IMPEACH TRUMP RUMORS - DIRTY DEMOCRAT POLITRICKS

IMPEACH TRUMP RUMORS - DIRTY DEMOCRAT POLITRICKS:

OBAMA & DEM LEADERS WANT TRUMP IMPEACHED.

THEY'RE WORKING BEHIND SCENES WITH SOROS TO DISCREDIT TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION.

PRAY FOR TRUMP TO SUCCEED NOT FAIL.


Sources: Fox News, NBC, Radar Online, National Enquirer, YouTube


****** Nancy Pelosi cools Trump impeachment


Impeach fever: “When and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that will come up”
Democrats in Congress are under immense pressure to resist President Donald Trump at every turn, with a historic 40 percent of Americans already clamoring for the new president to be impeached. But the top Democrat in the House, Nancy Pelosi, is ruling out the extreme measure — at least for now.

At a Monday news conference with the top Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee, the California Democrat took steps to distance the party’s leadership from the comments of a fellow Democratic congresswoman: Maxine Waters of Los Angeles. On Friday Waters had said it was her “greatest desire” to lead Trump “right into impeachment.”

On Monday, Waters clarified her comments without backing down. “I have not called for the impeachment yet,” Waters said. “He’s doing it himself.”

She further explained: “Let me just say the statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas that I am getting from many citizens across this country: What are we going to do?”:

How can a president, who is acting in the manner that he’s acting, whether he’s talking about the travel ban, the way that he’s talking to Muslims or whether he’s talking about his relationship to Putin and the Kremlin — and knowing that they have hacked our [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], DNC and knowing that he is responsible for supplying the bombs that killed innocent children and families in, um – in, um – yeah, in Aleppo.

Waters continued:

And the fact that he is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Crimea — I think that he is leading himself into that kind of position where folks will begin to ask, what are we going to do? And the answer is going to be, eventually, we’ve got to do something about him. We cannot continue to have a president who’s acting in this manner. It’s dangerous to the United States of America.

Trump may dismiss the concerns of Waters’ California constituents as being just as “illegal” as their votes, the desire to push him out of office is hardly a fringe notion.

More than a third of the country wishes to see the president impeached, according to a national poll released late last week. This 40 percent of Americans who said they want to see Trump removed from office is greater than the 35 percent desiring to see him go a week prior to this.

to the inauguration, freshman Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, said in an interview that he expected Trump to head down the impeachment path.

“But I would say if you were taking odds, this president appears to be on a course in which he is going to be engaged in a lot of impeachable activities,” Raskin said.

In the two weeks since Trump’s inauguration, Democrats have struggled to contend with the Republican president and Congress while satisfying a swelling demand from their progressive base to resist Trump’s actions in total.

Pelosi made clear on Monday that, despite the newly elected president’s “reckless” and seemingly unpopular actions during his first weeks in office, they are “not grounds” for impeachment. “I’m not here to talk about impeachment today,” she told the gathered reporters shortly after Waters made her comments. “Any of the things that the congresswoman said are grounds for displeasure and unease in the public about the performance of this president, who has acted in a way that is strategically incoherent, that is incompetent, that is reckless.” But, Pelosi added, “That is not grounds for impeachment.”

Pelosi continued, “When and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up.” Of course, since they are outnumbered by Republicans in both the House and Senate, Democrats would have an uphill battle if they sought to impeach Trump.

The House minority leader’s comments came after a Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in which she indicated Democrats won’t try to blindly obstruct the Trump administration in the way Republicans did to former president Barack Obama.

“If we can talk about job creation and infrastructure legislation, that’s a real infrastructure bill and not a tax break for his rich friends, then there’s something we can talk about,” she said. “If we can talk about work and family balance, about child care and early childhood education, paid sick leave,” let’s see where that takes things.

Congressional Black Caucus Launches Jobs Tour! "Tea Party Can Go Straight To Hell!"

Black Congressional Caucus' "Jobs Initiative"

Miami, Florida
August 22-23
Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, Host
Job Fair – James L. Knight Center, Downtown Miami
400 SE 2nd Avenue # 3, Miami, FL 33131-2116
Town Hall – Mount Herman AME Church
17800 Northwest 25th Avenue
Miami Gardens, FL 33056-3656
Town Hall: August 22, 6:00pm -8:00pm
Job Fair: August 23, 9:00am – 5:30pm

Los Angeles, California
August 30-31
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Host
Crenshaw Christian Center
West 7901 S. Vermont Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90044
Town Hall: August 30, 6:00pm -8:00pm
Job Fair: August 31, 9:00am – 5:00pm




Black Caucus brings jobs focus to Miami

On Monday, Miami is the focus of two days of Congressional Black Caucus attention on a now-familiar subject: the jobs deficit in the African-American community.

Miami is the fourth stop on the Congressional Black Caucus "For the People" Jobs Initiative, which includes a series of town halls and job fairs in five U.S. cities. Previous stops in Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan and Atlanta, Georgia have attracted thousands of job seekers, along with sometimes anxious town hall crowds.

Miami's town hall, which takes place at 6 p.m. at Mount Herman AME Church in Miami Gardens, was set to include several Caucus members, along with Don Graves, the Executive Director of the White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall will moderate.

Miami's event is a two-day affair, with a job fair planned for Tuesday, at the James L. Knight Center downtown.

Previous town halls have featured some tough rhetoric from CBC members, particularly California Rep. Maxine Waters, who in Detroit said black America could "unleash" the caucus to get tougher with the president. The rhetoric was less fiery at the Atlanta town hall, but Miami faces a tough job market, particularly for African-Americans.

