The Democrats Who Protect JP Morgan’s Incompetent Regulator

Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.  You can follow him at

Last month, I reported on two amendments put forward in the House Financial Services Committee which would substantially limit the undemocratic power of the Federal Reserve and the national bank regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  They would subject these agencies to the regular appropriations process, meaning that Congress could cut off their funds if there were policy disagreements.  Right now, the OCC gets its money from banks and the Fed prints its own budget (nice work if you can get it).  The amendment put forward to bring the OCC into line with democracy was offered by Rep. Brad Miller, and it lost by a vote of 22-35.  The Fed amendment lost by a vote of 24-33.  What’s interesting, though, is that while Barney’s amendment on the Fed lost in a straight party line vote, Miller’s OCC amendment would have won if the seven Democrats who voted against it had voted for it.

This is especially useful to consider in light of the JP Morgan Chase debacle, because a key regulator of JP Morgan Chase is the OCC.  The second key regulator is the Fed.

In other words, protecting the OCC and the big banks can be laid at the feet of both the Republicans on the committee AND the seven Democrats who voted with the GOP.  These members are Mel Watt, Gwen Moore, Ed Perlmutter, Joe Donnolly, Jim Himes, John Carney, and Gary Peters.  Four of those members are in the New Democrat Coalition (Himes, Peters, Carney, Perlmutter), two are Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus members (Watt, Moore), and one is a Blue Dog (Donnolly).  Jim Himes is particularly worth noting – he’s a smooth and handsome former Goldman Sachs employee from Connecticut who ran for Congress and won in 2008, and hired a former UBS lobbyist as his chief of staff.  Ed Perlmutter, another New Dem, literally owned part of a bank that had been sanctioned for unsafe and unsound practices.  Mel Watt, the Congressman from Bank of America, fought against a Fed audit until he was soundly thrashed by Ron Paul and Alan Grayson in committee.  Watt’s banking staffer, Sanders Adu, shortly departed to head Federal lobbying for Wells Fargo.  It’s a pretty business as usual lot.

But now they, as well as the Republicans, are on the record supporting the bank-friendly OCC.  And four of them, Donnolly, Himes, Peters, and Carney, as well as most Republicans on the committee, are on record supporting the Federal Reserve’s right to print money to fund itself.  The person they were protecting, in the vote for the OCC, was this woman, Julie Williams.

Williams is the Chief Counsel for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and that’s her testifying in December, 2011 to the Senate Banking Committee on the OCC’s approach to foreclosures.  Her most recent feat of evil is the foreclosure review process (which one whistleblower has called a sham), where she hired consultants to review foreclosures who had previously been credit risk managers on the predatory loans that are now in foreclosure.  Some of these firms even “scrub files” on behalf of the banks themselves.  Of course, the corrupt shadow regulator the Promontory Group is in the mix, since Promontory has loads of former OCC-employees on its payroll (and was in fact founded by former OCC Chief Gene Ludwig).

According to Senator Jeff Merkley, the OCC tried to keep these consultants secret and then failed after public pressure forced them to divulge the consultants involved in the reviews.  Williams, of course, probably lied about it to the Senate.  In other words, Julie Williams is basically the Lex Luther of the bank regulatory community, overseeing the preemption of state and local lending laws that allowed the housing bubble to blow out, and now running and defending the “foreclosure review” process that the OCC is using to cover up servicer fraud from the banks.  The OCC, remember, is responsible for the safety and soundness of national banks, which means that the failure of most (though not all) of the big ones, including Countrywide (until late 2006), Bank of America, and Citigroup, can be laid at the feet of the OCC.

The OCC has a new head, Thomas Curry, who was just confirmed by the Senate.  I’m told that he’s a respectable regulator with integrity, but that he’s a bit cautious.  I suspect that if he’s going to succeed in reigning in a bank regulator that is renowned for a track record of catastrophic failure, Williams will have to either be fired or marginalized.

