Strange Bedfellows.
At the risk of weekly over exposure to the blog Firedoglake, I really feel that this post, Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist Call For Rahm Emanuel's Resignation, deserves special attention. I can think of few people in the blogosphere or elsewhere who are more liberal than Jane Hamsher. On the other hand, Grover Norquist has been the leader of "movement conservativism" for more than 2 decades. So, anything that they might do jointly deserves a second look.
Here's the gist of their request:
Dear Attorney General Holder:
We write to demand an immediate investigation into the activities of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. We believe there is an abundant public record which establishes that the actions of the White House have blocked any investigation into his activities while on the board of Freddie Mac from 2000-2001, and facilitated the cover up of potential malfeasance until the 10-year statute of limitations has run out.
The purpose of this letter is to connect the dots to establish both the conduct of Mr. Emanuel and those working with him to thwart inquiry, and to support your acting speedily so that the statute of limitations does not run out before the Justice Department is able to empanel a grand jury.
They then proceed to lay out a number of allegations and provide significant background information including:
Rahm Emanuel was appointed to the board of Freddie Mac in February of 2000 by Bill Clinton, after serving as White House political director where he was a vocal defender of Mr. Clinton during the Monica Lewinski matter. He served there until leaving to run for Congress in 2001, which qualified him for $380,000 in stock and options and a $20,000 annual fee.
According to the Chicago Tribune, during his tenure the board was notified by executives of their plans to misstate the earnings of Freddie Mac: “On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.” (3/5/2009)
There is much, much more at the link above. They also provide a petition link, that I hope many of us will sign.
As discussed in so many blogs, instapopulists and comments here at EP, it is absolutely mindboggling that one year into this corrupt Obama administration, there have been no investigations into what got us into this precarious economic situation. Yet, legislation is being advanced as if it is generally understood!
We need accountablility and we need to see the guilty parties prosecuted and punished. We don't need some kind of Abu Gharib investigation either. Yeah, there are plenty of lower personnel that can be indicted, but it is the Grand Designers who must take responsiblility. In this pursuit, I agree with Jane and would gladly ally with the "rethugs" to get at the truth and rewrite our destiny based upon that knowledge.
speaking of staying objective with facts
Jesus, when I saw "Grover Norquist" I thought the site had been spammed! I should have put him in my "top 10 tar and feather" candidates.
So.....then I go reading the letter and OH Shit! Considering Fannie/Freddie are now asking for $800 billion bucks....this ain't too good!
I guess I'll say this as well, ya know if something is accurate, well done, cited....and economics related, esp. on the middle class screw job...
feel free to write about it, link and so on...yet another reason to dig in deep and stay all econ 24/7 and stay away from partisanship and rhetoric and don't worry what the source is....well cited, accurate, good investigative stuff is....well cited, accurate, good investigative stuff.
I knew that the Freddie/Fannie debacle was deep in the Dem camp but none of this I've ever heard of.
My subtle disagreement with commongood
Although I'm sure commongood and I share similar attitudes, I have to take a very subtle point with this post and with commongood's statement:
I have been bewildered by some of Ms. Hamsher's blogs in the past, wondering why she was pushing this so-called "public option" longer after they had deep-sixed anything remotely resembling such an option.
I had a private conversation with her last summer (so I won't go into the specifics) but suffice it to say I found her reasoning neither particularly liberal nor following any logical pattern.
In fact, I came away with the newly formed opinion that perhaps her site was simply another diversionary ploy.
There are any number of organizations out there, seemingly working on behalf of "environmental" concerns, but which under deeper scrutiny appear to be working against the likes of Greenpeace and other truly concerned organizations.
So too on the purely political end, and I frequently find myself wondering and confused with freepress.net, Bill Moyers (although he does have a checkered background to anyone familiar with political history), the ACLU and other organizations (most notably one I am convinced is an environmental diversionary outfit, League of Conservation Voters).
Just ask yourself what has been accomplished or achieved during the last decade or during their existence. I am suspicious of any organization which never appears to be accomplishing anything, yet is always asking for donations to accomplish something!
While I don't doubt what they have said about Rahm, being intimately familiar with his background, the same malfeasance could have been levelled against Bernanke, Geithner, Summers (require a special investigation into the dismissal of Iris Mack -- who questioned the concentration of Harvard's investments in credit derivatives and swaps -- and was she ever correct!! -- back when Summers was pres of Harvard) and a number of other Obama appointees.
I'm just wondering if this isn't yet another diversion on their part, although I do applaud Ms. Hamsher for FINALLY advising her readers (after much pleading for donations and wasted activity and action on their part) to vote against this so-called healthcare reform legislation.
And for anyone even remotely familiar with business and contract law in the federal venue, to require the compulsory purchase of private insurance while excluding arbitrary groups due to preexisting conditons would have definitely thrown such legislation into the federal courts --- therefore, halting refusal of compulsory purchase of private insurance given the existence of preexisting conditions is not a bonus, giveaway or achievement, IT IS A GIVEN!
Post new comment