Miami-Dade County's unemployment rate stood at 13 percent July, nearly three points higher than the statewide unemployment rate. And the jobless rate in predominantly black neighborhoods like Liberty City, Miami Gardens and Little Haiti are estimated to be significantly higher.


View Larger Map

Sources: Congressional Black Caucus, Youtube, Google Maps

A "Market For Ni$$as"! Very Disturbing! (Video)

I don't plan to spend all of my Energy defending Maxine Waters & Charlie Rangel.
They have served a combined 60 years in Congress & can both Gracefully Retire as Millionaires.
What about You??
While we're Fighting over Petty Stuff, there is a Growing "Market For Ni$$as" that's destroying Generations X & Y!
Why don't we speak out about this Important Crisis??
Peace

Check out the "Market For Ni$$as" video below.




Sources: Talaam Acey, Youtube

Congressional Black Caucus Members Bought & Paid For? I'm Disappointed

Black Congressional Caucus, A Fund-Raising Powerhouse



When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.

Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million town house.

Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.)

The caucus says its nonprofit groups are intended to help disadvantaged African-Americans by providing scholarships and internships to students, researching policy and holding seminars on topics like healthy living.

But the bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.

In 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation spent more on the caterer for its signature legislative dinner and conference — nearly $700,000 for an event one organizer called “Hollywood on the Potomac” — than it gave out in scholarships, federal tax records show.



At the galas, lobbyists and executives who give to caucus charities get to mingle with lawmakers. They also get seats on committees the caucus has set up to help members of Congress decide what positions to take on the issues of the day. Indeed, the nonprofit groups and the political wing are so deeply connected it is sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Even as it has used its status as a civil rights organization to become a fund-raising power in Washington, the caucus has had to fend off criticism of ties to companies whose business is seen by some as detrimental to its black constituents.

These include cigarette companies, Internet poker operators, beer brewers and the rent-to-own industry, which has become a particular focus of consumer advocates for its practice of charging high monthly fees for appliances, televisions and computers.

Caucus leaders said the giving had not influenced them.

“We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”

But many campaign finance experts question the unusual structure.

“The claim that this is a truly philanthropic motive is bogus — it’s beyond credulity,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, a nonpartisan group that monitors campaign finance and ethics issues. “Members of Congress should not be allowed to have these links. They provide another pocket, and a very deep pocket, for special-interest money that is intended to benefit and influence officeholders.”

Not all caucus members support the donors’ goals, and some issues, like a debate last year over whether to ban menthol cigarettes, have produced divisions.

But caucus members have attracted increasing scrutiny from ethics investigators. All eight open House investigations involve caucus members, and most center on accusations of improper ties to private businesses.

And an examination by The Times shows what can happen when companies offer financial support to caucus members.

For instance, Representative Danny K. Davis, Democrat of Illinois, once backed legislation that would have severely curtailed the rent-to-own industry, criticized in urban districts like his on the West Side of Chicago. But Mr. Davis last year co-sponsored legislation supported by the stores after they led a well-financed campaign to sway the caucus, including a promise to provide computers to a jobs program in Chicago named for him. He denies any connection between the industry’s generosity and his shift.



Growing Influence

The caucus started out 40 years ago as a political club of a handful of black members of Congress. Now it is at the apex of its power: President Obama is a former member, though he was never very active.

Its members, all Democrats, include the third-ranking House member, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina; 4 House committee chairmen; and 18 subcommittee leaders. Among those are Representative Charles E. Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

There are hundreds of caucuses in Congress, representing groups as disparate as Hispanic lawmakers and those with an interest in Scotland. And other members of Congress have nonprofit organizations.

But the Congressional Black Caucus stands alone for its money-raising prowess. As it has gained power, its nonprofit groups — one an outright charity, the other a sort of research group — have seen a surge in contributions, nearly doubling from 2001 to 2008.

Besides the caucus charities, many members — including Mr. Clyburn and Representative William Lacy Clay Jr. of Missouri — also have personal or family charities, which often solicit donations from companies that give to the caucus. And spouses have their own group that sponsors a golf and tennis fund-raiser.

The board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation includes executives and lobbyists from Boeing, Wal-Mart, Dell, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Verizon, Heineken, Anheuser-Busch and the drug makers Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline. All are hefty donors to the caucus.

Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization — one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress, including health care and climate change.

This means, for example, that the lobbyists and executives from coal, nuclear and power giants like Peabody Energy and Entergy helped draft a report in the caucus’s name that includes their positions on controversial issues. One policy document issued by the Black Caucus Institute last year asserted that the financial impact of climate change legislation should be weighed before it is passed, a major industry stand.

Officials from the Association of American Railroads, another major donor, used their board positions to urge the inclusion of language recommending increased spending on the national freight rail system. A lobbyist for Verizon oversaw a debate on a section that advocated increased federal grants to expand broadband Internet service.

And Larry Duncan, a Lockheed Martin lobbyist, served on a caucus institute panel that recommended that the United States form closer ties with Liberia, even as his company was negotiating a huge airport contract there.

The companies say their service to the caucus is philanthropic.

“Our charitable donations are charitable donations,” said David Sylvia, a spokesman for Altria, which has given caucus charities as much as $1.3 million since 2004, the Times analysis shows, including a donation to a capital fund used to pay off the mortgage of the caucus headquarters.

Elsie L. Scott, chief executive of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, acknowledged that the companies want to influence members. In fact, the fund-raising brochures make clear that the bigger the donation, the greater the access, like a private reception that includes members of Congress for those who give more than $100,000.

“They are trying to get the attention of the C.B.C. members,” Ms. Scott said. “And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. They’re in business, and they want to deal with people who have influence and power.”

She also acknowledged that if her charity did not have “Congressional Black Caucus” in its name, it would gather far less money. “If it were just the Institute for the Advancement of Black People — you already have the N.A.A.C.P.,” she said.

Ms. Scott said she, too, had heard criticism that the caucus foundation takes too much from companies seen as hurting blacks . But she said she was still willing to take their money.

“Black people gamble. Black people smoke. Black people drink,” she said in an interview. “And so if these companies want to take some of the money they’ve earned off of our people and give it to us to support good causes, then we take it.”

Big Parties, Big Money

The biggest caucus event of the year is held each September in Washington.

The 2009 event began with a rooftop party at the new W Hotel, with the names of the biggest sponsors, the pharmaceutical companies Amgen and Eli Lilly, beamed in giant letters onto the walls, next to the logo of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. A separate dinner party and ceremony, sponsored by Disney at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, featured the jazz pianist Marcus Johnson.

The next night, AT&T sponsored a dinner reception at the Willard InterContinental Washington, honoring Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees consumer protection issues.

The Southern Company, the dominant electric utility in four Southeastern states, spent more than $300,000 to host an awards ceremony the next night honoring Ms. Lee, the black caucus chairwoman, with Shaun Robinson, a TV personality from “Access Hollywood,” as a co-host. The bill for limousine services — paid by Southern — exceeded $11,000.

A separate party, sponsored by Macy’s, featured a fashion show and wax models of historic African-American leaders.

All of this was just a buildup for the final night and the biggest event — a black-tie dinner for 4,000, which included President Obama, the actor Danny Glover and the musician Wyclef Jean.

Annual spending on the events, including an annual prayer breakfast that Coca-Cola sponsors and several dozen policy workshops typically sponsored by other corporations, has more than doubled since 2001, costing $3.9 million in 2008. More than $350,000 went to the official decorator and nearly $400,000 to contractors for lighting and show production, according to tax records. (By comparison, the caucus spent $372,000 on internships in 2008, tax records show.)

The sponsorship of these parties by big business is usually counted as a donation in the caucus books. But sometimes the corporations pay vendors directly and simply name the caucus or an individual caucus member as an “honoree” in disclosure records filed with the Senate.

(The New York Times Company is listed as having paid the foundation $5,000 to $15,000 in 2008. It was the cost of renting a booth to sell newspapers at the annual conference.)

Foundation officials say profit from the event is enough to finance programs like seminars on investments, home ownership and healthy living; housing for Washington interns; and about $600,000 in scholarships.

Interns and students interviewed praised the caucus.

“The internship for me came at a very critical moment in my life,” said Ervin Johnson, 24, an intern in 2007, placed by the Justice Department. “Most people don’t have that opportunity.”

Still, Ms. Scott, the foundation’s chief executive, said that members of the caucus’s board had complained about the ballooning bills for the annual conference. And some donors have asked that their money go only toward programs like scholarships. She blamed the high prices charged by vendors mandated by the Washington Convention Center.

Legislative Interests

The companies that host events at the annual conference are engaged in some of the hottest battles in Washington, and they frequently turn to caucus members for help.

Internet poker companies have been big donors, fighting moves to restrict their growth. Caucus members have been among their biggest backers.

Amgen and DaVita, which dominate the kidney treatment and dialysis business nationwide, have donated as much as $1.5 million over the last five years to caucus charities, and the caucus has been one of their strongest allies in a bid to win broader federal reimbursements.

AT&T and Verizon, sponsors of the caucus charities for years, have turned to the caucus in their effort to prevent new federal rules governing how cellphone carriers operate Internet services on their wireless networks.

But few of these alliances have paid off like the caucus’s connection to rent-to-own stores.

Some Democrats in Congress have tried to limit fees charged to consumers who rent televisions or appliances, with critics saying the industry’s advertisements prey on low-income consumers, offering the short-term promise of walking away with a big-screen TV while hiding big long-term fees. Faced with rules that could destroy their business, the industry called on the caucus.

In 2007, it retained Zehra Buck, a former aide to Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and a caucus member, to help expand a lobbying campaign. Its trade association in 2008 became the exclusive sponsor of an annual caucus foundation charity event where its donated televisions, computers and other equipment were auctioned, with the proceeds going to scholarships. It donated to the campaigns of at least 10 caucus members, and to political action committees run by the caucus and its individual members.

It also encouraged member stores to donate to personal charities run by caucus members or to public schools in their districts. Mr. Clay, the Missourian, received $14,000 in industry contributions in 2008 for the annual golf tournament his family runs in St. Louis. The trade association also held a fund-raising event for him in Reno, Nev.

“I’ll always do my best to protect what really matters to you,” Mr. Clay told rent-to-own executives, who agreed to hold their 2008 annual convention in St. Louis, his home district. Mr. Clay declined a request for an interview.

On a visit to Washington, Larry Carrico, then president of the rent-to-own trade association, offered to donate computers and other equipment to a nonprofit job-training group in Chicago named in honor of Mr. Davis, the Illinois congressman who in 2002 voted in favor of tough restrictions on the industry.

Mr. Davis switched sides. Mr. Carrico traveled to Chicago to hand over the donations, including a van with “Congressman Danny K. Davis Job Training Program” painted on its side, all of which helped jump-start a charity run by Lowry Taylor, who also works as a campaign aide to Mr. Davis.

In an interview, Mr. Carrico said support from caucus members came because they understood that his industry had been unfairly criticized and that it provided an important service to consumers in their districts.

While some caucus members still oppose the industry, 13 are co-sponsors of the industry-backed legislation that would ward off tough regulatory restrictions — an alliance that has infuriated consumer advocates.

“It is unfortunate that the members of the black caucus who are supporting this bill did not check with us first,” said Margot Saunders, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “Because the legislation they are supporting would simply pre-empt state laws that are designed to protect consumers against an industry that rips them off.”

The industry’s own bill, introduced by a caucus member, has not been taken up, but it does not really matter because the move to pass stricter legislation has ground to a halt.

“Without the support of the C.B.C.,” John Cleek, the president of the rent-to-own association, acknowledged in an industry newsletter in 2008, “our mission in Washington would fail.”
















All Active Ethics Probes Focus On Black Lawmakers


The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down.

Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.

The ethics committee declined to respond to questions about the racial disparity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are wary of talking about it on the record. But privately, some black members are outraged — and see in the numbers a worrisome trend in the actions of ethics watchdogs on and off Capitol Hill.

“Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [Congressional Black Caucus] members? Yeah, there is,” a black House Democrat said. “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].”

African-American politicians have long complained that they’re treated unfairly when ethical issues arise. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still fuming over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to oust then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the House Ways and Means Committee in 2006, and some have argued that race plays a role in the ongoing efforts to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) from his chairmanship of that committee.

Last week’s actions by the House ethics committee are sure to add fuel to the fire.

The committee — which has one African-American lawmaker, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), among its 10 members — on Thursday considered three referrals from the recently formed Office of Congressional Ethics. It dismissed a case against Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), who is white, but agreed to open full-blown investigations of California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson, both of whom are black.

The committee was already investigating five other African-Americans. Rangel is the subject of two different probes, one involving a host of issues he has put before the committee and another involving allegations that corporate funds may have been used improperly to pay for members’ trips to the Caribbean in 2007-08. Reps. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Donald Payne (D-N.J.) and Del. Donna Christensen (D-U.S. Virgin Islands) are also included in the second of those investigations.

A document leaked to The Washington Post last week showed that nearly three dozen lawmakers have come under scrutiny this year by either the House ethics committee or the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog created in 2008 at the insistence of Pelosi. While the list contained a substantial number of white lawmakers, the ethics committee has not yet launched formal investigative subcommittees with respect to any of them — as it has with the seven African-American members.

The OCE has also been a particular target of ire for the Congressional Black Caucus. Black lawmakers, including CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), met with OCE officials earlier this year to raise their concerns. Spokesmen for Lee and the OCE both declined to comment.

A number of CBC members opposed the resolution establishing the OCE, arguing that it was the wrong response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which helped Democrats seize control of the House in 2006.

Setting up the OCE “was a mistake,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) told The Hill newspaper recently. “Congress has a long and rich history of overreacting to a crisis.”

Cleaver, though, now finds himself part of the four-member subcommittee that will investigate Waters, who voted against the OCE. Waters is being probed over her intervention with the Treasury Department on behalf of a minority-owned bank in which her husband served on the board and owned at least $250,000 in stock.

While she has flatly denied engaging in any unethical or improper behavior in her dealings with OneUnited, Waters was described by colleagues and Democratic aides as “livid” over the ethics committee’s decision to investigate her.

“She was hopping mad,” a Democratic lawmaker said of Waters. “She feels this is a complete miscarriage of justice.”

Another CBC member said black lawmakers are “easy targets” for ethics watchdog groups because they have less money — both personally and in their campaign accounts — to defend themselves than do their white colleagues. Campaign funds can be used to pay members’ legal bills.

“A lot of that has to do with outside watchdog groups like [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] that have to have a level of success to justify OCE,” the CBC member said. The good-government groups were strong backers of the OCE’s creation.

But these same groups won’t go after Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), this lawmaker claimed, “because she has plenty of money to defend herself,” and the outside groups don’t want to take a risk. The Democrat said the ethics committee would be going up against Harman’s lawyers and “going up against” the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee if they push the OCE to pressure the ethics committee to act.

In fact, CREW filed a complaint against Harman with the OCE.

Harman was allegedly recorded on a 2005 federal wiretap discussing with an Israeli operative her bid to become Intelligence Committee chairwoman. Harman has denied any wrongdoing, but an attempt by the ethics committee to get a transcript of the taped call was rebuffed by the Justice Department.

What especially galled black lawmakers was that the ethics committee voted to move forward with the Waters and Richardson probes following the OCE referrals, while Graves — who OCE also thought should be investigated by the ethics committee — saw his case dismissed.

Even worse, the ethics committee issued a 541-page document explaining why it wouldn’t look into allegations that Graves invited a witness to testify before the Small Business Committee — on which he sits — without revealing his financial ties to that witness.

“It is kind of crazy,” said an aide to one senior black Democrat. “How can it be that the ethics committee only investigates African-Americans? It doesn’t make sense.”

White lawmakers have certainly been the subject of ethics committee investigations before. Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished by the committee for his dealings with corporate lobbyists, while ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) was the target of an investigation over his dealings with teenage male House pages in late 2006. Foley resigned after the sex scandal was revealed.

And the document leaked to the Post last week shows that a number of white lawmakers — including senior House Appropriations Committee members John Murtha (D-Pa.), Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and Jim Moran (D-Va.) — have drawn the attention of the committee and the OCE.

The two congressional ethics watchdogs are looking into these members’ ties to the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm that won tens of millions of dollars in earmarks from members of the Appropriations Committee. The lawmakers who arranged for the earmarks received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from PMA’s lobbying clients.

But it seems unlikely that the PMA case will become the subject of a full-blown ethics committee investigation. The Justice Department is also looking into the PMA allegations; the FBI raided PMA’s office last year, and Visclosky and his former chief of staff have been served with document subpoenas. And under ethics committee rules, the panel cannot conduct an investigation of any member or staffer already being probed by a law enforcement agency.

The nation’s only black senator, Roland Burris of Illinois, is currently under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. It’s not clear whether that committee is currently investigating any white members, although Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is likely to be in its sights if the Justice Department doesn’t pre-empt a committee investigation.