In order to regulate banks like JP Morgan effectively, you need regulators who are willing to do so.  As long as Julie Williams is with the OCC, we can be sure that she’ll do everything in her power to make sure the will won’t be there for a serious approach to dealing with the problems in our banking system.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post on by .

About Matt Stoller

From 2011-2012, Matt was a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. He contributed to Politico, Alternet, Salon, The Nation and Reuters, focusing on the intersection of foreclosures, the financial system, and political corruption. In 2012, he starred in “Brand X with Russell Brand” on the FX network, and was a writer and consultant for the show. He has also produced for MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show. From 2009-2010, he worked as Senior Policy Advisor for Congressman Alan Grayson. You can follow him on Twitter at @matthewstoller.


  1. Gil Gamesh

    The GOP, the party of forbearance. The Democrats, the party of “Look Forward, Not Back”. Laws, regulations, rules: they mean nothing to those who matter, only cudgels to be used against the poor, the powerless, workers, minorities.

    Happy Memorial Day.

    1. Woodrow Wilson

      “Laws, regulations, rules: they mean nothing to those who matter, only cudgels to be used against the poor, the powerless, workers, minorities.” –

      When the Rule of Law is not equally administered for all, there is no Rule of Law.

        1. enouf

          I thought we perp-walked shoplifters ..or does stealing a pair of panties from K-mart’s Red-Light special not suffice?


      1. Jimbo

        Destroying the rule of law destroys the country, which may be the whole hidden point of why the criminal bankers have had no consequences.
        I sound like Alex Jones.

    2. Walter Wit Man

      The balls Obama must have to use “Forward” as a campaign theme.

      Or it’s classic mindfucking. They’re mocking our powerlessness.

      1. Tim

        Moving Forward was also the new motto for Toyota after killing scores of americans by turning a blind eye to their defective throttle by wire system for years, among other recent high profile failures.

        A “Forward” slogan is an admission of failure. Obama can’t run on “change” again because everybody will remember what a failure he has been. Toyota can’t run on “quality” anymore for the same reason.

        “Please move along there is nothing to see here!” (queu Leslie Neilson in Naked Gun) is the longform of the “forward” slogan.

      2. enouf

        They’re mocking our powerlessness.

        You just noticed?

        But no!, we are not powerless; that is the false premise they thrive upon… realize this; We are the Sovereigns, not the Public Servants nor the Private CCCP cartel

        “Take the Power Back” from RATM is apropos here


      3. Aquifer

        Well we just misinterpret what he means by “Forward”, as we did so much else of what he said when was/is running.

        What he means is “Forward!” as in “Charge! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! Take no prisoners! Off with their heads!” and all that … He’s calling on his “troops” to pull out their razor tipped checkbooks and finish the massacre he has begun. Perfectly good slogan – suits him, and the other suits, well, seems to me …

  2. Hugh

    Most federal regulators, especially those in the financial sector like the OCC and SEC, are sockpuppets of the corporate interests they are supposed to regulate. But you have to look at the whole process of emasculation. Congress limits their powers, riddles them with exceptions, and keeps them underfunded and understaffed. Whoever happens to be President at the moment names anti-regulatory, pro-corporate directors to them, and otherwise blocks and delays actual regulation through the rule making process (as opposed to direct legislation) by sending it for vetting to the black hole of the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, currently held by another anti-regulatory stooge named Cass Sunstein.

    1. R Foreman

      ..but haven’t you heard, it’s in your own best interest to look the other way and allow these frauds to continue. Sheesh, you plebes are so unappreciative of the benevolent, magnanimous acts of your owners.

      Back to work slave, before we cut off your food and throw you into the street.

    2. enouf

      So .. you have dissected and outlined how Satan and his minions achieve their tasks? Do you really think you could ever know how all evil will ever propogate, from the minds of mankind, and regulate that somehow, some way?

      I pity thee; and i also don’t think your usage of ’emasculation’ is apropos, since penises and relevant hormones have nothing to do witoutright theft and fraud.


