
"Eric Schneiderman" by citizenactionny on flickr
So, hot on the heels of revelations Team Obama has been out in force twisting the arm of one NY Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, to release bankers from darn near all liability for any crimes, mistakes or civil infractions they may have committed during the economic collapse or anytime thereafter (by this point, the man has taken the concept of “don’t look back” to pathological levels), signs quickly emerged that the approach wasn’t going so well … and subsequently it emerged BoA isn’t doing so well with investors when there may be an outside chance they would actually have to play by the rules. Today comes the news that Eric Schneiderman has been summarily removed from the the 50-state task force committee charged with probing foreclosure abuses and potentially negotiating a settlement. (via huffpo)
The email announcing Schneiderman’s dismissal from the states’ executive committee was sent just after noon to more than 50 people by Patrick Madigan, a top lawyer in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office. It read: “Effective immediately, the New York Attorney General’s Office has been removed from the Executive Committee of the Robosigning multistate.”
…[Schneiderman spokesman, Danny Kanner] said Schneiderman was removed at Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s “prerogative.”
Miller, through a spokesman, said that Schneiderman was “intimately involved in every aspect of this investigation and possible settlement” from the launch of the probe last October to this past June. Schneiderman was “on every internal [executive committee] conference call and participated in all conference calls and meetings with the top five mortgage servicers. As such, New York had a large influence on the actions and decisions of the multistate.”
But in June, after The Huffington Post reported on a confidential conference call between state and federal officials, the executive committee was reduced to a smaller group of states that would directly negotiate with the five banks. Schneiderman was invited to join this smaller group, but declined, Miller said.
“Since that time, New York has actively worked to undermine the very same multistate group that it had spent the previous nine months working very closely with,” Miller continued. “While we certainly respect the right of any state to choose to no longer participate in a multistate and to pursue another path, working to actively undermine a multistate while still a member of the Executive Committee simply doesn’t make sense, is unprecedented and is unacceptable. Accordingly, today I informed New York that it is no longer a member of the Executive Committee.”
Schneiderman’s removal will likely make it easier for state and federal officials to reach an accord with the five banks. However, the potential amount of money they’ll be able to extract will likely decrease.
This task force was formed, somewhat surprisingly, by the Attorney General for that hotbed of foreclosures and banking, Iowa … ostensibly to probe the depths of banker malfeasance. Oooooorrrrr, maybe because Tom Miller achieved a deep longing to befriend a bunch of New York bankers and help ram through the deal they knew would be forthcoming from Obama’s crew. One of those.
Back in April, The National Institute on Money in State Politics released an interesting report on our friend Mr. Miller. Among other things, it was reported:
A detailed look at the campaign contributions made to Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller reveals several interesting giving patterns.
First, however, these contributions have to be put into the larger context of Tom Miller’s involvement in last fall’s foreclosure moratorium, which began when Ally Financial (formerly GMAC), JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America halted their foreclosure proceedings in dozens of states between September 20 and October 1, 2010.
On September 24, Miller announced that his office was opening a civil investigation of Ally Financial’s foreclosure processes in Iowa. Two weeks later, on October 7, Miller’s office issued a press release stating that Miller had spoken to representatives of JPMorgan Chase, Ally Financial, and Bank of America regarding their foreclosure proceedings; as well as “assigned staff to convene a separate group of bipartisan state attorneys general and state banking regulators to coordinate states’ reviews and responses to the troubling disclosures by mortgage companies.”
Almost a week later, on October 13, Miller’s office made the official announcement that his office was coordinating a 50-state effort to examine foreclosure practices by major financial lenders.
Miller’s major contributions from out-of-state lawyers and firms closely tracks these developments. Between September 30 and Election Day, Miller received $170,300 from lawyers outside of Iowa, which is two-thirds of all the money he raised from them during the entire two-year election cycle. (For a more detailed, day-by-day timeline of Miller’s contributions from lawyers and lobbyists, see his contributions timeline).