View
Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, AP, C-Span, Politico, CBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Ken Lewis Ex-BOFA Chief Charged With Fraud; More Bonuses

Ex-BofA Chief Lewis Charged With Fraud


New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo unveiled a major legal action against senior Bank of America executives Thursday over its controversial purchase of Merrill Lynch, including bringing civil charges against its former CEO Ken Lewis.

Cuomo's office, which has been aggressively pursuing an investigation into the merger and subsequent bonuses paid to former Merrill employees, said it was charging Lewis and Bank of America's chief financial officer Joe Price, who was recently appointed to lead the firm's consumer banking business.

The lawsuit contends that the bank's management team understated the losses at Merrill in order to get shareholders to approve the deal, then subsequently overstated the firm's willingness to terminate the merger in order to get $20 billion of additional aid from the federal government.

"Bank of America, through its top management, engaged in a concerted effort to deceive shareholders and American taxpayers at large," Cuomo said in a statement.

"This was an arrogant scheme hatched by the bank's top executives who believed they could play by their own set of rules."

A spokesperson for Bank of America called the charges "regrettable" and "totally without merit."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Separately, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Thursday it had struck an agreement with Bank of America over the company's decision to pay $3.6 billion of bonuses to former Merrill employees for fiscal year 2008.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Charlotte, N.C.-based lender will pay a $150 million penalty to its shareholders who were affected by the disclosure violations.

The company also agreed to implement a number of corporate governance changes for the next three years including giving its shareholders an advisory vote, or "say on pay" of its executives.

The settlement will be subject to the approval of U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff, however.

Rakoff scuttled a previous agreement between the two parties last fall, arguing that the original $33 million settlement was not only paltry, but would only impact those who were hurt by the bonus scandal: the company's shareholders.

Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) shares fell more than 3.5% in midday trading.








Bank of America Bonuses Could Top $4 Billion


Bank of America Corp., the nation's largest lender, will pay investment-banking employees bonuses of about $4.4 billion for last year, or an average of $400,000 each, a person close to the bank said.

As much as 95 percent will be paid in stock vesting over about three years, the person said. Those receiving the smallest bonuses will get about half their compensation in cash, paid later this month, the person said. The unit accounts for 10,000 people, or 4 percent of the Charlotte-based bank's 283,000 workers.

Bank of America, the target of political wrath for its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co. even as the faltering Wall Street firm handed out $3.6 billion of employee bonuses, reaped a $6.3 billion profit in 2009. This year's investment bank bonuses are a third less the than $6.5 billion that the combined units would have paid in the peak year of 2006, the person said, citing internal Bank of America calculations.

"Fixed-income traders are receiving the biggest bonuses at Bank of America and other firms because that was what drove Wall Street profits last year," said Richard Lipstein, managing director at Boyden Global Executive Search Ltd. in New York. "Psychologically Wall Street is paying people compared with 2006 levels because 2008 was such a disaster."

The Financial Times cited unidentified people as saying that top Bank of America performers in global banking and markets will receive bonuses of about $5 million, while managing directors will get $2.5 million to $3 million. Senior investment bankers often receive bonuses that are eight to 10 times their base salaries, which tend to be $250,000 to $300,000, Lipstein said.

"We attempted to balance the need to pay competitively with our understanding of the general concern over the level of compensation on Wall Street," spokesman Bob Stickler said. "The most important thing is that much more of year-end compensation is now deferred and tied to long-term stock performance and there are clawbacks."

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s investment bank slashed their compensation in the fourth quarter. The three firms set aside $39.9 billion for pay in 2009, below the 2007 record of $44.7 billion. The total fell short of the $46.1 billion five analysts expected this year and is almost $10 billion less than what some analysts estimated in October.

JPMorgan's investment bank had the lowest ratio of the three of total pay to revenue, at 33 percent. Goldman Sachs's rate was 36 percent and it was 62 percent at Morgan Stanley.

At Bank of America, the bonuses equate to 19 percent of the $23 billion in revenue at the investment bank. That ratio would have been 26 percent in 2006, the person briefed on the matter said.

Bank of America is relying on growth in Merrill's capital markets and wealth management units. The bank, which bought Merrill last January, plans to add "hundreds" of trainees this year as it rebuilds its stock brokerage unit, spokeswoman Selena Morris said, declining to provide a specific number. Merrill had 15,006 financial advisers at the end of 2009, down from almost 18,000 at its peak several years ago, she said.

About 80 percent of Merrill's brokerage revenue stem from financial advisers who were trained by the company, with the balance from brokers recruited from peers, Morris said. Merrill Lynch's wealth management unit had revenue of $6.1 billion last year, six times greater than Bank of America's stand-alone brokerage business in 2008.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, CNBC, WCNC, TPM, Youtube, Google Maps

Mary Landrieu Defends Her $300M "Louisiana Purchase" Deal

Mary Landrieu Launches Defense Of $300 Million Fix


Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) will launch a defense Thursday of the $300 million Medicaid fix she secured during the health care negotiations.

With Sen. Ben Nelson's Medicaid deal expected to be struck from any final bill, attention could turn to the other state-specific provisions reached during the rush to pass the overhaul legislation before Christmas.
Landrieu has made no excuses about the deal she won, saying it was requested by the Louisiana congressional delegation and Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal. But Republicans dubbed it the "Louisiana Purchase," and she has been forced to defend ever since November.

From a release sent by her office:

U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., will head to the floor of the U.S. Senate at 1p.m. today to outline why she fought so hard for the inclusion of the $300 million Louisiana Medicaid provision in the Senate health care reform bill.

