Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Articles of Impeachment? Bear Stearns Buyout Illegal?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 07:05 PM
Original message
Articles of Impeachment? Bear Stearns Buyout Illegal?
Posted in whole with permission from the author:


Sunday, March 23, 2008
Articles of Impeachment? Bear Stearns Buyout Illegal?

"On or about March 16th, 2008, George W. Bush, both personally and through his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, caused to be provided to JP Morgan/Chase a bribe(1) ultimately flowing from the United States Treasury in an amount not to exceed $30 billion dollars US, via The Federal Reserve, in order to induce JP Morgan/Chase to assume the liabilities and assets of Bear Stearns and Company at a price not determined in the free market or via public bidding, in violation of the limitations expressly set forth in The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 12 USC Ch 6."

(1) Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty.

I have spent a solid week both reading The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and thinking about the circumstances of this transaction trying to find a means under which "backstopping" Bear Stearns debt via The Federal Reserve is legally permissible.

Despite my best efforts I can't find explicit or implicit authorization for "a put", as differentiated from a loan, anywhere in The Federal Reserve Act. You can call something whatever you'd like but if in point of fact there is no recourse then it is not a "loan" at all; it is a "PUT" or a "conditional payment", and under The Federal Reserve Act such an action appears to these eyes to be a direct violation of the law.

It is widely reported that both Hank Paulson and George Bush personally "signed off on" The Bear Stearns "bailout" last Sunday. As such their direct and indirect actions, in my view, constitute a "High Crime and Misdemeanor" within the meaning of the United States Constitution and therefore subject George W. Bush to impeachment proceedings as proposed in the above sample article for same.

By the way, I'm not the only one who thinks this is an illegal transaction. John Hussman, of The Hussman Funds, has this to say in a letter with a publication date of tomorrow, March 24th:

"In my view, the deal would be palatable if J.P. Morgan was to remain fully responsible for any losses on the 'collateral' provided to the Federal Reserve, assuming shareholders were to consent to the buyout. As it stands, Congress should quickly step in to bust the existing deal and demand an alternate resolution, by clearly insisting that the Fed's action was not legal.

The Fed did not act to save a bank, but to enrich one. Congress has the power to appropriate resources for such a deal by the representative will of the people – the Fed does not, even under Depression era banking laws. The 'loan' falls outside of Section 13-3 of the Federal Reserve Act, because it is not in fact a loan to either Bear Stearns or J.P. Morgan. Bear Stearns is no longer a business entity under this agreement. And if the fiction that this is a 'loan' to J.P. Morgan was true, then the only point at which the 'collateral' would become an issue would be in the event that J.P. Morgan itself was to fail. No, this is not a loan. It is a put option granted by the Fed to J.P. Morgan on a basket of toxic securities. And it is not legal."

Finally, it appears that even the SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox, isn't sure that Bear was "done"; that is, this entire transaction might smell like dead fish:

"In what is likely to be a bit of a blockbuster, SEC charman Christopher Cox sent a letter to Swiss regulators indicating the Bear Stearns (NYSE:BSC) did not have to go the way of all flesh. According to The New York Post "the fate of Bear Stearns was a lack of confidence, not a lack of capital," Cox, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, wrote in a five-page letter sent to a Swiss regulator.""

So there you have it.

Now, the question is, do our Congressfolk have the necessary will to stop this raiding of the public treasury for the enrichment of a private firm - if necessary, by bringing the above article of impeachment?

If you think they should, then I have a solution for you.

SIGN THE PETITION
http://financialpetition.org/petition-impeach.shtml

to Congress for the purpose of raising debate on this exact issue and stop the mockery of our legal and regulatory systems.

PS: I'm a lifelong registered Republican, voted for George W. Bush twice, and have one of Gingrich's "Speaker's Gavels" on the credenza behind my desk, so before you go accusing me of being a "leftwing nutjob", think again. Nonetheless, what's right is right and I must stand for what's just, and when the political party I am a member of does something wrong, they must admit to it and face the consequences. Sorry Mr. President; I like you a great deal, but what happened here was, in my opinion, blatantly unlawful.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/2008/03/articles-of-impeachment-bear-stearns.html


DU'rs - PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO SIGN THE PETITION IN THE LINK ABOVE.

THIS IS ILLEGAL AND TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR PIGMEN BANSKTER GREED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is An Issue Even Republicans Would Get on Board with
signed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. As evidenced in K Denniger's "P.S"
Edited on Sun Mar-23-08 07:29 PM by utopiansecretagent
He is a Repuke (sorry KD!), but as you say this is something BOTH sides can agree on.

He has posted this on his website (which I frequent for financial/economy news/tips) which consists of posters both conservative and liberal. Right away one of Repukes there requested someone to post in on DU, and I obliged.

I am going to keep kicking this until it starts to get the attention it deserves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. PJ O'Rourke was on Bill Maher's Expressing Anger at the Government for Bailing Out Corporations
Edited on Sun Mar-23-08 07:32 PM by fascisthunter
and private financial institutions. Case and Point...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. Someone else has spotted the illegalities, also:
The dirty little secret about the BSC deal-

Why is Bear Stearns Trading at $6 Instead of $2?

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.

SNIP

Bear Stearns is trading at $6 instead of $2 because unelected bureaucrats went beyond their legal mandates, delivered a windfall to a single private company at public expense, entered agreements that violate the the public trust, and created a situation where even if the bureaucratic malfeasance stands, the shareholders of Bear Stearns will either reject the deal or be deprived of their right to determine the fate of the company they own. Very simply, Bear Stearns is still in play. Still, when all is said and done, my own impression is that the ultimate value of the stock will not be $2, but exactly zero.

