BofA boss: Bernanke and Paulson told me to cover up losses

posted at 12:55 pm on April 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

As Glenn Reynolds often says, the country’s in the best of hands.  Fed chief Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Bank of America’s CEO to keep his mouth shut about the massive losses Merrill Lynch was taking in order to get BofA’s purchase of ML.  Kenneth Lewis told New York AG Andrew Cuomo about the cover-up in a deposition:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. — a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA — according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank’s chief executive.

Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York’s attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.

Under normal circumstances, banks must alert their shareholders of any materially significant financial hits. But these weren’t normal times: Late last year, Wall Street was crumbling and BofA faced intense government pressure to buy Merrill to keep the crisis from spreading. Disclosing losses at Merrill — which eventually totaled $15.84 billion for the fourth quarter — could have given BofA’s shareholders an opportunity to stop the deal and let Merrill collapse instead.

“Isn’t that something that any shareholder at Bank of America…would want to know?” Mr. Lewis was asked by a representative of New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, according to the transcript.

“It wasn’t up to me,” Mr. Lewis said. The BofA chief said he was told by Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson that the deal needed to be completed, otherwise it would “impose a big risk to the financial system” of the U.S. as a whole.

In other words, Paulson and Bernanke demanded that Lewis put BofA shareholders at risk without their knowledge in order to supposedly fix the financial system.  Regulators exist to ensure that publicly traded corporations obey the law, and to protect stockholders from fraud.  In this case, the very people who ran the regulatory regime pressured a corporation to commit fraud.

If that seems upside-down to readers, well, welcome to Bailout Land.  We have the government demanding that Chrysler merge with Fiat, that GM fire its CEO, and refusing to accept a payback of loans they made to banks because then they will have no way to control their management.  What’s a $15 billion corporate fraud on stockholders in comparison?

This parallels the lack of accountability that continues to plague the Treasury’s crisis management.  When the Treasury Secretary can’t even do enough math to know what he has left in the TARP account, accountability has officially been declared dead.  Congress still has no clue where the initial $700 billion went, and even though Obama has issued his public regrets over the cluelessness at Treasury, nothing’s changed, either.

How many other stockholder frauds have Treasury and the Fed committed?

Update: Forgot to hat tip HA reader Geoff A.  Sorry!

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If this does not trigger a pile of lawsuits against Paulson, Bernanke and their bosses, then the nation’s millions of attorneys should turn in their licenses and find a new line of work.

Unbelievable.

james23 on April 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM

suicide? Car wreck? Are there odds on the mortalities of execs in Vegas yet?

daesleeper on April 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM

How in the world can we ever scrape all this scum off the walls of the government. Even when you get rid of some, others just take their places.

rplat on April 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM

How many other stockholder frauds have Treasury and the Fed committed?

If the over/under is more than 25, I’ll take the high side.

BacaDog on April 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I wonder what Immelt’s excuse was at GE. How many bought GE stock after he said they wouldn’t cut dividends only to turn around and cut them. GE will be sued. The question is whether BoA will also be sued and if the Fed and Treasury will be included in that.

genso on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

No wonder BofA charges me so many fees…

originalpechanga on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Be interesting to hear what Paulson & Bernanke have to say.

Not holding my breath, though.

cs89 on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Um, how is that not criminal?

BadgerHawk on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Assuming that Lewis is telling the truth, we now have(even more) government stooges directly contributing to the financial meltdown of a bank.

Why aren’t Dodd’s, Frank’s, Bernanke’s, and Paulson’s heads on pikes yet?

Vic on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

RE: “How many other stockholder frauds have Treasury and the Fed committed?”

Obama will soon sign an executive order or their is some small print in one of these bail out bills that says all Govt. employees involved in any of this are immune from prosecution or personal lawsuit.

albill on April 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM

How many other stockholder frauds have Treasury and the Fed committed?

If the over/under is more than 25, I’ll take the high side.

BacaDog on April 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I’ll take over 50.

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Um, how is that not criminal?

BadgerHawk on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

It was done by the government in the interests of creating Socialism. By definition (leftist, that is), it’s not criminal.

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Yet, they want to go after the waterboarding team?

I smell distraction.

