Citigroup will be fined some one hundred million for stealing 700 million, without having to affirm or deny guilt.
BY CHAD BRAY
A federal judge sharply questioned the Securities and Exchange Commission about why it didn't force Citigroup Inc. to admit to "what the facts are" before the agency agreed to settle a mortgage-bond case for $285 million.
During an hour-long hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, an outspoken critic of the SEC's approach to securities-fraud settlements, challenged the SEC on why the regulator allowed Citigroup to settle the case using boilerplate language in which it neither admits or denies wrongdoing.
Well, of course, and the judge can get as mad as he wants, but it is just grandstanding unless he is wiling to throw Citigroup and the SEC lawyers in prison for contempt of court. It ain't gonna happen, because the government is controlled by Citibank, and not the other way around. And judges are government workers. But the judge is on to something.... and that is an idea that you get to keep what you stole if you simply explain how you stole it. If you broke any laws, and you tell how you broke them before you get caught, you are immune from prosecution. So if the Citibank people explain how they stole the 700 million, they can keep it and not be prosecuted. As it is they can keep it and no be prosecuted, but we still have no idea how they did it (well, we can figure it out, but it would be beneficial to have Citibank admit it, so those people whose pensions are now gone can reflect in their old age how foolish they were to believe in capitalism, as many old Russians reflect on how foolish they were to believe in communism.) And here is the real payoff, if we knew how wicked the bankers were, would we not withdraw our business and watch them get punished by going out of business? As it is now, the charade of a court case, the judge just gives cover to Citibank criminality.
And here is a CIA review of a CIA overthrow of a South American elected government, Guatemala, in the 1950s. The CIA historians lay out a very well argued case that in fact both houses and both parties were on board for the overthrow, so it was not an instance of a right-wing cabal running a rogue operation. There was a resolution which was opposed by only one congressman, a William Langer. Thus it ever was, one sane voice in congress.
Well, good to know, except just because congress was on board does not mean it was good or right to do. In fact, it was wrong and brought much misery for many people in its wake. Further, the Soviet menace it was meant to check fell within 40 years anyway. But it is good to see the CIA airing its dirty laundry, if only after that fact, so we can see it has always been an org of doubtful decency.
0 comments:
Post a Comment