In effect, the Federal Reserve decided last week to overstep its legal boundaries – going beyond providing liquidity to the banking system and attempting to ensure the solvency of a non-bank entity. Specifically, the Fed agreed to provide a $30 billion “non-recourse loan” to J.P. Morgan, secured only by the worst tranche of Bear Stearns' mortgage debt. But the bank – J.P. Morgan – was in no financial trouble. Instead, it was effectively offered a subsidy by the Fed at public expense. Rick Santelli of CNBC is exactly right. If this is how the U.S. government is going to operate in a democratic, free-market society, “we might as well put a hammer and sickle on the flag.”

SNIP


full article:http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc080324.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. to the greatest page with yee!
argh! :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R
...

By bailing out Bear Stearns and giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the other big banks through the Term Auction Facility program and rate cuts, the Federal Reserve is monetizing private sector debt. In other words, it is dealing with the huge debt problem by adding to the money supply—and thus further exacerbating inflation.

Every rise in inflation is a wage cut for workers, as their take-home pay loses its purchasing power. Federal Reserve Chair Benjamin Bernanke is showering money down on the banks in a frantic effort to stop the financial contagion from spreading, and is intensifying the attacks on the working class in the process.

But even Bernanke knows there are limits to how much worthless collateral the Fed can take onto its books at one time. Bear Stearns was the first to experience a bank run, but it is unlikely to be the last. Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, and a host of other large U.S. banks are in similar predicaments.

...

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/bear_stearns_0327/">LINK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guruoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. This guy's really a legit, hard core free market conservative....
Edited on Sun Mar-23-08 08:51 PM by guruoo
and Huckabee supporter: http://www.denninger.net/

Be sure and read his letter to Bush reg the mortgage crisis:
http://www.denninger.net/letters/president-financial.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. I think you have a great case for removing Ben Bernanke
George .... I'm not so sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. YES Go after all fuckers involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
12. This guy is a bush lover.
One of the 19% who approve of the criminal in charge. Some quotes from his letter to the bush.

"I spend my time writing to you here because you, standing among few other Presidents in history, have had the courage to go against that grain."

He just loves the bush and his privatization schemes.

"But you also displayed this fortitude in your proposal for privatization of Social Security."

But all the bad economic numbers are Clinton's fault.

"The consequence of willful ignorance by the Clinton Administration of outright fraud in the financial markets – projections of profits that could never come, as they relied on Ponzi-scheme-like growth rates – led to the 2000 tech crash."

And death will come to us all if a Democratic President is elected.

"Republicans will lose even more seats in the House and Senate, and Hillary Clinton, despite having the highest “negatives” among the nation as a whole, will become President of the United States. The end result of this will be a total unwinding of our favorable tax policy – policies that you helped put in place. Health care will become fully nationalized. The dollar will be utterly debased and destroyed, oil will be priced in Euros, the stock market will plunge to well below its 2003 lows, and our economy will be decimated. Bills are already being filed, as you know, to implement some of these tax increases, and the election hasn’t even been held yet!"

The guy is a nut case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Tell it
Why anybody here is giving him the time of day is beyond me. He thinks this is the Clenis's fault and admires Bush**. Another blinkered Repub who'll never look in the mirror for fear of what he'll find staring back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdenninger Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. If you're blinded by hatred.....
... you accomplish nothing.

Do you stand on principle or do you hate people?

I see two responses above in the latter category.

I stand on principle. In this case I believe the law was broken, its quite clear and convincing, and The President was involved both directly and indirectly.

Clinton's administration willfully ignored the blatant fraud in the Internet space (I ran a company in that space) yet his administration, while aware of it, willfully looked the other way.

There is a difference. I did not call for Clinton's impeachment on that account as there is a difference between willful ignorance and active complicity.

If you will not sign the petition because the author (me) is in fact a registered Republican, that's your choice.

If you'd sit back and think a bit you might come to the conclusion that the fact that a Registered Republican would author and SEND such a petition is more than a slightly-seminal event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-24-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I'm not blind
And I don't work with them either.

Others may be impressed by your presence here, but don't look for a warm welcome from me. I'm offended by your presence, the way you strut in and expect help. I read your website. You think this is the first time your president has acted illegally, probably only because you've figured out that it will affect you. You still have no idea what you and people like you have done to this country.

I'm not interested in changing your mind. That will come with time, in the quiet of your own conscience if you have one.

I won't extend my hand in friendship to the sort of person you are. I'm just here to tell you, this "bleeding heart" is cold to you. Don't shit on me and then expect my help when it matters to YOU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-25-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Go soak your head in a tub of icewater.
Edited on Tue Mar-25-08 06:23 PM by utopiansecretagent
"Don't shit on me and then expect my help when it matters to YOU."

The only one I see doing any shitting is you. Don't wanna sign? Then don't.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when dismissing this petition with Denniger's personal politics. He's not arguing politics or trolling here - I posted the thread, and invited him to check it out.

You're the one arguing politics and trolling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-25-08 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. How mature!
FYI I didn't accuse him of trolling, and his politics are there for all to see. I have a perfect right to be offended and tell him so. If you don't like it, too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
18. kick. n/t
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
20. Does it matter how many articles of impeachment
are introduced, how many signatures any petition gets, how many phone calls we make, letters we write, pressure we bring to bear, as long as Pelosi is deciding what's "on the table?"

Golub in '08. Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC