Following up on Friday's post about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the AIG e-mails, there was a response on 2 fronts--White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and the general counsel of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Here is part of the exchange between Gibbs and CNN reporter Ed Henry at Friday's press conference:
So Gibbs doesn't "know what the story is about the e-mails," yet he does know that Secretary Geithner "was not involved in any" of them? How does that work? And did you catch the qualifiers in Gibbs' answers? Geithner was not involved in the e-mails "that have been talked about," the ones mentioned "in this instance." More openness and transparency.
About it not rising to Geithner's "level," the statement from the New York Fed said pretty much the same thing, Geithner was kept in the dark:
David Sirota at Open Left says this about that, and I agree:
Speaking of the New York Federal Reserve Bank--Goldman Sachs connection, the successor to Geithner, William C. Dudley, is the former chief economist at...you guessed it, Goldman Sachs. The circle is unbroken.
Here is part of the exchange between Gibbs and CNN reporter Ed Henry at Friday's press conference:
Q: Robert, Does the White House believe that Secretary Geithner should testify on the Hill, turn over any documents he has, to sort of clear this up?
MR. GIBBS: Ed, I'd point you to the Treasury Department. I'm sure you've already talked to them. Secretary Geithner was not involved in any of these emails. These decisions did not rise to his level at the Fed.
Q: But how do you know that he wasn't involved? He was the leader of the New York Fed.
MR. GIBBS: Right, but he wasn't on the emails that have been talked about and wasn't party to the decision that was being made.
Q: But what does the White House believe?
MR. GIBBS: I just gave you what the White House believes.
Q: Well, no, you gave me the Treasury Department -- no, what do you believe? Do you believe that more emails should come out so we can learn --
MR. GIBBS: What I said was I'm -- I don't know what the story is about the emails. I would tell you that there are not emails that involve Secretary Geithner in this instance... That decision did not rise to his level.
So Gibbs doesn't "know what the story is about the e-mails," yet he does know that Secretary Geithner "was not involved in any" of them? How does that work? And did you catch the qualifiers in Gibbs' answers? Geithner was not involved in the e-mails "that have been talked about," the ones mentioned "in this instance." More openness and transparency.
About it not rising to Geithner's "level," the statement from the New York Fed said pretty much the same thing, Geithner was kept in the dark:
"The New York Federal Reserve Bank did not bring securities law disclosures for insurer American International Group Inc. to the attention of Timothy Geithner, who headed the bank at the time of AIG's bailout in 2008, the bank's top lawyer said on Friday... "Matters of AIG securities law disclosure were not brought to the attention of the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York," Thomas Baxter, the New York Fed's general counsel, said in a statement."
David Sirota at Open Left says this about that, and I agree:
"...the administration is...making the (preposterous) assertion that the regulatory filings of the largest corporation in the New York Fed's receivership somehow "didn't rise" to Geithner's level. That's right, we're expected to believe the decisions to authorize and then hide multi-billion-dollar taxpayer-financed sweetheart deals for Geithner's friends at Goldman Sachs and all the other big banks obviously - obviously! - "didn't rise" to Geithner's level."
Speaking of the New York Federal Reserve Bank--Goldman Sachs connection, the successor to Geithner, William C. Dudley, is the former chief economist at...you guessed it, Goldman Sachs. The circle is unbroken.
I always did think that about CREEP: what an appropriately named entity it was.
Pretty much sums up the GOP still.
Acknowledged.
It all came clear to me:
It's spelled, "Council on Foreign Relations"
Obama is living in deathly fear of "The Midnight Meat Train". Cheney dines there and Obama (if he gets out of line) will have the honor of being on the menu. No thanks! Any sane man would protect himself and his family by just saying...huh?!?
This is bad, people...really, really bad.
Carguy, you'd better apologize while you can...cause the end is coming.
damn, if only I would have knownnnnnn!
You're right, ALL four items "not necessarily news".
I read the story and love his explanations. What a mess this turned out to be. And, I'm not so sure that MLB is as much to blame as anybody.
You're right, ALL four items "not necessarily news".
I read the story and love his explanations. What a mess this turned out to be. And, I'm not so sure that MLB is as much to blame as anybody.
Reminds me (sorta) of the Iran-Contra hearings when Reagan was "interviewed". Remember.....
"Mr. President, what were you not told and when were you not told it?"
A: "I don't recall"
"Mr. President, you say you don't recall. Do you know when you first didn't recall that?"
A: I'm pretty sure I don't recall that either.
"Mr. President, at which meeting, exactly, was that not discussed, if you can recall."