Although it is typical for candidates to raise large sums of money in the month immediately preceding the election, Miller’s out-of-state donations in 2010 were a significant departure from his two previous campaigns, in terms of the amount of money he raised, where it came from, and when.
- Miller raised , more than double the $327,196 he raised for his 2006 and 2002 campaigns .$785,000 in 2010combined
- Miller’s 2010 campaign was unprecedented in the amount of contributions received from outside of Iowa: $497,000, or 63 percent of his 2010 total, came from out-of-state donors. This is a significant break from his previous two reelection campaigns, when less than one-tenth of his campaign funds came from outside of Iowa.
Even more interesting is that it was the lawyers and donors from the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sector from outside of Iowa who were largely responsible for this reversal. Out-of-state lawyers and lobbyists gave Miller $261,445 in 2010, which is 88 times more than they gave over the previous decade. Out-of-state donors from the FIRE sector gave Miller $56,150 in 2010, compared to $3,500 in 2006 and $1,000 in 2002.
Rolling Stone’s Matt Tabibi did a highlight of the report’s findings at the time
Attorney General Tom Miller – who is coordinating the investigation into the banks’ improper mortgage dealings – increased his campaign contributions from the finance sector this year by a factor of 88! He has raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate contributors since he announced that he was going to be coordinating the investigation into improper foreclosure practices. That is 88 times as much as they gave him not over last year, but over the previous decade.
This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you’ll ever see.
Indeed. He also touches on what’s at stake and who is contributing here.
If the banks had to pay what they actually owed – from the registration taxes/fees they avoided by using the electronic registry system MERS to the money taken from investors in toxic mortgage-backed securities to the fees and payments stolen from homeowners via predatory loan practices and illegal foreclosures – they would probably all go out of business. That’s how much money is at stake here: the very future of financial giants like Bank of America and Citi and JP Morgan Chase is hanging to a very significant degree on the decisions of politicians like Miller.
Hence the sudden avalanche of money sent Miller’s way. The numbers are laughable. In 2006, out -of-state donors gave Miller’s campaign $10,508. For the 2010 cycle, that number was $497,357. Three lawyers by themselves – Al Gore’s attorney David Boies, plus Donald Flexner and Robert Silver, all partners in the firm Boies, Schiller and Flexner – gave Miller a total of $60,000.
[...] Goldman [Sachs] hired Boies to represent it in a fight against the now-defunct Basis Yield Alpha Fund, which bought into Goldman’s notorious “Timberwolf” deal – one of the “shitty deals” Senator Carl Levin, in hearings last year, was haranguing Goldman for selling to unsuspecting clients.
So now we see that Boies and a string of other banker lawyers (including firms that represented Citi, Chase, Wachovia, and others) are throwing tens of thousands of dollars at Miller. Maybe it won’t do much to influence Miller, but who knows? Maybe he won’t plunge the knife in quite so deep now.
Just something to keep an eye on.
Again. Indeed. And the answer seems to be that he not only intends to avoid plunging the knife in at all … he wants to make sure nobody else messes with his plans to protect his new-found benefactors. It appears Miller is to banking fraud investigations as Simpson is to debt reduction.



20 Comments

Well done kgb999, need to know info., Rec’d.
A friend of mine remarked this mornin’ that the intrepid AG should probably avoid air travel for….well….from now on.
“We’ve already established that you’re a whore, Mr. Miller; now we’re just negotiating your price.”
Chump change for his services; but I guess if he figures he’ll be moving up through the ranks, mebbe not so much.
I do remember the electricity he first generated when he started the 50-state task force, and was all full of Woof! Woof!
When he backed waaay off, insider rumor figured that it was because he wanted to head of the CFPB; I was surprised when he didn’t get it actually.
So the cover for kicking Schneiderman out of the task force’s Super Task Force is that he has been:
“on every internal [executive committee] conference call and participated in all conference calls and meetings with the top five mortgage servicers. As such, New York had a large influence on the actions and decisions of the multistate.”
