Eric Schneiderman promises aggressive financial fraud probe

[bemildred]

New York Atty. Gen. Eric Schneiderman, who was tapped by President Obama to lead a new Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, promised Wednesday to move aggressively to coordinate state and local investigations into the causes of the subprime mortgage market meltdown.

"We’re undertaking a more coordinated effort to pull together all of the various strands of investigations relating to the conduct that created the mortgage-backed securities bubble and led to the market crash," Schneiderman told reporters in Washington after an event at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"There have been investigations going on in various states and branches of the federal government," he said. "We’re now making a concerted effort to pull everything together and move forward aggressively to address these issues."

He said the task force would go after "every aspect of the conduct that created the bubble and crash," including the origination of mortgages and the packaging of them into securities.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgage-probe-20120125,0,12638.story

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. This just seems strange to me.

Schneiderman pulled NYS out of the national "settlement" that was in the works specifically because it didn't go far enough. Beau Biden followed suit. So now they want him leading a similar effort?

I dunno, it seems almost more like neutering his efforts as opposed to a positive in calling the banks to account for what they did.

I'll wait with eager anticipation to be proven wrong. Really, really want to be wrong on this.

[bemildred]

2. Aggressive tallk is better than wishy-washy talk.

Still just talk.

[Enrique]

7. yes, that's what it seems like to me as well

what I haven't seen yet is, how does this affect the settlement? Is Schneiderman now on board?

[EFerrari]

23. That's the question, isn't it?

The forming of this task force makes me want to ask, wtf was the administration doing putting together a 50 state settlement if it thought there were unresolved that required an "investigation"?

[truedelphi]

14. See my response number thirteen.

And if you want a good read, google Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone and UBS and fraud. (UBS stands for United Bank of Switzerland.)

Matt is not only a wordsmith extra-ordinaire, he makes the complex matters of financial crimes from Big Shot grifters understandable and fun.

[loudsue]

3. About 5 years late, but better late than never. Campaign year strategy?

I'm not sure dems are smart enough to use this to their full advantage.

[dmosh42]

4. Just don't share info with Holder! He's in with banks and crooks!

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Let me try to concoct some way that making Schneiderman,

the most aggressive of the State AGs, into a federal level task force chief ON THIS ISSUE can be a BAD THING, since it being an actual good thing would generally fuck up my "Obama is in the pocket of the banksters" narrative that I cling to regardless of any facts at all, including this one.

Let me INVENT A WAY!

[JoePhilly]

6. I know ... the common wisdom around these parts was that the Obama admin hated this guy.

[zipplewrath]

10. Keep your friends close

and your enemies closer.

Actually, once word came out that the settlement was excluding immunity from criminal violations, that made this make alot more sense. I suspect several of the AG's will enjoy trying to get criminal prosecutions against these guys, and are more than willing to let them pay their way out of civil suits that would take years anyway.

[JoePhilly]

11. So Schneiderman was an "enemy" ... and Obama is keeping him close?

Is that what you are saying?

[zipplewrath]

12. Bit of a joke

Which is why the next sentence started with "actually".

[JoePhilly]

15. just checking

We went through a period here on DU in which it was claimed that Obama secretly hated Elizabeth Warren and that was why he did not appoint her to head the group that he asked her to design / create.

[zipplewrath]

18. I think it's been proven

Over and over it's been demonstrated that no one on the outside knows what is happening inside the White House. Anyone, supporter or otherwise, that makes a claim that they know what decisions Obama is making, will make, or would make, before he formally acts, is full of it. Critic, or supporter. He's gonna do what he decides is the best deal. He picks his fights based upon whether he thinks he can "win". He'll do what he thinks is transformational, right up until he things he's reached the limit of what he can achieve.

[JoePhilly]

19. Tend to agree ... he is pragmatic.

The chess metaphor gets abused on DU on a regular basis. Most who use it, pro or con, don't really know anything about high level chess.

But if you understand high level chess, it is actually a great metaphor for politic efforts.

A high level chess game has a tension between long term strategy, and short term tactics. This would be analogous to your "transformational" versus "what he can achieve" comment.

In chess, Strategic goals are things like "king safety", "maintain pawn chains", "open files for rooks", "open diagonals for bishops", or "Bishops and knight value in open and close board positions".

Strategic goals exist to make the movement to tactical goals easier to see. Because at some point you need to move one piece.

Same tension exists in politics. Obama can't just cause the strategic goal of "single payer health care". He's got to make tactical steps that move in that direction. And the movement might be slow, and there is another player (the GOP), and you may have to manage your tactics relative to theirs.

