average working year has about 2000 hours in it, it's not plausible Mr. Lew was not cognizant of and did not consider and sign off on all major decisions involving the biggest piece in one of his funds. It's like saying a movie director who's made a dozen films totalling 30 hours shouldn't remember what happened in the climactic minute of one of his films. It's insulting to the craftsman!

And again, what does the investment with Paulson say about the scruples and strategies generally at work?

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Oh, so it went from 0.03% of Lew's baliwick to 0.1%.

And what percentage of that was more money being added to the investment, and how much was just the investment gaining in value?

[Enrique]

75. I was ready to agree that Greenwald might have exaggerated

if he claimed that Lew "invested heavily" in Paulson, but it turned out that the investment was negligible, then I was ready to email Greenwald and demand a correction.

But based on very minimal research, it right now appears that Greenwald was correct. In fact, Lew did invest heavily in Paulson.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Paulson Advantage Plus, L.P. was involved in shorting the housing market only by proxy

From the HuffPost article Paulson Advantage Plus, L.P., the fund in which the Multi-Adviser Fund invested, made its money by shorting financial institutions.

"[E]ight out of the top 10 banks on our list either failed, were recapitalized by the government, or were sold off to other banks as part of government-backed transactions," the hedge fund wrote to investors in its year-end letter.

So it's not really right to say that the Paulson fund was shorting the housing market. They were actually shorting the assholes who tanked the housing market. That's who they were making their money off of.

The Multi-Advisor fund at Alternative Investments (where Lew was COO) had $18M in Paulson's firm at the start of 2008, the beginning of Lew's time there. They upped it to $41.5M in March. They then pulled $10M out at the end of September, and later $13M more by March 2009, leaving their cash investment at $18.5 million. What part Lew played in this as COO is yet to be determined. The article calls this "realization of profits," but I don't see it. They added $23.5M in 2008 and took out $23M. On paper, the investment was worth more, but it looks like it would have grown to that value without the added investment at all.

I certainly don't buy the circuitous route to rope Goldman Sachs to Jack Lew. Sounds too dot-connecty for me.

[whatchamacallit]

83. Yeah but what percentage is that of World GDP?

[sabrina 1]

114. We didn't take those excuses when it was discovered that Cantor

did the same thing. Even though supposedly, he didn't make that much either. But it was the whole idea of being involved in betting against the American people that Democrats in general found to be abhorrent. Now, I guess as always now when a Dem is found doing the same thing, we must adjust our thinking on what is moral or not, or whether morality is a good thing?

Sorry, but my thinking remains the same as it was when Cantor was discovered profiting from the failure of his fellow Americans. These people should stick to what they do best, hoarding money, and let the rest of us try to fix this ever more obviously broken system the best we can.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. The investment didn't bet against the American people. It bet against the banks

who were busy screwing the American people.

[sabrina 1]

126. Yes, I understand that. Betting on failure may be legal, but to a lot of people

profiting from other people's failure is immoral. And why were the banks in trouble? I would expect that a responsible person who cares about this country and who knew what was going on with the banks, would have been trying to do something to save this country from the meltdown it finally suffered rather than looking for a way to make some money. Maybe it's just me, I think my concerns, had I known what was going on, would not have been about how I might profit from it.

But that's the way it is here, a system that puts money above all else. That is what I hope can be changed and it won't be changed by those who profit from it the way it is. It's up to the people now to decide what kind of society they want.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Fuck Glenn Greenwald.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11021117

[just1voice]

99. The topic is Citigroup corruption and it's criminals in political positions

What you clearly are incapable of comprehending is that corruption hurts Americans directly. We pay exorbitant interest rates to criminal banks, are 1 illness away from bankruptcy, have no chance at job security, pay criminal banks to go to colleges, get screwed everyday by market manipulating banks who have corrupted the stock, bond and commodities markets.

Putting the criminals who do things like this in high political positions is the classic sign of a corrupt govt, just read about the collapse of the former Soviet Union as the lasted example of this exact thing.

Also, look up "Ad hominem" and try to learn something.

[Tarheel_Dem]

105. Welcome to DU!

[fascisthunter]

144. 10th grade.... maybe

holy crap, you and others who mindlessly attack critics are embarrassing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

149. I'll let your personal attack slide.

Oh, I forgot. FUCK GLENN GREENWALD!

[bvar22]

80. DuRec.

Greenwald nails it again.
No wonder a handful here hate him.

Truth Tellers are always targets of those protecting the Oligarchs.
Greenwald is lucky they can no longer just declare him a witch and burn him,
though with the passing of NCAA, we ARE trending in that direction once again.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[great white snark]

84. "Greenwald nails it again." That would imply he had other nailings.

Which is bullshit. Greenwald smears a Democrat again is more apropos.

[TiberiusB]

118. Can you support that?

Where's the smear?

I really do love the CONSTANT attacks on Glenn Greenwald that fail to refute anything he says, and instead either completely fabricate some sort of borderline Brokeback Mountain relationship between him and Ron Paul, or try to dismiss him by insisting he is just a smear merchant. It's like Glenn Greenwald causes some kind of syndrome that makes people deranged. *cough*

The point of the article wasn't really to discuss whether Lew is a crook or not, but rather to illustrate, again, how this Administration simply cannot free itself from Wall Street, even when it's "shaking things up."

Debate that and add a little meat to the discussion.

[whatchamacallit]

136. +1

[fascisthunter]

145. no, its a truth you CAN'T Debate

attack the message! Well?

[FarLeftFist]

85. The fascinating things about Greenwald and others who tout Paul's "policies" are

1- They feel they are teaching us all a lesson by pointing these things out, such as Lew's previous life, as if die-hard political wonks couldn't and wouldn't have figured it out themselves. Yet they do it in a holier-than-thou way as if they should be praised for what seems to be common knowledge.

And

2- If these people such as Greenwald etc. DON'T think that Wall Street is going to hand deliver Obama a 2nd term on a silver fucking platter, may I please have some of that amazing stuff they are smoking?

The so-called elitists have become self-aware.

[TiberiusB]

116. "Positions", not "policies"

Glenn Greenwald, among others, has held up Ron Paul's positions on certain issues to spotlight their lack of exposure from other, more mainstream, candidates.

You can talk about Ron Paul's policies when he gets elected President of Never-gonna-happen-stan.

[sad sally]

103. As Chief of Staff, having this intimate knowledge of the housing loan debacle, he can make a good

sales pitch to pass the "bundle-all-the-bad-loans-and-sell-them-real-cheap-to-investors-who-can-either-
rent-them-or-tear-them-down-to-make-room-for-mcmansions" to congress. What a great country we live in.

[NashvilleLefty]

123. I'm sorry, but it's Greenwald who hates Democrats.

I don't mind so much that he's said he wants to destroy the "2-party system" from the outside (which means he wants to destroy Democrats and the Democratic Party), but he keeps twisting facts.

Sorry, but Greenwald keeps twisting the facts. He is simply not beleiveable.

[Octafish]

130. Not all Democrats. Just the ones who put money ahead of people.

Plus, the corrupt ones.

[fascisthunter]

146. indeed (nt)

[Wind Dancer]

139. K & R!

Excellent article - I don't understand why Obama has a revolving door policy with the banking industry.

[JVS]

150. What a lovely choice! And here I thought dumping Daley was just a way of celebrating...

Rahm's becoming mayor of Chicago and Daley's getting out of his way having served its purpose.