Kini on April 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM

This needs to be investigated… REALLY INVESTIGATED.

We’re not talking about the definition of “is”.
We’re not talking about whether or not waterboarding constitutes “torture”
We’re talking about the willful violation of federal regulatory laws by the regulators themselves.

If it’s good enough for Enron, it’s good enough for the Treasury and congress.

Skywise on April 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM

ummm I’m speechless.

milwife88 on April 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM

What else are they doing? Who are they giving your money to? Call or write your Congressman and encourage them to co-sponsor HR 1207 (Audit the Federal Reserve)

popularpeoplesfront on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

It was done by the government in the interests of creating Socialism.

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

The socialist Bush administration?

YYZ on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Sounds like an illegal seizure of private property to me.

littleguy on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

I wonder how much Bernake & Paulson pay for people to taste their food & start their cars for them in the morning?

portlandon on April 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM

The socialist Bush administration?

YYZ on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

He put us on this path. Obama’s just pushing the accelerator.

lorien1973 on April 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Ken Lewis has been bagging on these guys ever since things started to go badly for B of A. Now we know why.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Class action suit by shareholders?

marklmail on April 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Does this mean the recession is an inside Job on the part of Democrats?

theguardianii on April 23, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I question the timing of this. It seems as if someone is trying to distract the masses away from the torture issue.

Or …. maybe … it’s the other way around?

Conservative_SAHM on April 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Lewis is about to be made personally responsible for the losses suffered by BofA shareholders. He broke the law, and he needs to pay.

unclesmrgol on April 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM

The socialist Bush administration?

YYZ on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Apparently, although I suspect Bush had nothing to do with this. We are talking about Titans of Finance here, and Titans don’t treat with lesser folk like the Government.

unclesmrgol on April 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Nice. I kinda feel bad for the bankers, even the ones who voted and funded Obama’s campaign. They were probably HOPING that Obama would bring a more rational approach to governing the economy than Bush did. But the harsh truth is that Obama has continued the worst of Bush’s economic tricks, and added to them.

hawksruleva on April 23, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Ken Lewis has been bagging on these guys ever since things started to go badly for B of A. Now we know why.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Unlike Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, Bank of America has not been an incestuous breeding ground for aspiring Treasury secretaries. Say what you want about Ken Lewis, he has made his own way from a very modest upbringing and he has an ego to match any of those feds bossing him around. I don’t think he’s just going to take all this crap sitting down.

BigD on April 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Just remember. Fannie and Freddie are not under sarbanes Oxley disclosure Regs. If the Feds using bailout money over take BAC, they also are no longer under Sarbanes oxley discloaure regs. With obama firing the chief at GM. They are also no longer under corporation governance rules.
Remember ChavezHussein writes rules as he goes.
All in the name of transparency.

seven on April 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Why aren’t Dodd’s, Frank’s, Bernanke’s, and Paulson’s heads on pikes yet?

Vic on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

I agree. This stuns me. The media may crucify Paulson because he’s associated with Bush, but Bennancke will get a pass because he’s in Obama’s administration. Dodd’s getting some very reluctant negative coverage, but even now Obama is starting to put some shine on him, so the media will lay off. Frank is bulletproof because he’s gay–to the media, he has absolute moral authority.

I suppose it’s one thing for the media to roll over and play dead on foreign policy, national security, and whatever else. But you’d think money matters would prompt them to take an objective stance and start going after the true sources of our economic problems. Sadly, most can’t find an economic conflict of interest with Dodd or Frank under threat of execution.

BuckeyeSam on April 23, 2009 at 1:24 PM

If it’s true, this story doesn’t surprise me in the least – there is no way the regulators would let Merrill Lynch fail after seeing the absolute chaos that the Lehman failure caused.

What’s insane, though, is that they basically setup B of A (and its shareholders) as patsies to do it. What would have been more honest and transparent would have been for the gov’t to take over Merrill, shoulder the losses and then sell it in a few years, with profits going to the Treasury. They knew, though, that with their record of hamfisted decision making with AIG and Lehman, there’s no way they could have defended that move.

furytrader on April 23, 2009 at 1:27 PM

How many other stockholder frauds have Treasury and the Fed committed?

