Administration Favors Settling With Banks on Criminal Actions They’re STILL Engaged In

[slipslidingaway]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/11/01/administration-favors-settling-with-banks-on-criminal-actions-theyre-still-engaged-in/

"Matt Stoller’s piece on the latest in the foreclosure fraud settlement follies makes one very important point that I missed in my writeup: robo-signing is still happening.

...And it’s pretty clear that this is the favored path in Washington. Mike Lux, who has a fair bit of inside knowledge, explains what is happening:

A dozen banks would contribute a grand total of $3.5 to 5 billion toward the settlement, pocket change for massive companies that apparently approved their foreclosure mill law firms likely committing over 1,000,000 counts of perjury in the robo-signing process. The rest of the money, about $20 billion, would come in the form of “credits” banks essentially give themselves if they agree to reduce a certain amount of the principal owed on mortgages. We don’t know the details yet, but given that all banks in the home lending industry write down some mortgages, unless the details are tough on the banks (a phrase not generally heard of among regulators in this era), this will be giving banks credit for mortgages they would be writing down anyway. And if they don’t end up writing down as much as they project, they probably won’t end up being penalized for it given the history of programs like HAMP <...>

If the administration rams through this ultimate in Wall Street sweetheart deals — a laughably pocket change fine combined with “credit” for what they would have done anyway, at the expense for a get out of jail free card for 1 million counts of perjury and a wide range of other potential fraud — they will have zero credibility to run as the tough on Wall Street candidate. ZERO.


...Lux pretty clearly indicates that he’s going public with private knowledge he’s gained through contacts in the White House. This is what’s happening. The White House is hell-bent on protecting the banks, and bringing the AGs they need, particularly Harris, to heel. Lux rightly concludes that the next ten years of the US economy and the 2012 elections hang in the balance. But as much as that, so does the history of the United States as a country of laws and not men."

[abelenkpe]

1. K&R nt

[slipslidingaway]

3. Thanks! n/t

[PoliticAverse]

2. ...

[slipslidingaway]

4. :) n/t

[slipslidingaway]

5. A Deal That Wouldn’t Sting

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/a-foreclosure-settlement-that-wouldnt-sting.html?_r=1

"...While the exact terms remain under wraps, some aspects of this agreement — between banks on one side, and the federal government and a raft of state attorneys general on the other — are coming into focus.

Things could change, of course, and the deal could go by the boards. But here’s the state of play, according to people who have been briefed on the negotiations but were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

Cutting to the chase: if you thought this was the deal that would hold banks accountable for filing phony documents in courts, foreclosing without showing they had the legal right to do so and generally running roughshod over anyone who opposed them, you are likely to be disappointed.

This may not qualify as a shock. Accountability has been mostly A.W.O.L. in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. A handful of state attorneys general became so troubled by the direction this deal was taking that they dropped out of the talks. Officials from Delaware, New York, Massachusetts and Nevada feared that the settlement would preclude further investigations, and would wind up being a gift to the banks.

It looks as if they were right to worry. As things stand, the settlement, said to total about $25 billion, would cost banks very little in actual cash — $3.5 billion to $5 billion. A dozen or so financial companies would contribute that money..."

[kenny blankenship]

6. It's never too soon to start 'not looking backward' at wrongdoing in the past - nor too late!

If you're centrist-ly serious about 'not looking back', you can learn to do it preemptively, before wrongdoing has even occurred, or while it's still going on.

Sometimes in the past, preemptively not looking back was called instead "looking the other way", or "watching the street while your buddies drilled the lock out of the safe", or even "holding the victim's legs apart while your buddies raped her", but now the changing times have straightened out the imprecisions of our language.

[QC]

7. So hopeful! n/t

[DCKit]

8. MF (whoever that is) just did it AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!! WTF? nt