I think Obama is trying to do two things ... (1) Do everything that he can do tactically (pragmatically) now so that (2) he has set up the "board" so that continued movement to larger strategic goals can continue after his second term.

FDR set lots of ground work in place. And that expanded later. I think Obama is on a similar strategic course. He knows he can't do it all, not even in 8 years. The GOP spent the last 30 making a huge mess.

I think his plan is that the Dem Prez who comes in 2016, is in a great position to go forward.

[zipplewrath]

20. I think you are projecting

You are projecting things on him that arent' there.

He is getting what he wants. Not everything that he wants, but he is getting what he wants. As we are seeing revealed now, he got what he wanted with the stimulus, he didn't want to ask for more. He didn't think it would be helpful. He thought it would be better to go back later.

He's getting what he wants. It's not an issue of pragmatism, is just good ole plain choice.

[JoePhilly]

21. Projecting how exactly?

My PhD is in Psychology and so I know what that term means.

But I am not sure you know what it means given how you used it here.

You said ...

He is getting what he wants. Not everything that he wants, but he is getting what he wants. As we are seeing revealed now, he got what he wanted with the stimulus, he didn't want to ask for more. He didn't think it would be helpful. He thought it would be better to go back later.

With all do respect, how do you know what "he wants"?

In your response you refer to one thing (the stimulus), you claim that "he got what he wanted", and then seem to extend that opinion to all things, saying ...

He's getting what he wants. It's not an issue of pragmatism, is just good ole plain choice.

What you seem to ignore is that the stimulus bill received exactly THREE GOP votes, giving it the 60 votes needed to pass.

Are you ACTUALLY claiming that Obama could have obtained MORE in the stimulus AND also get that to PASS in the Senate???

Please.

[zipplewrath]

22. I'm claiming he didn't want to

The White House chose to not ask for a sufficiently large stimulus because they were concerned the markets would react poorly.

I don't "claim" to know what he wants, the stimulus comment is based upon recent reports (which basically have been confirmed). For the larger comment, I am presuming that Obama doesn't fail to get what he wants, and merely accepts what is crammed down his throat instead. I presume he is vastly more successful than he is often given credit for. I credit him with getting the HCR he wanted. I credit him with getting the Afghan policy he wanted. I credit him with getting successfully "having the backs" of the torturers.

Are you suggesting he didn't?

[JoePhilly]

24. Re-read your post .... you start by saying ...

"I'm claiming he didn't want to"

And then in you start the next full paragraph saying ... "I don't "claim" to know what he wants, the stimulus comment is based upon recent reports (which basically have been confirmed)."

You refute your own position in the span of 3 sentences. You claim to know what he thinks, and then claim to not know what he thinks.

Do you not see this contradiction in your post?

[Enrique]

8. it can be a bad thing if the settlement goes through

it would be a bad thing if the lawsuits are the best way to get accountability, and get compensation, and if this new initiative has less teeth. I suspect that's the way it is.

Then again, Schneiderman was not the only holdout, fortunately.

[sendero]

16. I'll invent one for you, it's easy.

... all along the banks have wanted a "comprehensive settlement". What that means is they want to pay ONCE for all of this crap and be granted TOTAL IMMUNITY from any further action on related matters.

This guy's OWN WORDS in the quote indicate that he wants the same thing.

There is almost no possible way such a deal can be good for anyone but the banksters for reasons a child could figure out.

I'll believe this guy is on the consumer's side when there is concrete, unambiguous action that proves it. I am not holding my breath.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. There seems to be two competing stories: this one where Obama official

is going after the banks and the other story of a proposed $25 billion settlement with the banks.

Both Salon and Nation magazines have published article about a settlement.

Can someone shed some light on this?

[truedelphi]

13. If you have read the Rolling Stone stories on how

Close the American Public got to having real revenge on these bastards, always with some loophole intervening between the punishment and the criminals, I can only say that the tons of papers necessary to prove wrong doing have been already shredded, the people in high financial places "in the know" have had their memories fade, and if nothing else, the statutes of limitations will have made many lawsuits moot.

Oh if only Spitzer had not found it so easy/sleazy to cavort with a woman from a brothel. And if only the Bush Administration hadn't used Homeland Security tactics, such as wire taps and what not that proved how he wired money from his bank to the brothel's madame. He was our best real shot at putting people behind bars, and now it is all more kabuki theater, a little too little and a lot too late.

[rudycantfail]

17. But the crash happened in 2008.

Is this latest rhetoric credible to any extent? I have to say wtf?