WashJeff on April 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM

one of BofA’s biggest share holders was one of Bushes top fundraisers, wonder whats going on behind the scenes

jp on April 23, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Get ready for endless congressional hearings on “torture.”

No way we will see hearings on this, unless they find a way to blame it on Bush.

-Dave

Dave R. on April 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

The socialist Bush administration?

YYZ on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

As a matter of fact, yes (or if you prefer the boss’ terminology, “pre-Socialization”).

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM

It was done by the government in the interests of creating Socialism.

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM

The socialist Bush administration?

YYZ on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

The timeline is a little fuzzy, and I’d like to know exactly when in this acquisition this pressuring took place, but my *guess* is that it happened later in the process mentioned here

The source said that after BofA and Merrill announced their merger deal last fall, Merrill’s financial health continued to deteriorate. In mid-December, BofA executives met with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and asked him for assurances that if the bank needed additional TARP capital because of the Merrill merger, Treasury would provide it. Otherwise, the executives told Paulson, BofA would cancel the Merrill acquisition. The source said Paulson agreed to the request.

at which point someone in the Obama administration must have been appraised of what was going on.

Mr. Bingley on April 23, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Fraud is illegal.

Which government lawyers encouraged this illegal behavior?

We need their names, so we can prosecute them.

Who wrote the “it’s okay to commit fraud” memo?

That person should be put on trial as soon as Republicans recapture the government.

daryl_herbert on April 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

lorien1973 on April 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Comment of the Day™ (BTW, Obama and the Spendocrats not only have stomped on the accelerator, but they’ve also turned on the nitrous).

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

The socialist Bush administration?

YYZ on April 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM

He put us on this path. Obama’s just pushing the accelerator.

lorien1973 on April 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM

90 MPH off the cliff is much better than 40 MPH don’t you think?

kirkill on April 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

He put us on this path. Obama’s just pushing the accelerator.

lorien1973 on April 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM

I don’t think Bush intended to put us on the path of socialism. Then again, he did say if it would save the country to move away from capitalism than he’d do it.

I have more personal animosity for John “Maverick” McCain who stopped the Republicans in congress from blocking this monstrosity.

Skywise on April 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Apparently, although I suspect Bush had nothing to do with this. We are talking about Titans of Finance here, and Titans don’t treat with lesser folk like the Government.

unclesmrgol on April 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I hate to break it to you, but Bush adopted the “destroy the village to ‘save’ it” approach.

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Check out this headline from finance.yahoo.com:

Cuomo questions TARP, pressure on BofA’s Lewis

Blame the executive. Protect the politicians.

WashJeff on April 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM

90 MPH off the cliff is much better than 40 MPH don’t you think?

kirkill on April 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM

It’s actually terminal velocity.

steveegg on April 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM

“When the Treasury Secretary can’t even do enough math to know what he has left in the TARP account,”

Well, if Congress had been doing their job by putting pressure on Obama to actually get Geithner some appointed deputies at Treasury, rather than let Obama run it from some back room at the White House using unaccountable private advisers, then maybe Geithner could have had the math done.

Put this in the basket with all the other reasons to consider reconstructing the original relationship between the states and the federal government defined by the Constitution. In this case here, NYS is doing the work that Congress won’t do.

Dusty on April 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Well, if Congress had been doing their job…

Dusty on April 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mr. Bingley on April 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM

He put us on this path. Obama’s just pushing the accelerator.

lorien1973 on April 23, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Obama is a farce multiplier.

Immolate on April 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM

[WashJeff on April 23, 2009 at 1:35 PM]

Yeah, and Reuters feeds us one of the most laughable generic denials at the end of the story that I’ve seen in a while:

A government source said on Thursday the Federal Reserve gave no advice to Bank of America or Lewis on any questions of disclosure.

Yeah, right.

Dusty on April 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Bush, whatever his legacy is in Iraq and the GWOT, and though those may be good, might go down as one of the worst economic presidents ever for beginning this road down to hell

Defector01 on April 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Unlike Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, Bank of America has not been an incestuous breeding ground for aspiring Treasury secretaries. Say what you want about Ken Lewis, he has made his own way from a very modest upbringing and he has an ego to match any of those feds bossing him around. I don’t think he’s just going to take all this crap sitting down.

