Dem Party

JC29856 said:

Right..guided by the law and the burden of proof necessary to prosecute.  She shouldn't be guided by special interest groups, think tanks or counsels.  It's interesting that the instances identified by the Intercept and Politico occurred in MN and FL.  She was AG in CA...she doesnt' get to file civil enforcement actions in other states.  

I hope you understand that this commentator appears to be conservative, and this is a piece intended to sow discontent.  

General Kamala Harris on Wednesday vaguely acknowledged The Intercept’s report about her declining to prosecute Steven Mnuchin’s OneWest Bank for foreclosure violations in 2013, but offered no explanation.

“It’s a decision my office made,” she said, in response to questions from The Hill shortly after being sworn in as California’s newest U.S. senator.

“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made,” Harris said. “We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”

Mnuchin is Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Treasury Department, and served as CEO of OneWest from 2009 to 2015. In an internal memo published on Tuesday by The Intercept, prosecutors at the California attorney general’s office said they had found over a thousand violations of foreclosure laws by his bank during that time, and predicted that further investigation would uncover many thousands more.

But the investigation into what the memo called “widespread misconduct” was closed after Harris’s office declined to file a civil enforcement action against the bank.

Harris’s statement on Tuesday doesn’t explain how involved she was with the decision to not prosecute, or why the decision was made. She also would not say whether the revelations would disqualify Mnuchin for the position of treasury secretary. “The hearings will reveal if it’s disqualifying or not, but certainly he has a history that should be critically examined, as do all of the nominees,” Harris told The Hill. She added that she would review the background and history of all Trump cabinet nominees.

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

Harris Booker Patrick

http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick

Harris has sometimes displayed a rather Hillary Clinton-esque tendency to say the right thing but not follow through in a vigorous way. Most notoriously, she refused to prosecute Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's old company OneWest for numerous instances of almost certain illegal foreclosure, against the advice of her own Consumer Law Section, and has so far refused to say why. (She was also the only Senate Democratic candidate to get a donation from Mnuchin himself in 2016.)

Booker is mistrusted because of his ties to Wall Street. Most notoriously, when President Obama attacked Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign for his long career as a bloodsucking financial parasite, buying up companies only to strip their assets and drive them into bankruptcy, Booker defended Bain Capital on Meet the Press. Why? Because New Jersey is just across the river from Manhattan and both parties are drowning in Wall Street cash.

It's almost as if governing is a tough job that requires compromise.

Nahhh, death to the DINOs!

prosecutors don't govern they prosecute criminals.
dem voters don't govern they vote, in 2016 dem voters rejected Corp $ candidates and stayed home, some (Bernie bros) actually protest voted Trump.

Voters say they want Democrats to seize control of both the House and the Senate, according to a Quinnipiac poll.

• House: 52-38 in favor of Democrats, 48-37 among independents
• Senate: 53-39 in favor of Democrats, 49-40 among independents

Worth paying attention to: The polling for the House. Compare the Democrats' 14-point lead to the 1-point Republican advantage in the nationwide House vote in 2016. All seats are up for grabs.

Worth a shrug: The Senate polling — not everyone will be voting for the Senate in 2018. There are 10 red-state Democrats up for re-election and one blue-state Republican.

.........then everything goes to shit once the dem candidates are hand picked chosen

You're not a Democrat and you voted for Trump, so why do you care what the Democratic party does?

anyone feel like commenting on the stupid and ignorance of this logic? I've had my fill for the week.

Yeah I will.  You're not a progressive or liberal either..  

where are all the lefties this morning?

JC29856 said:

I cant verify the authenticity but here is the memo citing 1000s of violations, the burden of proof is overwhelming.

  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3250383-OneWest-Package-Memo.html

mrussel1 said:

BTW, Harris isn't even addressed in the memos.  

Second, did you even read these?  If so, you clearly don't understand bank regulations.  First off, backdating documents is certainly a violation, but the penalties established through this type of behavior is more of a reputation risk than actual statutory damages.  Do a little research on the robo-signing for Bank of America and Chase along with changes in the affidavits of debt in NJ and other states that have specific 30 day time stamps and you'll see that considering the widespread practice that banks used, the penalties on a per case basis were fairly pedestrian.  It was almost like FDCPA statutory violations.  

