Update: Today’s NYT reports Rahm thought better of this. Nevermind.

It appears to be the official position of the White House Chief of Staff that if a financial giant like JPMorgan Chase is the beneficiary of massive federal bailouts and continued access to subsidized Fed money with which to speculate, and thus owes its profitability and perhaps even its survival to American tax payers, that it would be a terrific idea for him to honor the company by agreeing to speak at the next meeting of its Board of Directors.

From the Official US Religion Section of Sunday’s New York Times:

Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, will hold a meeting of his board here in the nation’s capital for the first time on Monday, with a special guest expected: the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Mr. Emanuel’s appearance would underscore the pull of Mr. Dimon, who amid the disgrace of his industry has emerged as President Obama’s favorite banker, and in turn, the envy of his Wall Street rivals. It also reflects a good return on what Mr. Dimon has labeled his company’s “seventh line of business” — government relations.

And it doesn’t seem to matter that the company is under investigation by at least two federal regulatory agencies:

Meanwhile, the company’s reputation could be tarnished by investigations into the crisis. Among them, JPMorgan is under scrutiny from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible antitrust and securities law violations, including derivatives deals with local governments.

And why not? After all, Rahm Emanuel and Jaime Dimon are old pals from way back, and Dimon gives the Oval Office an insider’s view of how America’s most successful and privileged criminal class works. But still, you’d think the White House would at least follow Tim Geithner’s more discrete approach.

Geithner, the Times reports, turned down the same speaking opportunity because the idea appeared unseemly, or possibly because its quasi-public nature might allow the event to leak out.

No, it’s much better to keep those frequent personal contacts secret, behind closed doors, where it’s much easier for the banksters to make sure the courts can’t force lenders to accept mortgage modifications, zombie banks aren’t forced to acknowledge their toxic assets, derivatives traders who nearly brought down the world economy aren’t required to use standardized products that can be overseen through a public exchange and no financial consumer protection institution with any teeth can ever emerge.

I can’t wait to read how the White House Counsel, whose view is that the law means whatever the last Administration got away with because we let them, says about this minor nuisance of a conflict issue:

"Legal? Of course it’s legal, because the law is what we say it is."