BigD on April 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Yep. I used to work for B of A and while Lewis is very aggressive, he’s not reckless in the least. During my time there, they acquired FleetBoston and they were exceedingly careful throughout the transaction. It was obvious from the get-go that the Merrill acquisition was a shotgun wedding.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Can’t argue that, Defector

Mr. Bingley on April 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I think at this point, Bush needs to step out and say something. Or didn’t the buck stop at his desk for his treasury secretary?

Republican, Democrat… it doesn’t matter. They’re all completely inept and corrupt.

535 vacancies in Washington or bust!

beatcanvas on April 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Bush, whatever his legacy is in Iraq and the GWOT, and though those may be good, might go down as one of the worst economic presidents ever for beginning this road down to hell

Defector01 on April 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Only if Obama doesn’t break things worse… which he’s well on his way to taking full ownership

Skywise on April 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM

The question is whether BoA will also be sued and if the Fed and Treasury will be included in that.

genso on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Obama will soon sign an executive order or their is some small print in one of these bail out bills that says all Govt. employees involved in any of this are immune from prosecution or personal lawsuit.

albill on April 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM

The US government has sovereign immunity from lawsuits without its consent. This covers all officials acting within their authority (i.e., doing their jobs).

A 20 year old case on this point just came out of the Ninth Circuit yesterday, and it favored the government. This from the most liberal circuit in the federal system.

No shareholder lawsuits if the government owns voting shares. No “insider trading” lawsuits if the government owns voting shares.

For the first time since Dred Scott v Sandford, aggrieved litigants are denied a remedy AND a forum.

This is why the Second Amendment was needed – to create a last resort remedy.

Lock and load – this is gonna get messy.

platypus on April 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Cripes, if this is true then Bernanke and Paulson should be facing civil suit from the SEC, if not criminal charges. By preventing investors’ due diligence, it strike at the heart of the entire market system.

irishspy on April 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM

[Mr. Bingley on April 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM]

Yeah, I feel like a kindergartner pointing out the obvious … “Daddy, why is there a Congress?”

Dusty on April 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM

It was obvious from the get-go that the Merrill acquisition was a shotgun wedding.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Yep, it was known at the time of the deal that BofA didn’t want to buy Merrill but they were being bribed/pressured into it by the Government Sachs team calling all the shots.

econavenger on April 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Yep. I used to work for B of A and while Lewis is very aggressive, he’s not reckless in the least. During my time there, they acquired FleetBoston and they were exceedingly careful throughout the transaction. It was obvious from the get-go that the Merrill acquisition was a shotgun wedding.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I was working for MBNA when BofA acquired it. We all know how ambitious Lewis was about growing the bank, but I look at the Merrill thing as more or less helping the government out of a pinch by absorbing some of the toxic assets in a way that was, at least long term, consistent with his original growth strategy. I don’t want to be naive, but there was at least a credible story. And accepting the TARP money could have been part of it.

BigD on April 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Yep. I used to work for B of A and while Lewis is very aggressive, he’s not reckless in the least. During my time there, they acquired FleetBoston and they were exceedingly careful throughout the transaction. It was obvious from the get-go that the Merrill acquisition was a shotgun wedding.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM

By December it was, but in September Lewis could have waited 48 hours and MER’s price would have been halved–at least. The time for Lewis to negotiate with Paulson was in September, hopefully getting a deal like Jamie Dimon got.

Paulson likely made unofficial assurances to Lewis in order for the deal to go through. Had BofA walked away in December, MER would have immediately collapsed with results for the broader economy about as bad as LEH a few months earlier.

dedalus on April 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM

If this does not trigger a pile of lawsuits against Paulson, Bernanke and their bosses, then the nation’s millions of attorneys should turn in their licenses and find a new line of work.
james23 on April 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM

I don’t understand why Chase and the other banks that refused TARP money upfront, but were told to take it or else, have not already sued. We can only hope that something legal is in the works, I personally hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and they tell the Feds to stick it.

Susanboo on April 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM

The time for Lewis to negotiate with Paulson was in September, hopefully getting a deal like Jamie Dimon got.