Third, the other accusations are related to the belief of the office that One West had insufficient oversight on its third parties.  They spell this out in various ways.  However, that is the most ambiguous of all charges.  In fact, lots of banks have had OCC and OTS findings related to this and they rarely if ever turn into Consent Orders.  They become MRA's (matters requiring attention) and MOU (memos of understanding).  
They also accuse the bank of obstructing their investigation.  I applaud the bank for this as well.  The "obstruction" was executed by their counsel based on the fact that the regulator was requesting documents that are actually proprietary to another entity NOT under investigation.  
What you actually have her is the rule of law taking place.  And Harris's office (again, she's not on the memo) declining to try to make law and exact penalties through the use of Consent orders rather than rule making.  That's a very important point.  I'm contrasting this again with the CFPB who has spent the last several years imposing rules through consents across financial markets.  What they do is make the fighting of the penalties (through litigation) more expensive than the penalty.  That way they get to declare victory and impose a rule because the entity makes a business decision and relents.  It's cheaper to settle than to fight.  And then the CFPB gets to use those consents as a bludgeon against other players in the same market.  It's all very brilliant and shitty at the same time.

Now you probably didn't read all of this and that wouldn't surprise me.  But so you know, I spent six years earlier in my career managing regulators for a top five bank.  I've dealt with the OCC, OTS and FDIC.  I've also dealt with the rookie lawyer at the CFPB.  I know what I"m talking about here.  

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

BTW, Harris isn't even addressed in the memos.  

Second, did you even read these?  If so, you clearly don't understand bank regulations.  First off, backdating documents is certainly a violation, but the penalties established through this type of behavior is more of a reputation risk than actual statutory damages.  Do a little research on the robo-signing for Bank of America and Chase along with changes in the affidavits of debt in NJ and other states that have specific 30 day time stamps and you'll see that considering the widespread practice that banks used, the penalties on a per case basis were fairly pedestrian.  It was almost like FDCPA statutory violations.  

Third, the other accusations are related to the belief of the office that One West had insufficient oversight on its third parties.  They spell this out in various ways.  However, that is the most ambiguous of all charges.  In fact, lots of banks have had OCC and OTS findings related to this and they rarely if ever turn into Consent Orders.  They become MRA's (matters requiring attention) and MOU (memos of understanding).  
They also accuse the bank of obstructing their investigation.  I applaud the bank for this as well.  The "obstruction" was executed by their counsel based on the fact that the regulator was requesting documents that are actually proprietary to another entity NOT under investigation.  
What you actually have her is the rule of law taking place.  And Harris's office (again, she's not on the memo) declining to try to make law and exact penalties through the use of Consent orders rather than rule making.  That's a very important point.  I'm contrasting this again with the CFPB who has spent the last several years imposing rules through consents across financial markets.  What they do is make the fighting of the penalties (through litigation) more expensive than the penalty.  That way they get to declare victory and impose a rule because the entity makes a business decision and relents.  It's cheaper to settle than to fight.  And then the CFPB gets to use those consents as a bludgeon against other players in the same market.  It's all very brilliant and shitty at the same time.

Now you probably didn't read all of this and that wouldn't surprise me.  But so you know, I spent six years earlier in my career managing regulators for a top five bank.  I've dealt with the OCC, OTS and FDIC.  I've also dealt with the rookie lawyer at the CFPB.  I know what I"m talking about here.  

Did you ever order pizza? With context and nuance?

Pizza = bad  Trump = good 
Life is simple....like healthcare and N. Korea.

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

BTW, Harris isn't even addressed in the memos.  

Second, did you even read these?  If so, you clearly don't understand bank regulations.  First off, backdating documents is certainly a violation, but the penalties established through this type of behavior is more of a reputation risk than actual statutory damages.  Do a little research on the robo-signing for Bank of America and Chase along with changes in the affidavits of debt in NJ and other states that have specific 30 day time stamps and you'll see that considering the widespread practice that banks used, the penalties on a per case basis were fairly pedestrian.  It was almost like FDCPA statutory violations.  

Third, the other accusations are related to the belief of the office that One West had insufficient oversight on its third parties.  They spell this out in various ways.  However, that is the most ambiguous of all charges.  In fact, lots of banks have had OCC and OTS findings related to this and they rarely if ever turn into Consent Orders.  They become MRA's (matters requiring attention) and MOU (memos of understanding).  
They also accuse the bank of obstructing their investigation.  I applaud the bank for this as well.  The "obstruction" was executed by their counsel based on the fact that the regulator was requesting documents that are actually proprietary to another entity NOT under investigation.  
What you actually have her is the rule of law taking place.  And Harris's office (again, she's not on the memo) declining to try to make law and exact penalties through the use of Consent orders rather than rule making.  That's a very important point.  I'm contrasting this again with the CFPB who has spent the last several years imposing rules through consents across financial markets.  What they do is make the fighting of the penalties (through litigation) more expensive than the penalty.  That way they get to declare victory and impose a rule because the entity makes a business decision and relents.  It's cheaper to settle than to fight.  And then the CFPB gets to use those consents as a bludgeon against other players in the same market.  It's all very brilliant and shitty at the same time.