Wouldn’t want someone knowledgeable and effective, would we? Mind-boggling that they’re doing this stuff under our noses now.
After the S&L debacle, I think Wm. Black said he helped over 1200 bankers into jail (We remember John McCain got a Get Out of Jail Free card in the mess, fuck him).
Can’t even guess what multiple of fraud dollar-value all this might entail over that, but how many have been investigated, how many have gone to jail? How many, instead, are still reaping the benefits at the cost of the wipeout of the Expendable Class?
Thank goodness President Craven is in office; hate to think what a Republican administration might have done!
Thanks for bringin’ it, kgb. Nice job, and rec’d.
One lady or the tiger dilemma that I continue to wrestle with is:
1. should I totally withdraw from the Democratic Party and go my way with Independents, Greens, and various true progressive factions
OR
2. should I stay in the party and fight like hell to see that the corporate centrist democrats who are running the party are kicked out. My opinion of these people is that they should join the republican party and get the hell out of the Democratic Party. somehow leaving the party seems like giving in and letting them win. yet the thought of associating with them has become as repulsive to me as being associated with GOP/Tea Party members. They are all awful and from the same cloth.
Any thoughts?
Well, first caveat is I’m an independent … always have been. It has been rare that either of the parties puts up the one who matches my desires best. I got saddled into this whole Democrats thing by thinking it might be a good idea to support Obama (whole different ball of wax there). So, of course my natural response is to say vote for the person who you think would be best for the position in question based on your objectives. This whole least worst thing is killing us. Vote for the best.
That being said, it would be awesome to see the Third Way types lose their grip on the Democratic party – confusion that those guys are liberal is a big reason many Americans think they hate liberals. In that regard, I often highlight Ron Paul’s approach. It hasn’t yet been successful, per se, but it is quite subversive in it’s own way. In 2008 (and presumably in 2012) the point of Ron Paul’s candidacy was very much about internal power within the Republican party. He was specifically playing for delegates. That’s why he didn’t drop out until the end. The idea was to use the delegates at the convention to influence the agenda and also demand some leadership posts.
Hillary did a similar thing when she took her candidacy up to that rules committee meeting. That ended up going quite well for her. But she’s total establishment, so accommodating her wasn’t really a threat to anyone.
It turned out rather differently than planned for Paul. The GOP played a bunch of games at the state level and he ended up without a single delegate. By the end, he was all but banned from the convention.
But thing is, the ripples and reverberations resulting from the actions taken to strip his delegates have been amazing, as have the actions taken by the GOP to try and minimize and co-opt Ron Paul and redirect his people. All and all, it can be said Paul’s tactic certainly made one hell of an impact. Even mention of him from any of the major news networks seems to be blacklisted and yet he still scores at the top of every straw poll the GOP types hold. It will be interesting to see if he gets more support or less this time around when the actual votes are cast … and even more interesting to see what the GOP does along the way.
I fear a problem any faction of Democrats would currently have trying to do something like this is that anyone who would credibly carry such a torch is so beholden to the party for their political viability – and so afraid of losing that viability – that nobody would dare make such a move. I like Schweitzer and think he could actually do pretty damn well in a presidential primary (and think he could beat ANY of the GOP crew in the general), but he’s already said he won’t be running for any office while completing his duties as Governor … so I’m hoping he at least knocks off Baucus in 2014 or something.
Oh Taibbi, you silly goose you …
“That is 88 times as much as they gave him not over last year, but over the previous decade.”
“Over the previous DECADE”!!!
88 times as much. Not double, which is 2 times as much.
Not triple, which is 2 times as much.
“This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you’ll ever see.”
Wholesale corruption, legalized bribery, and absolute destruction of the rule of law. Not just American politics, but American law, … and the whole system.
This is beyond high crimes or being blatantly corrupt, or massive theft and fraud, … this is beyond all that.
One more note, like I sat about Preet Bharara, this guy will also back down/surrender.
Sorry, you don’t get to that post in our system and not have played the game.