A: "Although I know we did not discuss that, I am a little fuzzy on exactly when we didn't discuss it."
This just in. Mark McGwire admits to using steroids:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011102423.html?hpid=topnews
In related news, birds admit to flying, fish admit to swimming, and bears admit to taking a dump in the woods.
The hearings they’re talking about now are a farce. They plan to “invite” Geithner to testify. Invite my ass, subpoena the SOB, put him under oath and ask him the Watergate question, “What did you know and when did you know it.” And oh by the way Timmy, if we find out you’re lying you’re not going back to Wall Street, your ass is going to JAIL.
Do you think they "bought" George Stephapopodopoulis AND David Gregory?????
The past few weeks both "MTP" and "This Week" have been just rehashing old news.
I think we can count on the GOP in not letting the Geithner/AIG/TARP matter get too far off the front page. Hey, look at that, we finally found something the repulicans CAN do that's actually productive and benefits the citizenry. Holy CRAP!
I am really anxious concerning the unavoidable conregssional hearings Mr.G is bound to face. I say "anxious" because I fear we are gonna learn things that are gonna put us ALL on Prevacid.
I see SSTM has a new name for our "movement".....DOVKCPODRT. How ya' pronounce that??? It looks Polish to me.
Seeing as how the Federal Reserve bank has to abide by Sarbanes-Oxley......I would have to call bullshit on him not knowing of the transactions. Timmy's days are numbered before he is thrown under the perverbial bus. But the White House spin doctor Gibbs doesn't disappoint.
What else have they bought? Good question. I was watching the Sunday news shows yesterday to see if there was any mention of the Geithner story. Silly me, I thought the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury had been implicated in criminal activity might merit at least a mention. Not a word.
What they had was Lieberman (who cares) McCain (double who cares) Liz Cheney (who cares x 10,000) and the stupid remark Harry Reid made. Watch the shiny object over here, pay no attention to the other hand picking your pocket.
BTW, about CREEP. Was there ever a more appropriately named organization?
A friend of mine, a decorated VietNam veteran, and "conspiracy theory" specialist, told me many years ago to watch the bankers. They were in the process of taking over the country, and then, the world. He said that by controlling the money they could control the government. I told him he was crazy, just another conspiracy theory.
.......
.......
.......
I think I may owe him an apology. We know they have bought congress. Have they bought anything or anybody else?????
Des: I wanted to say first that I've always been a fan and I think your skin color is just right, not too tan, not too white, and your east Texas dialect is hardly detectable at all.
Now, on to the topic at hand. That story is about as believable as an episode of CSI:Miami. I'm having a real "deja vu" moment here. I'm drawn back to Watergate and how CREEP tried desperately to keep Nixon out of the scandal.
I also watched the Moyer's video.
Two comments stuck in my mind:
"the American people have become accustomed to 'political abuse'" (i.e. broken campaign promises.)
And, the second one was: "Americans are more distrustful of their government than they are of the banks."
Both sad, but true.
No longer a toss-up. Banks (too big to fail) win hands down... on the danger they pose to us all. The devastation is way more far reaching, and longer lasting.
Geithner's gotta go!
Agree and I am ready to pack my bags!
Something has to be done to change the lack of "change" that we were promised, and, yes Miemaw, Wall Street may very well be more dangerous to the American people than those we are fighting around the world. Why? Because no one is trying to stop Wall Street...
Perhaps it's time for the Disgruntled Obama Voters for Keeping Campaign Promises and Otherwise Doing the Right Thing (DOVKCPODRT - obviously, we'll need to come up with a new name) to march on Washington. There are surely enough of us to fill the Mall just as full as it was on Inauguration Day.
I second Desperado's link.
The problem is, it can ruin your breakfast, maybe your day.
The authors interviewed said that Obama could likely lead a populist revolt against Wall Street but isn't doing it.
They spoke of the bubble that DC exists in. People do bad things there, illegal, unethical things, and yet they don't get voted out.
It's infuriating and I have to stop thinking about it now. It's too disturbing and yet I have no power, no representation, to change it.
The sun's out and I'm going for a walk.
I don't know if you saw this, but listen to Bill Moyers' interview with Kevin Drum and David Corn. It may help you decide. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01082010/watch.html
Des,
They expect us to believe anything they say.
Frank Rich has an interesting take on all this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/opinion/10rich.html
After reading his commentary, I'm asking myself:
"Is it possible that Wall Street is more dangerous to the American people -- than anybody we are fighting.... all over the world"???
I haven't yet come to a firm conclusion... but in my mind.... right now.... it's at least a toss-up.