    3. Aquifer

      Glad you pointed out the power of the Office of Pres in the executive/administrative arena – the power of appointment, the power of directive, the power of priority and policy emphasis – e.g. if your AG isn’t prosecuting, fire him/her and get one that will, unless of course (s)he is doing precisely what you want …

      There is a lot Pres. can do. When they don’t it is always convenient to blame Congress. Who sits in that office does matter. As long as a member of the duopoly sits there you can fuhgeddabout having any kind of functioning regulatory agencies ….

  3. Sunshine

    im not a republican or a dem but i just called himes office to tell him that his vote was blatant conflict and it was disgusting.

    also told him about how we, the public (h/t matt stoller), know of his formers employment with GS and about his UBS tooly chief of staff.

    then i told him i am going to provide this information including his no vote of the OCC regulatory amendment, as opposition research to his running opponent in CT-4

    Republican, Steve Obsitnik

    then i called Obsitnik’s campaign offices and I told them what I had done, gave the name of the author and Stoller title and where to find it on NC.

    They were very grateful because they had not known of this yet??? wtf…

    anyway they were delighted when i told them i was not a R or a D.

    overall it was a lazy inconsequential yet very emotionally satisfying and cathartic few moves i made, though in a few hours i wont care and it wont matter….unless every reader of stoller’s post does the same thing with at least all of these so called democRATS….

    nah it wont matter…they know it we know it, but it can be a fun game to play between pron…especially if you havent worked in months…

  4. DiamondJammies

    “What’s interesting, though, is that while Barney’s amendment on the Fed lost in a straight party line vote, Miller’s OCC amendment would have won if the seven Democrats who voted against it had voted for it.”

    This is the thing: there will always be enough rotating-villain Democrats to kill anything the 1% doesn’t like. It’s a little game they’ve perfected. And I hope it’s becoming obvious to liberals that that’s exactly what it is: a game…a deliberate strategy to make you folks think “if only we had more and better Democrats!” But no matter how many better Democrats you get the game will be played the same. The breakthrough will always be just over the horizon.

    The important thing to remember is that this is not in any way, shape or form anything like a democracy. The people you elect, always and forever under capitalism, represent capital and its interests.

    This is why the Democrats are much worse than the Republicans. The Republicans are straight-up reactionaries who openly represent the interests of the 1%. The Democrats’ job is more difficult: it’s to convince good and sincere people that they represent an alternative. They don’t.

    Thankfully I think the game is starting to become clear to people.

    Is it a coincidence that every single “social-democratic” party in every single democracy preaches people power while adhering to a strict neoliberal agenda? Only a dupe could believe it’s a coincidence. It is very much a planned, deliberate strategy carried out by the transnational capitalist class and their water-carriers on the faux-left.

    1. Carla

      Well, DiamondJammies, I sure wish I had written that comment! I’ve said much the same many times, but never as well as you just did.

    2. bhikshuni

      “Is it a coincidence that every single “social-democratic” party in every single democracy preaches people power while adhering to a strict neoliberal agenda?”

      But it isn’t limited to the democracies and social-democrats! The People’s Republic of China is good at this game too!

  5. sunny129

    Democracy is subservient to Corporatocracy in America, where voting R or D is moot.

    This fact has NOT dawned many who are still pointing fingers, whether they liberal or conservative!

    90% of MSM is controlled by 6 mega coroprations part of 1% who love to mask/confuse the issues facing our society but enjoy the masses behind D or R, bickering each other!

    GOP dominated 5-4 Supreme court has declared a Corporation a citizen and money as free speech. Super PACS are titans fighting one another for their vested interests! Elections are joke.

    Till the American sheeple wake up to this fact, NOTHING will change!

    AMERICA, the Best Democracy Money can Buy!

    1. Tim

      The most effective constitutional amendment at this point would be an amendment banning 100% of private funding for elections.

      Potential federal elects would be determined by drawing from lottery pools of members of existing state and local legislatures and executive branches.

