How Much “Bias” and “Stand Down” Was Ordered Concerning the TBTF Banks During 2008-2016?

By Sydney Sullivan, Co-Editor and Contributing Researcher

An interesting post by Richard Bowen on June 21, 2018, The DOJ report: Another Political Hot Potato? brings up very significant questions.

Mr. Bowen writes, “Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to prosecute any of the major players responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. I think we need to ask if bias was responsible here as well.”

Hopefully, folks are following “[T]he Justice Department’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email scandal and other actions in advance of the 2016 election is already a political hot potato,” as Mr. Bowen begins his post.

“The report has President Trump supporters saying “Told ya so” and the general public questioning how the DOJ and the FBI runs its departments. And rightfully so.

Politics aside, let’s look at fairness and objectivity which supposedly is part of the job of the DOJ and its Inspector General, to report the facts and nothing but the facts. There is definite evidence about how investigations were handled that seem to show a concerted effort to slam and slander and slant toward particular biases, regardless of what Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz states.”

Richard continues, “According to the Wall Street Journal, the 500-page report “slammed multiple FBI employees involved in the investigation for sending politically charged text messages.” IG Horowitz’s staff unearthed thousands of controversial text messages that disparaged Mr. Trump. The inspector general said his office was “deeply troubled” by the messages, which “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

“Departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice,” the report noted. But the report does not conclude that the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton was improper or politically motivated.

According to Ethics Alarms, the report, in fact, makes a strong case for bias, and the overall distrust of the FBI in the investigations under former FBI head Comey and others. It states that FBI agents were leaking to the news media regularly, that they accepted favors and gifts from journalists and that overall some of their actions were unethical, illegal, unprofessional and disloyal.” Read more HERE.

As if this isn’t enough to question the Obama Administration policies and orders, YahooNews posted “Obama cyber chief confirms ‘stand down’ order against Russian cyberattacks in summer 2016″ by Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative CorrespondentYahoo News on June 20, 2018. Another very interesting summary where “Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were put on a “back burner” after he was ordered to “stand down his efforts in the summer of 2016.”

Mr. Isikoff continues, “[T]he view that the Obama administration failed to adequately piece together intelligence about the Russian campaign and develop a forceful response has clearly gained traction with the intelligence committee. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the panel, said in an opening statement that “we were caught flat-footed at the outset and our collective response was inadequate to meet Russia’s escalation.”

“That conclusion,” writes Mr. Isikoff,  “was reinforced Wednesday by another witness, Victoria Nuland, who served as assistant secretary of state for Europe during the Obama administration. She told the panel that she had been briefed as early as December 2015 about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee — long before senior DNC officials were aware of it — and that the intrusion had all the hallmarks of a Russian operation.”

The Yahoo News post is an awesome must read detail of the Obama Administration’s stand down attitude that makes us all question, “Why?”

We know Obama instituted the quarterly Net Worth Sweeps against Fannie & Freddie in 2012 which raided the funds of the housing giants and increased foreclosures and short sales in order to generate so-called “profits” to feed the Treasury…not to mention the continued damage to the GSE shareholders who were (and still are) caught in limbo.

How much of a “Stand Down” was issued on the prosecution of the banks from 2008-2016? Were “settlements without admissions” ordered in lieu of prosecution? Where did the money go from these “settlement” and “non-prosecution” agreements? Where exactly did all the money go that was swept away from Fannie & Freddie who actually helped homeowners before the 2008 crisis?

Why isn’t anyone talking about the 84 million+ American land titles that have been clouded and the American families that have been devastated and made homeless by the ongoing foreclosure tsunami? This all equates to the undercurrent of domestic upheaval and chaos, alined with suppression, secrecy, and misinformation. Sure, Congress will point to the homeless when it suits them – but no one wants to expose the real stats that relate the massive number of homeless directly to wrongful foreclosures.

We need to press for answers and transparency. If there are two major areas of significant concern and obvious wrongdoing, we can probably all agree there are more.

1 thought on “How Much “Bias” and “Stand Down” Was Ordered Concerning the TBTF Banks During 2008-2016?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s