No Criminal Charges Against Spitzer

Post by **Linnea** » 11-07-2008 01:11 AM

Story here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6199417&page=1

Spitzer was 'dealt' with, it seems. Check out this Op Ed, the author and the date:

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008 - Washington Post

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02783.html

Bobbi Snow · Post by **Bobbi Snow** » 11-07-2008 03:06 AM

His enemies removed him from Office. Sometimes, pay-back is a bitch.

Panache · Post by **Panache** » 11-07-2008 03:25 AM

How do you derive the title "No Criminal Charges Against Spitzer" from the article below written before he was charged?

showthread.php?threadid=33103

Rombaldi · Post by **Rombaldi** » 11-07-2008 01:22 PM

Panache wrote: How do you derive the title "No Criminal Charges Against Spitzer" from the article below written before he was charged? [/url]

Oh, I dunno, maybe from the article Linn linked to???

Post by **Linnea** » 11-07-2008 01:52 PM

Well, Panache - how long did it take to 'get Spitzer' after his Op Ed appeared at WaPo? 25 days?

Blammo!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyreg ... itzer.html

An interesting aspect of the 'investigation' against Spitzer is that a lead from the prostituiton ring was not followed to Spitzer, but from his financial records. They were dredging his financial records...

Post by **Linnea** » 11-07-2008 01:55 PM

Also - I am more interested in evidence against bushco, at this point - and the criminal complicity in the 'financial meltdown' and 'bailout' - and how the 'housing bubble' was designed in the first place.

This housing bubble, I at first thought as it was ongoing, and encouraged by the action of the FED - was a strategy designed to make it appear the economy was healthy. Now we see there were strategies and plots within plots - the eventual crash(?) and the bailout with further billions of taxpayer monies, and the vast disappearing wealth of the middle class.

Another fascinating aspect to all this - Spitzer had to know they would take him down. Not everything is as it appears. So - stay tuned.

Psychicwolf · Post by **Psychicwolf** » 11-07-2008 02:04 PM

We went through the horrible impeachment process with Clinton because he couldn't manage his willie. I, personally, don't care if Spitzer visited a call girl, I didn't care about Monica. His business. Unless we get over this puritanical worldview we are never going to get gay marriage protection, etc. The government out of people's bedrooms, except for the exploitation of children and the vulnerable!
The president of France was elected, dumped his longtime wife, married his pop star mistress, and I don't see where France has fallen off the face of the earth.

Chickadee · Post by **Chickadee** » 11-07-2008 02:32 PM

Psychicwolf wrote: We went through the horrible impeachment process with Clinton because he couldn't manage his willie. I, personally, don't care if Spitzer visited a call girl, I didn't care about Monica. His business. Unless we get over this puritanical worldview we are never going to get gay marriage protection, etc. The government out of people's bedrooms, except for the exploitation of children and the vulnerable!
The president of France was elected, dumped his longtime wife, married his pop star mistress, and I don't see where France has fallen off the face of the earth.

My sentiments exactly! I voted for Spitzer and I wish he hadn't left office.

Sex. Who cares? Other than his wife and family. At least he wasn't having a full blown affair and love child and pretending to be a pure family man above reproach.

Who knows what drives a person to sex outside a marriage or committed relationship? But, it isn't like falling in love with someone else. Its just sex.

Post by **Linnea** » 11-07-2008 03:04 PM

The sex angle thing is always interesting, but hey! I am trying to jinn up some interest here in pursuing a conspiracy angle.

What ifs? Is it remotely possible this might be an elaborate sting operation? On the part of Spitzer and etc...

Post by **Linnea** » 11-07-2008 03:09 PM

What if? Spitzer just sat there the whole time with his socks on, and the entire operation was a set up for a sting operation? Spitzer being the bait and 'unnamed co-conspirators' set about whatever it is they 'do'.

And, yes. I enjoy intrigue and conspiracy theories. This one, is sort of just evolving here - in my mind. haha!

Chickadee · Post by **Chickadee** » 11-07-2008 03:10 PM

Ah, a sting. And what would be the goal of this elaborate sting? (Sounds like a great plot for a book.)

Post by **Linnea** » 11-07-2008 03:14 PM

To obtain evidence of criminal wrongdoings of bushco...and etc

Their modus operandi. What laws they may break in obtaining info and going after persons. What lengths they would go to advance various nefarious plottings and schemes.

Chickadee · Post by **Chickadee** » 11-07-2008 03:16 PM

Welll, I wouldn't put it past Spitzer. It is just the sort of action he might take. He enjoys taking people (organizations) down.

Post by **Linnea** » 11-07-2008 03:20 PM

Yah, I know. He has been a 'hero' to many in this regard. Not that he might not have been led aside by the vagaries of sexual kinkiness. But, you must admit - it does seem totally out of character for him. Also, for a seasoned investigator he left a blazing trail - did he not?

Chickadee · Post by **Chickadee** » 11-07-2008 03:43 PM

Linnea wrote: Yah, I know. He has been a 'hero' to many in this regard. Not that he might not have been led aside by the vagaries of sexual kinkiness. But, you must admit - it does seem totally out of character for him. Also, for a seasoned investigator he left a blazing trail - did he not?

True enough. The incident was so out of character and such a shock (I walk past their apartment several times a day every day of the week).