      Then it would be impossible for an orchestrated rise to the top by the ones with the deepest pockets or those who are most willing to sell out to the highest bidder.

      1. Aquifer

        Problem is those D/Rs at local, state levels are already sell outs in training – the national level is only the local level writ large. That is why when folks complain about 3rd parties not “simply” starting local and working their way up, they show a lack of understanding that the same problems they face nationally, they face locally as well. In some ways national is “easier” – “a prophet in his hometown …” and all that …..

        1. enouf

          true dat!
          that’s how the teabaggers came to power (with Koch-caine Bros $$$ support)


  6. steelhead23

    I have to thank you for being so forthright. But now that you’ve bloodied Ms Williams nose, let’s get serious about a little wet work. Is she career civil service, or is she SES? Firing a career girl would be quite hard. Canning an SESer is as simple as getting the prez to say “you’re fired” as they serve at the pleasure of the prez.

    As long as people like this remain in power, it would be hard to change the system. As long as the system remains ineffectual in protecting the public, the public will distrust government. Get my point? It is this, recognized or not, government is losing credibility during this crisis. This lack of credibility makes the nation harder to govern – and that difficulty translates into further erosion of public confidence – a kind of death spiral for legitimacy. Obama’s perspective may be much closer to OCC’s than we would wish to believe, but I cannot imagine that he wishes regulatory incompetence to undermine his legitimacy. How could we make Obama more aware of this threat?

    1. Blunt

      Gawrsh, it’d be nice to think that Barry cares at all about “his legacy.” His legacy will be the millions he makes over the next twenty years for “speaking engagements” and to sit on “policy panels” just like Bubba Clinton’s been doing.

      I imagine that Barry doesn’t even care quite as much as you do about whether he gets reelected in November, knowing that he’s done a great job of serving the interests of the financial and corporate elite. His legacy consists of his daughters who will marry well and have plenty of jack when Barry dies.

      The perfect butler, an epitaph that will live on.

      1. Tod

        ‘How could we make Obama more aware of this threat?’ hahaha!
        Get him to sign something new, and more draconian, that’ll show the riff raff.

        1. Ms G

          She has been at OCC for a-ges. Clearly as a very obedient sock-puppet because even if she’s civil service (which is unlikely for a GC, but still), she could have been shuffled to a potemkin desk if she hadn’t been performing for banks, their lobbyists, and the good people in Congress + White House who have bank money in their bloodstreams.

          You will find her signature at the bottom of most important correspondence of OCC objecting to, and/or requesting waivers, from rule-making proposals to strengthen fin. regs. You will also find her as the primary signor on myriad letters to banks opining on the scope this or that existing reg/statute, consistently providing a reading favorable to banks, even when resulting in a benediction of conduct rife with conflicts or self dealing at the expense of bank customers.

    2. Strangely Enough

      “I cannot imagine that he wishes regulatory incompetence to undermine his legitimacy.”

      Pretty much all evidence points to the contrary.

    3. Sunshine


      I bet you cant imagine that steve jawwwwwbz the jawwwwb kreeeatuuurrr – peace be upon him –

      would risk his “Legacy” by not acknowledging that the icrap that you undoubtedly own was made by slave labor.

      After all they have swimming pools and suicide nets at foxxconn! plus the AAPL commercials are so cool!!!

      hmm how can we make jawwwbz more aware of this ‘threat’….hmmm

      and I bet you just cant ‘imagine’ Dimond Jaime risking his ‘legacy’ by making out sized greedy bets that would bring down pension funds for millions.

      Afterall JPM is the biggest and best in class! hmmm how can we make Dimond Jaime aware of this threat??? hmmm…

      how can WE??? WE? how can WE???


      Obama needs YOU, YOU STEELHEAD23, NOT WE,to warn him of any threats to his so called ‘legacy’ (wall street ass whore fraud lying sack of shit).