Landrieu will refute misinformation being spread by opponents of the bill and disclose the details of the multiple requests made by Louisiana’s Republican Governor, Bobby Jindal -- from the first meeting at the Governor’s Mansion to its inclusion in the Senate health care bill.

The Senator will also make available documentation that accompanied the process, including correspondence and letters from the Governor and every member of Louisiana’s Congressional Delegation -- all of whom supported the Medicaid fix. Following Sen. Landrieu’s floor speech there will be a pen and pad for members of the media in the Senate Print Press Gallery.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mary Landrieu Takes Swipe At Obama Over Health Care

President Obama is taking heat from a Senate Democrat over how he dealt with the issue of health care in his first State of the Union speech.

"I think the president should have been more clear about a way forward on health care last night," Sen. Mary Landrieu told reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday. "I'm hoping in the next week or two he will be, because that's what it's going to take if it's at all possible to get this done."

"Mailing in general suggestions, sending them over the transom is not necessarily going to work," the Louisiana Democrat added.

Obama didn't address the signature issue of his first year in office until about halfway through the 71-minute speech, and then only discussed it for about five minutes. But he urged Congress not to abandon the effort that now appears in limbo following the Democratic Party's recent loss of its supermajority in the Senate.

"Do not walk away from reform. Not now," Obama said. "Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people."

Landrieu, one of the last members of her party to agree to the final Senate health care bill, also suggested the president erred in allowing three separate Senate and House committees to pass various versions of the bill.

"As far as I know, the president thought it was a good idea to have three different bills debated," she said.

"No wonder people got confused. So it's not completely our fault that that was the plan."
Landrieu also said she felt the president unfairly blamed the Senate during his speech for holding up a series of initiatives that had already cleared the House.

"I thought he was pointing his finger at the Senate a lot throughout the speech last night … no I do not think its fair," she said. "Moderate Senate Democrats, who give the Senate the 60 votes, come from states that have to appreciate a broad range of ideas and since the president ran on a bipartisan, change, working with Republicans, [he] doesn't do a great service to then say everything the House passes without any Republican votes is something the Senate should just take."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Politico, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Discovers Filibuster Loophole In Dems' Reconciliation Plan

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Find Loophole In Budget Ploy To Push Healthcare


As it turns out, Senate Democrats may not be able to force healthcare legislation through the chamber on a simple majority vote.

Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget Reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments.

Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill.

Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similiar constraints on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off.

Another option for Democrats would be to seek a ruling by the parliamentarian that Republicans are simply filing amendments to stall the process. But such a ruling could taint the final healthcare vote and backfire for Democrats in November.

Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could use a tactic similar to the so-called nuclear option to quash the GOP tactics.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If those options failed, and Reid couldn’t convince a single Republican to vote with his 59-member conference, Democrats might be forced to consider withdrawing the healthcare bill.

A Democratic leadership aide confirmed to The Hill that the options outlined in this articlee are correct.

House Democrats have said they would not pass the Senate healthcare bill unless changes are made through reconciliation, which is necessary because Republicans control 41 Senate seats, enough to block legislation through the regular process.

But Republicans may end up having that power even under reconciliation.

“You could keep offering amendments until you don’t have any more to offer,” said a congressional aide, who said he did not know how long senators would be willing to stay in the chamber to move the reconciliation package. “What the body’s tolerance would be is unknown.”

A former Senate Republican leadership aide said: “The limit is on debate, not on consideration of amendments.”

DeMint said he’s ready to try anything.

“You’ll see Republicans do everything they can to delay and stop this process,” DeMint said. “They need to get the message the track they’re on is the wrong track.”

Reid spent significant time last year in close study of the Senate rules for fast-tracking healthcare legislation under special budget rules.

Reid stayed away from the special process of passing healthcare reform with only 51 votes because he knew it would be messy.

But since Republicans won a Senate seat in Massachusetts, thereby stripping Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority, it appears Democrats will need to invoke those rules to make crucial changes to healthcare legislation.

DeMint said that using reconciliation rules to pass the House-requested changes to the Senate healthcare bill with only 51 votes is “tyrannical.”

“I think you’ll see us offering amendments to get us into November, if we can,” said DeMint.

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, said: “You could continue to offer amendments, I suspect.

“You can offer an unlimited number of amendments on the budget after time is elapsed so it’s logical that you could also do it on reconciliation,” Gregg said.

Democrats could try to persuade Republican colleagues to back down and withdraw their amendments after several hours or days of voting. With a unified Democratic conference, Reid would need just one GOP senator to cut off the process.

The most likely candidate would be Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who voted with Democrats to advance the Senate Finance Committee bill but has since opposed the healthcare measure on the Senate floor.

Reid or another Democrat could make a point of order that using amendments to stall a reconciliation bill violates the spirit of the Budget Act of 1974, which sets up for expedited consideration of budget-related bills.

Reid or another Democrat could argue that offering unlimited amendments violates the spirit of limiting debate.

The parliamentarian has ruled that the limit on debate does not allow senators to filibuster the motion to proceed to a reconciliation bill. The parliamentarian could rule that the same concept applies to amendments.

No one really knows, because a lawmaker has never tried to use amendments to filibuster a reconciliation package.

“We haven’t ever tried it before,” said a congressional aide.

Parliamentarian Alan Frumin could rule Republican amendments after a certain number out of order. But he could also allow the GOP amendments, since they are not expressly barred.

If Frumin ruled with Republicans, Reid would be in a difficult position. He could either pull the bill off the floor or he could appeal the ruling of the parliamentarian.

With a simple majority of 51 votes, Reid could overturn the ruling of the chair and set a Senate precedent that amendments must be limited to within reason. This tactic would be similar to the so-called nuclear option Senate Republicans considered using in 2005 to overrule Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees.