They either bludgeon you with money and power, buy you with money or power, or the mobster way …
…["Chump change for his services"]…
That’s what I often think when this kind of stuff happens. Not only are they total whores … they’re the cheapest whores they could possibly be. Don’t they know that shit’s fucking golden?
OTOH, in a political universe that saw the level of funding evidenced by his previous campaigns, he really did see an epic increase in cash.
Whole thing pisses me off. The statements being made around this also highlighted that Obama’s apparent position is that the best way to save homeowners from foreclosure is to get foreclosures rolling again … seriously. Had to stop somewhere.
(BTW: Someone all editorized me and gave the post a pic … how awesome is that?! I’m not really that cool.)
Thanks.
Seems they always pick someone far removed from voters most directly impacted to carry the water on stuff like this. They used Baucus to do it with HCR, for instance (hence my downthread desire to see Baucus helped from office).
And he should also stay far way from any attractive women who could be honeytraps.
As for Mr. Miller, He must be singing that “Wall Street is our Main Street” rag
Pathological indeed.
I listen to the “professional left” media and they really can’t say anything nice about Obama so they just talk about what putzes the republicans are. Truly dismal election cycle.
I think the MFer has destroyed the Democratic brand for the foreseeable future.
Wait’ll everyone gets a load of what his Politburo does to them before Christmas….while watching the new Lords gloat over their bonuses.
Oh did everyone hear that the Washington monument got cracked in that earthquake….closed indefinitely…I bet.
Some speculation on fracking being a possible factor in the quake
On a brighter note. We’re finally getting a swell rain storm! :^)
Unreal.
Kind of the mods; probably Bill Egnor. Nice photo. Amy has it in the headlines; might try to catch the show this evening…
Fancy we can get it here over the air now. God bless digital teevee.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/24/headlines/ny_attorney_general_booted_from_mortgage_company_settlement_task_force
Pisses you off? Whassup with that?
Oh, on another subject entirely. I know we disagree mightily about Libya. But I’m right. (Just having a bit o’ fun) But I thought you’d consider these Escobar takes; he is jaded, as am I, about NATO and AFRICOM; but still…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH24Ak01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MH25Ak02.html
I wonder how long it will take for Obama to call for Schneiderman’s assassination?
The problem I have with Escobar is that I believe he is fundamentally incorrect in some basic underlying assumptions about the hows and whys of global power that he then builds his premises on. If you see the world the same way he does, it may appear he’s just stating obvious truths, but his fact to possibly hyperbolic interpretive assertion ratio is pretty harsh (I won’t criticize too much on that ‘cauz I do it too sometimes).
I myself have been noting the NTC’s apparent cold shoulder to the nations who were less than supportive on intervention. But I see the significance differently than Escobar (mine is more of a sometimes a cigar is just a cigar view). But how he characterizes these nations gets to the heart of one of my biggest criticisms of the overarching set of assumptions he uses as a framework. He sort of seems to see the global situation as good guys vs. bad guys; the emerging world challenging old power and old power trembling and attacking in response. I don’t see that.
An interesting thing about the BRICS economies showing growth while much of the rest of the world contracts … many happen to be where American corporations are pouring all of the money given to them by taxpayers to basically create slave-wage labor forces with few environmental constraints (Or, in the case or Russia, nursing low-wage-labor client states of their own). The governments of these nations are totally playing the game – willing extensions of the imperialism Escobar decries. Sure, they largely ended up sitting on their nuts with how they played it in Libya … but as far as the elite leaders of these nations; they are players right there with the USA and making a shit ton of money being the back-end fixers to the financial class’ little global shuffle.
One key concept he misses, while stating it directly, is that we are discussing Libyan oil *RETURNING* to the market. That means what was once available to Western interests for purchase and trade is no longer available because we supported the Rebels and it caused national instability. At some point we hope to get back to where it once was. I’m not seeing a whole whole lot of improved opportunity so much as a rush to reaffirm interests that were already extant. It doesn’t really seem to be that significant a change in Libyan national posture.