      Obama NEEDS YOU because YOU are a tapioca-pudding-eating change and hope loser.

      his legacy? thanks for the friday funnies.

      the fact that you:

      ‘cannot imagine that [Obama] wishes regulatory incompetence to undermine his legitimacy’

      is beyond naive and so deeply delusional, that I can’t even approach your idiotic drivel with any rational response.

      you’re one of those pathetic icon-needy ignorant troglodyte tribal zombie suckers who proudly ‘votes’ for donkeys or pachyderms.

      I bet you even you still have a faded yellow ribbon sticker your car. you never took it off did you, and I bet you donate to a lot of ‘charities’.

      you seem very confused.

      so revolting. disgusted.

      Steelhead23, reading your bland non-sense, which is sadly emblematic of a large number of folks, i’m reminded of eliot’s prufrock:

      ‘Do I dare? and, Do I dare?
      Do I dare, Disturb the universe?
      In a minute there is time
      For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse’

      ‘We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
      By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
      Till human voices wake us, and we drown.’

      and wordsworth

      ‘we have given our hearts away, A sordid Boon!’

      ‘Great God! I’d rather be
      A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn’

      1. steelhead23

        Golly guys – I happen to detest Obama – or more accurately, since I don’t know the man, I detest his policies. But hey, I kind of sort of believe in good governance. That’s what my lament was about. I never once used the term ‘legacy.’ I am talking about legitimacy – as in the U.S. Government is the legitimate government of the United States. Please look up legitimation crisis if you wish to understand legitimacy’s opposite.

        1. Sunshine

          “In political systems with little or no legitimacy, unpopular régimes SURVIVE because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élites.”

          what is this ‘legitimacy’ that you speak of?

          so you think the US government has ‘legitimacy’?

          and that corruption under Obama compromises this ‘legitimacy’?

          and you think that by ‘warning’ Obama about the loss of this magical .gov ‘legitimacy’, that we somehow restore our deMOCKracy and freeDUMBS?

          is obama increasing usgov ‘legitimacy’ by gutting over $200 Billion from social security per year with his little payroll tax cut? (LEGACY)

          Jeopardy Category: COLD DAY IN HELL

          Answer: when was the last time a tax cut got repealed?

          is it ‘legitimate’ that the government of the united states can say in 10 years that SS is bankrupt and we must therefore privatize? (LEGACY)

          is it legitimate that Obama is purely an extension of Junior Bush and elite neoliberal united states government policies in “black Face”? (LEGACY)

          is it legitimate that everything that Obama promised and that we fought against under Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan, Obama is accomplishing now with nary a peep? (LEGACY)

          No, Kinetic Obama, is neither worried about his legacy nor does he care about the legitimacy of the united states government. (LEGACY)

          So maybe we can stop all the hand wringing and prevarications about Obama, Congress and the “legitimacy of The United States Government”.

          Only elites and their toolies, scaremonger about losing .gov “legitimacy”, and you are certainly encouraged and “free” to worry endlessly about said “legitimacy” by chasing that FICO.

          gimme a break.

          1. LucyLulu

            Sunshine wrote: is obama increasing usgov ‘legitimacy’ by gutting over $200 Billion from social security per year with his little payroll tax cut? (LEGACY)

            No money is being ‘gutted’ from social security by the payroll tax cut. The difference in payroll taxes collected is being paid to the SS trust fund out of general Treasury revenues. In 2011, about $100 billion was paid in from general revenues, resulting in a surplus for the year of a little under that amount.


      2. enouf


        No need to use The Lord’s name in vain like that dear …really


      3. bhikshuni

        “and I bet you donate to a lot of ‘charities’.”

        Generosity is a good thing, and precisely the antidote to the pathological greed and selfishness service as the autoimmune disease killing the USA and beyond.

    4. Carla

      I must say I love the phrase “a death spiral for legitimacy.”

      But that death spiral is way beyond the point of any single individual, including the President, being able to reverse it. After all, Mr. Obama is only following orders.

      The problem is systemic. The U.S. government is not legitimate.