Now you probably didn't read all of this and that wouldn't surprise me.  But so you know, I spent six years earlier in my career managing regulators for a top five bank.  I've dealt with the OCC, OTS and FDIC.  I've also dealt with the rookie lawyer at the CFPB.  I know what I"m talking about here.  

That's a great write up and you certainly should be proud of your experience and accomplishments, but it still doesn't explain why Harris's office (in 2013 while she was CA AG) recommended charges against West One (see very last sentence) and why Harris's only explanation was:
“It’s a decision my office made,” she said, in response to questions from The Hill shortly after being sworn in as California’s newest U.S. senator.

“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made,” Harris said. “We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”

I think its hysterical that you somehow equate "degree of violation" to "penalties" on a case by case basis! All you're really saying is well everybody did it a million times over so no big deal, its common practice and pedestrian. Have you forgotten about the bank immunity deals with all 50 state AGs? Do you think the banks begging for immunity had anything to do with prosecution and "penalties"?

In any event... "I think you won, but I really really enjoyed the fight"

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

BTW, Harris isn't even addressed in the memos.  

Second, did you even read these?  If so, you clearly don't understand bank regulations.  First off, backdating documents is certainly a violation, but the penalties established through this type of behavior is more of a reputation risk than actual statutory damages.  Do a little research on the robo-signing for Bank of America and Chase along with changes in the affidavits of debt in NJ and other states that have specific 30 day time stamps and you'll see that considering the widespread practice that banks used, the penalties on a per case basis were fairly pedestrian.  It was almost like FDCPA statutory violations.  

Third, the other accusations are related to the belief of the office that One West had insufficient oversight on its third parties.  They spell this out in various ways.  However, that is the most ambiguous of all charges.  In fact, lots of banks have had OCC and OTS findings related to this and they rarely if ever turn into Consent Orders.  They become MRA's (matters requiring attention) and MOU (memos of understanding).  
They also accuse the bank of obstructing their investigation.  I applaud the bank for this as well.  The "obstruction" was executed by their counsel based on the fact that the regulator was requesting documents that are actually proprietary to another entity NOT under investigation.  
What you actually have her is the rule of law taking place.  And Harris's office (again, she's not on the memo) declining to try to make law and exact penalties through the use of Consent orders rather than rule making.  That's a very important point.  I'm contrasting this again with the CFPB who has spent the last several years imposing rules through consents across financial markets.  What they do is make the fighting of the penalties (through litigation) more expensive than the penalty.  That way they get to declare victory and impose a rule because the entity makes a business decision and relents.  It's cheaper to settle than to fight.  And then the CFPB gets to use those consents as a bludgeon against other players in the same market.  It's all very brilliant and shitty at the same time.

Now you probably didn't read all of this and that wouldn't surprise me.  But so you know, I spent six years earlier in my career managing regulators for a top five bank.  I've dealt with the OCC, OTS and FDIC.  I've also dealt with the rookie lawyer at the CFPB.  I know what I"m talking about here.  

Did you ever order pizza? With context and nuance?

Pizza = bad  Trump = good 
Life is simple....like healthcare and N. Korea.

North Korea is bad.  It's terrible!  A country full of poor peasants  barely scarping by to stay alive, bowing down (to avoid punishment) to a small and powerful minority of cruel leadership.  Maybe bad is not the word.  Just sad.  Terribly sad. 

N. Korea is like New Hampshire... just a drug infested den.  

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Mr. Lux - go to the impending impeachment thread pg 55.  A poster on there posted a link w/ full video by CNN on this.

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Mr. Lux - go to the impending impeachment thread pg 55.  A poster on there posted a link w/ full video by CNN on this.

Saw the one about New Hampshire's drug problem. 

North Korea?  If I were a captive of the country I would have a drug problem too.  I just don't think the country is bad, just it's insane rulers.

Corruption and evil rarely extends to the civilians.  This was true in Soviet Russia and the N. Koreans probably also fit that mold.  They just want to survive and provide.  The exception is Nazi Germany.  There is a whole school of thought led by Daniel Goldhagen that people were complicit (not just the SS, Gestapo, etc., but the actual citizens).  It's pretty controversial.  They are called Hitler's wiling executioners.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYb8Wm6-QfA