Sources: The Hill, MSNBC, The Ed Show

Health Care Bill Debate Resumes Tomorrow...Pelosi's Caving In

Health Care Debate Resumes With WH Meet


The health care debate resumes in earnest on Tuesday after more than a week of quiet following Senate passage of its landmark bill on Christmas Eve.

The four relevant House chairmen will meet with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team at 1 o'clock in the speaker's Capitol office to start setting the parameters for negotiations with the Senate.

Then, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Nev.) will head to the White House for an early-evening meeting with President Barack Obama to discuss the final bill, according to Democratic officials. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and party Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will participate in the meeting via conference call because neither has returned to Washington from the holiday break.

House negotiators have their work cut out for them because Reid – and his wavering moderates – will be reluctant to make any changes that would upset the fragile accords that paved the way for last month's historic, hard-fought, party-line vote to approve the Senate bill. This spells trouble for the public option, but there are plenty of other substantive differences between the two bills that could give House leaders a foothold to make other changes.

Democrats in the House are expected to push for increased subsidies for the lowest-income Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid. On the eve of the Senate vote, Democratic aides in the House also suggested they would push for a blend of new taxes to help pay for the subsidies and new programs created by the bill. That could include a tax on high-end insurance plans at a higher threshold organized labor could accept along with a tax on the wealthiest Americans.





But House aides acknowledge they don't have much room to maneuver. For starters, congressional negotiators need to keep the final 10-year price tag below $900 billion, forcing Democrats to pick priorities, since the House bill costs more than $1 trillion compared with a Senate measure that would cost an estimated $871 billion over the next decade.

House leaders also want the Senate to adopt a national insurance exchange, instead of the state-by-state exchanges established under the Senate bill, and add tougher mandates for employers and individuals. And, of course, Democrats get another chance to spar over the public option, coverage for abortion and whether illegal immigrants can purchase insurance through the exchanges.

Other issues are sure to pop up. For example, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) wants to squeeze more money from drugmakers by reimbursing them at a lower rate for seniors who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, and a pair of senators is pushing to include more money for the state-run Children's Health Insurance Program, while the House bill would fold it into the new exchange program.

Congressional Democrats are embarking on an abbreviated negotiation to save Reid the hassle of overcoming more procedural hurdles, but that means the resulting negotiations will be held behind closed-doors as the various stakeholders push for final changes. Liberal Democrats in the House have taken exception with the revised process, but most aides argue a drawn-out conference negotiation would give Senate Republicans too many opportunities to derail the process.

The White House is expected to take a very active role in melding the two bills after keeping quiet publicly during negotiations in the House and Senate. Obama's top aides took a much more hands-on role crafting the Senate bill, so it includes administration priorities that the House bill lacks, like the tax on high-end health care plans and language giving an outside panel the authority to increase efficiency and advocate cost-containment under Medicare.

They also want to make sure congressional negotiators wrap up work as quickly as possible so the administration and its congressional allies can turn their attention to the economy and job creation. That means bartering with lawmakers on other issues. According to TalkingPointsMemo, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus might relent in their push to let undocumented immigrants buy insurance on the exchange if the president pushes a comprehensive overhaul of the country's immigration laws – one that grants immigrants who seek a path to citizenship the right to purchase this insurance.

During the Tuesday session, the speaker is expected to set loose parameters for the abbreviated conference negotiations with the four chairmen with jurisdiction over the final legislation, Waxman, Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaugher (D-N.Y.) and Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.).

Democrats are also scheduled to hold a caucus meeting on Thursday at noon in the Capitol. But since few lawmakers are expected to be in town to attend, party leaders are setting up a conference call that will give every member a chance to participate in the dialogue and hear how the process will work. Aides suggested Pelosi might even walk her members through some of her early priorities for the final bill. The speaker also wants to hear from her members frequently as the process moves along.


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, The Ed Show, Youtube

Maxine Waters Slams Senate Health Care Bill! Bad For Consumers!

Congresswoman Maxine Waters joins Ed Schultz on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" to discuss her concerns regarding the Senate Health Care "reform" bill and how House-Senate Conference talks might play out.

Congresswoman Waters states to Ed that via the Senate version, many states like (North Carolina) will continue running Health Care Monopolies (Blue Cross/ Blue Shield) and charging Consumers high premiums.

She then goes on to explain how (because Speaker Pelosi is caving in i.e., NO Public Option!) many Key U.S. House members (including her) are being kept out of the Conference talks which will more than likely prove to be detrimental when discussing issues like Insurance Exchanges, Taxes, etc.,

Such a foolish move by Democrat Leaders won't be good for the 2010 and 2012 elections.








View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, The Ed Show, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

A Call For Rahm Emanuel's Resignation From Liberals & Conservatives!

Congresswoman Maxine Waters slams White House Chief of Staff and Blue Dogs Congressional group founder, Rahm Emanuel.






Unlikely Allies Want Rahm Out!


There are few stranger political bedfellows than Conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher. But the two joined forces on Wednesday to call for the resignation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, in a letter they penned to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The duo contends that Emanuel’s service on the board of the government-sponsored mortgage company Freddie Mac from 2000 to 2001 may have given him some knowledge of alleged financial irregularities at the time.

Norquist and Hamsher say in a letter to Holder that “stonewalling by Mr. Emanuel and the White House” leave them “no redress” other than to call for his resignation. Norquist is the head of the Conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, and Hamsher is the publisher of the liberal blog Firedoglake.

In a press release, Norquist said, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be transparent. There is only one reason that Rahm Emanuel and others have fought to keep how they handled billions of dollars of other people's money hidden from public scrutiny; they are hiding corruption.