      We are the 99 percent. And we can change everything. But nobody EVER said it would be easy.

  7. Immelt's Fraudclosures

    I’m going to call Mark Warner (Bankster, VA) and ask him to resign along with this bank employee.

  8. Immelt's Fraudclosures

    Here’s Ofraud, after celebrating his imperial armed forces:

    “We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them.”

    No, no, no. There is one particular group that is paying the price. Impeach.

  9. Fred Gradall

    “Eric Holder constructed a task force to investigate wall street crooks. Since then what has happened? Nothing. Zero, zip, nada. In fact he has given them a total pass. According to Newsweek magazine, under Holder wall street prosecution is at a twenty year low. How does Newsweek explain this? Corruption. Plain and simple. Eric Holder has ties to the law firms who are representing the banks”

  10. Susan the other

    Oh, that Julie. i wasn’t sure who you were referring to Lambert. So Julie Williams is the chief counsel for the OCC and has helped them get out of their embarrassing little mess by whitewashing the fraudclosure facts. And the majority of Congress is protecting her, or her efforts. It’s good to know your enemies. Even so, I’m not sure we want to prosecute the Fed’s and the OCC’s fraudclosure and securitization fraud by chopping off their heads. Congress needs a line item veto for punishing these “regulators” which forces them to obey certain rules themselves but doesn’t stop the Fed from printing up the necessary money to keep the country running. We need a Sarbanes Oxley for this sort of situation.

    1. Rex

      Ah yes, I remember her. What an exemplary, quintessential, babbling, do nothing, obsequious, long-term bureaucrat. Scum of the earth in a protected, protecting, perennial position who knows her job was to do nothing with aplomb.

      If she could be boiled in oil over a flame made of greenbacks, I would chip in my fair share of kindling to watch her cook.

      Just the sort of human place-holder that makes our government so consisntantly incapable of looking out for the common good.

      Speaking of place-holders, in this context, I am reminded of our Attorney General.

      1. Rex

        BTW, Julie Williams first caught my attention by her studied opinion that OCC could or should do nothing to rein in the scam-bags of Providian Financial in the 1st half of the 2000’s.

        The picture in the article (above) captures her countenance, and I would contend, her character, pretty accurately.

        I first saw her in action on Frontline, so the PBS show has some value, even if found lacking here recently.

  11. Maxed Out

    The madness continues. Are we expected to believe that the OCC is some kind of regulator when their chief counsel is so clearly pro-victimization, fraud, waste and abuse?

    1. Up the Ante

      Dependent on Lenders’ Fees, the OCC
      Takes Banks’ Side Against Local Laws

      “.. as the result of an examination, the OCC ordered Eagle National Bank, a small institution in Upper Darby, Pa., to get out of the business of funding so-called payday loans. These are high-interest loans repayable on the borrower’s next payday and viewed by many regulators as exploitative. — The OCC said it acted because Eagle’s lack of oversight of the loans had placed its financial viability at risk. ” —

      “.. The OCC, in separate legal papers, said “the public interest” favored allowing banks to charge noncustomers more for using their ATMs. Otherwise, the OCC argued, the banks would lack the incentive to operate large numbers of ATMs in areas where they don’t have many customers. ”

      Here’s one of the spectacle-judges,
      “.. the new judge, Michael Silverstein, handed the OCC a victory. He ruled that FleetBoston couldn’t be sued under the state’s deceptive-practices law. Such a suit would call into question the OCC’s “very foundational authority to regulate national banks,” the judge ruled. “

  12. Large Whale

    Williams is civil service and not easy to fire. But reassignable. She runs that office with an iron fist (e.g. she reviews every OCC attorney’s annual performance reviews), and she is VERY well connected/feared, so you’d be a brave lad to mess with the Silver Witch. Hard to believe that she used to be one of Nader’s Raiders.

    1. enouf

      I just puked up my dinner after reading your last sentence, thanks
      … but suffice to say Ralph hasn’t been in charge for years


    2. enouf

      If you are so scared of repercussions from people in power, how might you feel on judgement day?