The other concept that bugs me is that we should expect Libya to become some sort of Democracy as metric for the propriety of helping them. Or that somehow the revolutionaries are supposed to be these awesomely perfect progressive liberal Democrats or something. Why? I think from the Libyan perspective it was more of a “Hey! How about a bit of economic opportunity here! And maybe stop torturing us?” kind of thing than rising up to demand a government just like the good ‘ole USA.
Yeah. We see this one pretty different. All and all though, we have a pretty impressive record of agreeing on stuff.
Yet depressingly unsurprising.
Now, now. That’s a bit unfair to Obama. A few quips about holding Schneiderman in an air-conditioned cell for six months of solitary confinement with no clothes should be sufficient in this case.
No. I hadn’t heard about the Washington Monument. That totally sucks.
If fracking had anything to do with it, expect a Gulf-oil-spill grade coverup to go into full effect immediately!
I share being glad that we so often agree, kgb. This one though; I try to hear you, but just can’t quite. As far as the rebels creating a perfect democracy, that’s media driven, Obama driven, IMO.
Apaarently Gadaffi was on the verge of nationalizing the oil, at least according to some takes. and had refused IMF loans, which have been the bane of so many ME nations, making some comfort for many that the US and West were at least nominal friends with dictatorships.
Gareth Porter said that as far back as 2001 the plan was to invade Libya (and a few others, you’ll read). As far as I can tell, this administration hasn’t strayed far from the PNAC/Cheney Energy Task Force policies. Including, IMO, that most foreign misadventures and policy, through NATO and Africom…are proxy wars with Iran, somewhat China/Russia in the future, and demonstrating muscular positions, but…still.
The Saudis (Wahabbis, if I understand correctly) and Israel are the key allies for US/NATO. Iran is always identified as the world bad guys, even now in Syria. Apparently there are polls taking the pulse of America on intervention there, too, now that Libya is already being touted as a ‘success’, which is another worry I have.
@wendydavis August 24th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Musta pressed send, sorry… Here’s the Porter link:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE07Ak01.html
Lost my train of thought. I agree that he’s cynical about the BRIC nations, and your take on investments aiding them.
But in the beginning, the US/NATO paid the 11 out of how many? African Union nations to sign onto the UN no-fly zone, then claimed the AU was in favor of it; and the others are peeved. (I’m losing steam, kgb; one arm won’t type tonight).
Gotta quit for now, so sorry. I’ll drop this Ellen Brown (public baking movement advocate) discussing Libya in terms of banking, oil, Wesley Clark telling tales from 2007…a lot. And again, I don’t see much deviation from these same plans with Obama.
Talk to you later at the OK corral. Sent the Pepe links to Mr. Peracles; he did his Sardon the Magnificent over them. ;o)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html
(possibly out of order because we hit comment max-nesting)
Sure. But a lot happened between 2001 and 2011 as far as Western access to Libyan oil is concerned. The invasion plans were made at a point where it really didn’t seem things would improve anytime soon.
from the economist
There are reports that BP got upwards of $5bn in contracts from that ($900 million for certain confirmed by a Senate investigation). Speculation about possible nationalization moves aside, the hard agreements being made recently seemed to indicate all sides were happily playing ball in 2011. I feel the same way you do about the predatory nature of the World Bank and IMF loan programs, but sometimes I can’t accept the whole “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” thing.
I think what’s going on in Syria is screwed up. I don’t know to what extent Iran has anything to do with it though. The thing is, with Libya I could see an outcome – the rebels supply lines growing stronger as the regime was isolated, etc. It really has progressed largely as I articulated a plausible best-case for Quinn. I don’t see that in Syria. So, while I think Assad is clearly horrid and wish there was a plausible faction to support or course of action to take to help or whatever … there just isn’t one I can see.
Iran will, of course, be the eternal bogyman. I think that’s some serious over-hype for the most part. But, for the record, their regime largely sucks at the moment as well.
I’m kind of glad France helped us win our revolution. I’m still kind of glad we’ve helped Libya in theirs.