What would they have us believe they are hiding? Their unexpected business acumen?"

Said Hamsher in the same release, “This administration is pushing for an $800 billion bailout while the organization has no Inspector General or basic oversight, a bullish tactic Emanuel seems to favor while his activities with Freddie Mac are questioned by investigative reporters.”

In the letter to Holder, the two activists noted:

“A 2003 report by Freddie Mac's regulator indicated that Freddie Mac executives had informed the board of their intention to misstate the earnings to insure their own bonuses during the time Mr. Emanuel was a director. But the White House refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request from the Chicago Tribune for those board minutes on the grounds that Freddie Mac was a 'commercial' entity, even though it was wholly owned by the government at the time the request was made.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.






Rahm Emanuel's Profitable Stint At Mortgage Giant


Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation's mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration's pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.

Emanuel's Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess.

Though just 49, Emanuel is a veteran Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served three terms in the U.S. House after helping elect Mayor Richard Daley and former President Bill Clinton. The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.

In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.

He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

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.

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

Many of those same risky investment practices tied to the accounting scandal eventually brought the firm to the brink of insolvency and led to its seizure last year by the Bush administration, which pledged to inject up to $100 billion in new capital to keep the firm afloat. The Obama administration has doubled that commitment.

Freddie Mac reported recently that it lost $50 billion in 2008. It so far has tapped $14 billion of the government's guarantee and said it soon will need an additional $30 billion to keep operating.

Like its larger government-chartered cousin Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac was created by Congress to promote home ownership, though both are private corporations with shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The two firms hold stakes in half the nation's residential mortgages.

Because of Freddie Mac's federal charter, the board in Emanuel's day was a hybrid of directors elected by shareholders and those appointed by the president.

In his final year in office, Clinton tapped three close pals: Emanuel, Washington lobbyist and golfing partner James Free, and Harold Ickes, a former White House aide instrumental in securing the election of Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. Free's appointment was good for four months, and Ickes' only three months.

Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, found that presidential appointees played no "meaningful role" in overseeing the company and recommended that their positions be eliminated.

John Coffee, a law professor and expert on corporate governance at Columbia University, said the financial crisis at Freddie Mac was years in the making and fueled by chronically weak oversight by the firm's directors. The presence of presidential appointees on the board didn't help, he added.

"You know there was a patronage system and these people were only going to serve a short time," Coffee said. "That's why [they] get the stock upfront."

Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The document did not detail whether he profited from the sale.

Sarah Feinberg, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said there was no conflict between his stint at Freddie Mac and Obama's vow to restore confidence in financial institutions and the executives who run them. At the same time, Feinberg said Emanuel now agrees that presidential appointees to the Freddie Mac board "are unnecessary and don't have long enough terms to make a difference."

Former President George W. Bush voluntarily stopped making such appointments following Falcon's assessment of their uselessness.

In an interview, Falcon said the Freddie Mac board did most of its work in committees. Yet proxy statements that detailed committee assignments showed none for Emanuel, Free or Ickes during the time they served in 2000 or 2001. Most other directors carried two committee assignments each.

Contrary to the proxy statements, Feinberg said she believed that Emanuel served on board committees that oversaw Freddie Mac's investment strategies and mortgage purchase activities. But Feinberg acknowledged she had no official documents to back up that assertion.

The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Emanuel's board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid.

One of Emanuel's fellow directors at Freddie Mac was Neil Hartigan, the former Illinois attorney general. Hartigan said Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power.

He was respected on the board for his understanding of "the dynamics of the legislative process and the executive branch at senior levels," Hartigan recalled. "I wouldn't say he was outspoken. What he was, was solid."

By the time Emanuel joined Freddie Mac, the company had begun to loosen lending standards and buy riskier sub-prime loans. It was a practice that later blew up and contributed to the current foreclosure crisis.

In his investigation, Falcon concluded that the board of directors on which Emanuel sat was so pliant that Freddie Mac's managers easily were able to massage company ledgers. They manipulated bookkeeping to smooth out volatility, perpetuating Freddie Mac's industry reputation as "Steady Freddie," a reliable producer of earnings growth. Wall Street liked what it saw, Freddie Mac's stock value soared and top executives collected their bonuses.

Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel's day—and one that played to his skill set—was a stepped-up effort to combat congressional demands for more regulation.

During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel's 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled "Political Risk Management" aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk's initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity.

Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said Emanuel "can't remember the meeting or topic" but might have been in attendance when Delk outlined his plans. Feinberg downplayed the significance of the fundraiser thrown for Emanuel, which brought in $7,000, stressing that it was but one of many hosted by Delk. The event stood out in at least one respect, however.

The Freddie Mac-linked events were mostly for Republicans, and only a handful benefited Democrats like Emanuel. "Rahm was a good friend of mine. He was on Freddie Mac's board. He was very much supportive of housing," said Delk, who resigned under pressure in 2004.

Then-Freddie Mac CEO Leland Brendsel also hosted a fundraising lunch for Emanuel's 2002 campaign that netted $9,500 from top company executives. Brendsel was later ousted in the accounting scandal.

Federal campaign records show that Emanuel received $25,000 from donors with ties to Freddie Mac in the 2002 campaign cycle, more than twice the amount collected that election by any other candidate for the U.S. House or Senate.

Emanuel joined the House in January 2003 and was named to the Financial Services Committee, where he also sat on the subcommittee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee launched hearings to sort out the mess, spanning more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing, congressional records indicate.

Feinberg said Emanuel recused himself "from deliberations related to Freddie Mac to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, impropriety or a conflict of interest."



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, Chicago Tribune, Fire Dog Lake, Americans For Tax Reform, MSNBC, Huffington Post, AP, House.gov, Youtube, Google Maps