    3. Up the Ante

      Nader’s Raiders
      [got a kick out of Easly’s face, the look of just can’t tamp it down]

      Our friends at PBS should seriously consider doing a piece on Ms. Williams. I don’t know how many OCC associates have consistently raised alarms in the direction of ‘reverse-engineering’ America. It IS the seat of the conspiracy.

      For instance, moving through a room where someone was watching televised congressional testimony, I’d tangentially scan the screen to see whom the person testifying was and once his affiliation w/the OCC was given every time it was, ‘Oh, that explains it [the conspiratorial manner]! EVERY TIME.

      PBS has interviewd Williams before, and they asked direct questions of Ms. Williams,

      for example, “The reason I’m going back over this is because what you indicated was that there are 1700 bank examiners. Some of them are located or housed in some of the major banks, particularly the larger credit card banks, like Providian was one of the large ones. They see the complaint files, don’t they? Regularly? I mean, they should be looking at the complaint file. And so the question is, why didn’t the OCC itself take action before anyone else? ”

      Watch the ‘counsel’ squirm,

      “This interview was conducted on Oct. 28, 2004. ” 2004 timeframe in the very take-off point of the bubble !!

      That’s a good interview.

      1. Carla

        You may have friends at PBS, but I don’t. Five or six years ago they still did the occasional hard-hitting interview or in-depth investigative report. Not anymore. They are completely signed, sealed and delivered as an upscale niche in the mainstream corporate media.

        It’s systemic.

        1. Up the Ante

          I suppose if you had a design to ‘flip’ the media’s investigative role to one of an excusatory role it would explain the trending you mention Carla. Perhaps there’s Angel Investors in the funding world, and apologists for the OCC, Carla ?

          Take the ‘counsel’ out of its chosen venue and its strategy founders. The questions asked of Williams in that interview left her in the excusatory role, as appropriate considering the banking frauds being perpetrated. They then proceeded to blow the biggest banking bubble in the nation’s history and Williams allowed it all.

  13. Reformed Democrat

    Diamond Jammies post above states: “This is the thing: there will always be enough rotating-villain Democrats to kill anything the 1% doesn’t like. It’s a little game they’ve perfected. And I hope it’s becoming obvious to liberals that that’s exactly what it is: a game…a deliberate strategy to make you folks think “if only we had more and better Democrats!” But no matter how many better Democrats you get the game will be played the same. The breakthrough will always be just over the horizon.”

    Never truer words were writ. Thanks Diamond for sparkling clarity.

  14. briansays

    Joe Donnoloy will be more that willing to carry water for the banksters since the teabaggers knocked off Lugar he has a shot at picking up a senate seat

    Its gonna take a lot of $$$ for a democrat to win statewide in indiana even if he is pro gun and anti abortion

    Good Notre Dame alum…

  15. littlebadwolf

    the illusion here is that the federal reserve bank system is part of the federal government, which it is not. frb is a
    wholly owned subsidiary of the banksters, but relied upon by
    washington to do its dirty(money) work. out of control? you
    betcha; and purposefully so.

  16. LucyLulu

    Interesting that the Financial Services Committee votes against having funds Congressionally appropriated for the FRB and OCC. Just a month ago, in a $5B cost-cutting measure, they voted just the opposite, making the CFPB subject to Congressional appropriations.

    Call me dense but I don’t understand the rationale behind this one. There is certainly a case for conflict of interest with having the regulated fund the regulators. OTOH, if Congress is in charge of appropriating funds, then the agencies will be subject to defunding by the anti-regulatory house majority, as was just done with the CFPB, and has been threatened to the EPA, etc.

    1. Up the Ante

      It was Congress’ way of thumbing their noses at legislation requiring the reporting of contributions, lobbying, etc.

      Contempt, in other words.

      The outward manifestation of ‘insider trading’.

Comments are closed.