Paulson likely made unofficial assurances to Lewis in order for the deal to go through. Had BofA walked away in December, MER would have immediately collapsed with results for the broader economy about as bad as LEH a few months earlier.

dedalus on April 23, 2009 at 1:58 PM

That might be true, but the whole transaction seemed out of character for B of A generally and Lewis personally. There’s a lot more to this story than we know now.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM

There’s a lot more to this story than we know now.

Mr. D on April 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I recall people in September saying when the MER deal was announced “What’s he doing?” MER might have been worth pennies in a few days. Lewis got a couple questions about it at the press conference with Thain.

You are probably right about there being more to the story. Looking at the BAC shares (especially preferreds) I think they are attractive since the government would be especially cautious about actions that further damaged BAC shareholders.

dedalus on April 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM

why is this a surprise to anyone? They forced Wells Fargo to take TARP money even though they didn’t want it.

youngO on April 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Be interesting to hear what Paulson & Bernanke have to say.

Not holding my breath, though.

cs89 on April 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

According to NY AG Cuomo’s letter to regulators, Hank Paulson has essentially admitted what Lewis has said is true. Cuomo’s letter is simply astonishing.

Bank of America’s attempt to exit the merger came to a halt on December 21, 2008. That day, Lewis informed Secretary Paulson that Bank of America still wanted to exit the merger agreement. According to Lewis, Secretary Paulson then advised Lewis that, if Bank of America invoked the MAC, its management and Board would be replaced

Did everyone get that? Paulson not only told Lewis and the Board to keep silent, he threatened to have them replaced if they backed out of the Merrill Lynch deal by relying on a MAC clause (Materially Adverse Change). The MAC was billions in additional losses booked after the agreement was signed. And instead of doing the honest and ethical thing, Lewis and the Board caved and went through with the Merrill deal and they did so in silence to save their tails at the expense of shareholders–shareholders they were legally obligated to protect. I smell a class action lawsuit. And there ought to be criminal investigations. This country and many of its institutions are being run by gangsters!

It past time to stop the looting and start the prosecuting!

flyfisher on April 23, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Are they going to be indicted? Will the banksters be held accountable for the fraud they have perpetrated against their fellow countrymen? Will Bush/Obama be held accountable for their facilitation of this high crime?

Jefferson was all too prophetic about central banks. And the sheeple keep on making it easy for them.

True_King on April 23, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Ed: Don’t start playing Guess The Party with us. Everyone who reads this should know you’re talking about Bush-era actions, so why tip-toe around that fact?

calbear on April 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM

So, in other words, the government as asking Lewis to do the same thing that they sent Jeff Skilling to prison for?

CTD on April 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM

So what is Geithner’s role in all of this? Wasn’t he head of the NY Fed at the time? Does he know where all of the bodies are buried? Is that why he was the only one supposedly “fit” to be Treasury Secretary?

Am I missing something in this complex issue, or am I hopelessly confused by it all?

onlineanalyst on April 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM

We just demand criminal charges be brought up on everyone involved! And for any libs out there, that includes Bernanke, the Bush Appointee. This is not about parties, it is about RIGHT ANDN WRONG!

jeffn21 on April 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM

We just demand criminal charges be brought up on everyone involved! And for any libs out there, that includes Bernanke, the Bush Appointee. This is not about parties, it is about RIGHT ANDN WRONG!

jeffn21 on April 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Absolutely! We’ve got to drain the swamp.

flyfisher on April 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM

How many other stockholder frauds have Treasury and the Fed committed?

Washington Mutual is suing the feds for claiming that they significantly undervalued the value of the company in the forced sale to Chase, hitting up the WaMu shareholders in a big way.

The feds tried to force Wachovia to go to Citibank instead of taking the far higher bid from Wells Fargo. Weeks later, Citibank turned out to be a nuclear wasteland of toxic paper and needed a bailout of its own.

The feds have repeatedly tried to affect market outcomes by determining winners and losers, and each time they keep making the wrong choices.

For that matter, they shouldn’t be making the choices at all.

lawhawk on April 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Ed: Don’t start playing Guess The Party with us. Everyone who reads this should know you’re talking about Bush-era actions, so why tip-toe around that fact?

calbear on April 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM

I am annoyed by this too, Ed. Similarly, you are always talking about Obama without putting the (D) after his name.

/sarc off

What is the point of mentioning parties if EVERYBODY knows the parties involved. Also, neither Hank or Ben represent political parties in the legislature, so I don’t really get what you are getting at…

Joe Caps on April 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Neither Treasury or Congress has had ‘a clue’ for some time now.

GarandFan on April 23, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Am I getting this straight?

On the one hand we are supposed to be prosecuting lawyers for the legal opinions they gave the Executive as to how the fight a war. But Treasury officials who are complicit in a fraud…on shareholders and taxpayers among others…are squeaky clean members of the most ethical administration ever?

Is that it?

Blaise on April 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM

torch ———– check
pitchfork —— check
angry mob — ?

darktood on April 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM

I am still fuming!!! And it has been an hour since I read this!

Everyday I tell myself not to go here, Drudge and a few other sites, but I do it anyways and end up PO’d! When will I learn?

jeffn21 on April 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM

What is the point of mentioning parties if EVERYBODY knows the parties involved. Also, neither Hank or Ben represent political parties in the legislature, so I don’t really get what you are getting at…

I said everyone should know, but it’s clear that not everyone does (see, e.g., the comment at 3:58 PM). Paulson was appointed by Bush, so he shouldn’t be disassociated with that administration by leaving out words like “Bush” and “Republican.”

calbear on April 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM

torch ———– check
pitchfork —— check
angry mob — ?

darktood on April 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Sign me up.

My mom works at BofA and has been a loyal worker there for years. Everything: her pension, her job, everything is at stake. Now I know why.

If I were the CEO of BofA when the feds told me to buy Merrill Lynch I would’ve told them this: “No. You could not pay me, my shareholders, and the board enough to do it. Fine me into bankruptcy for all I care but I’m not buying Merill Lynch.”
I am still fuming!!! And it has been an hour since I read this!

Everyday I tell myself not to go here, Drudge and a few other sites, but I do it anyways and end up PO’d! When will I learn?

jeffn21 on April 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM

It’s the truth I’m afraid. And if it makes you mad, at least you know it.

Chaz706 on April 23, 2009 at 4:34 PM

If this does not trigger a pile of lawsuits against Paulson, Bernanke and their bosses, then the nation’s millions of attorneys should turn in their licenses and find a new line of work.

Unbelievable.

james23 on April 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM

The nations lawyers are to busy going after landscape contractors for cutting roots of oak trees.

nolapol on April 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM

BTW: who’s in charge of the SEC? If he was involved he should resign and face criminal charges. If he wasn’t involved, he should press charges or resign.

Chaz706 on April 23, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Well, if Congress had been doing their job…

Dusty on April 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Their job is nothing more than to get re-elected again and again.

ddrintn on April 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Why would he keep this a secret? Any media outlet would have loved to use it as another way to stick it to W. This is crazy.

Cindy Munford on April 23, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Just more evidence that the Federal Reserve is a contiuing criminal enterprise that should be abolished.

How much more grand theft do the taxpayers have to put up from the Federal Reserve.

ScottyDog on April 23, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Sign me up.

My mom works at BofA and has been a loyal worker there for years. Everything: her pension, her job, everything is at stake. Now I know why.

If I were the CEO of BofA when the feds told me to buy Merrill Lynch I would’ve told them this: “No. You could not pay me, my shareholders, and the board enough to do it. Fine me into bankruptcy for all I care but I’m not buying Merill Lynch.”

Chaz706 on April 23, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Hehe My mom works for BofA too. except she was working for Countrywide. She is happy to be at BofA.

So would it be possible to reorg BofA and have a spinoff company that basically has the TARP funds, and the TARP liabilities? I would try it and then go straight to the media simply speaking the truth, that the Fed Govt will ot allow us to run our business, and say something like isn’t that socialism? I thought this was America. The CEO should truly call out Obama, Bernanke, Paulson, and Pelosi.

jeffn21 on April 23, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Yes, but thank God we now have transparency galore…oodles and gobs of the stuff I tell ya!

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 23, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Will the same trite “This was on Bush’s watch, not mine-I have to clean up his messes!” line be trotted out again?

Doug on April 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM