Countywide's "VIP" program never offered terms that were better than those available on the open market, but the Journal reported the opposite.
The most conspicuous deceit in John Emshwiller's Wall Street Journal article on the Countrywide VIP "scandal" is the passage below:
VIP loans were often given at lower interest rates or with lower fees than were available to the general public, according to congressional investigators.
It happens to be a lie.
Congressional investigators found the opposite, that the VIP loans were not given better terms than those available to the general public. In order “to ascertain how the VIP program worked” the Senate Ethics Committee, as part of its investigation of VIP loans extended to Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, “learned about the purpose and policies of the VIP and 'friends of Angelo [Mozilo]' programs." Toward that end, the Committee, "took every possible step during the course of its year-long inquiry to obtain information from multiple sources, including issuing subpoenas for detailed contemporaneous documents and testimony,” and “carefully reviewed more than 18,000 pages of documents from Countrywide and its former employees…”
So that the Senate investigators determined the following:
Overall it appears that the VIPs were often offered quicker, or more efficient loan processing and some discounts. However, it also appears that all VIP loans, including all [Friends of Angelo] loans, were required to meet the same underwriting standards and conditions for resale on the secondary market and non-VIP loans. Furthermore, there is evidence on the record that the discounts offered to VIPs and FOAs were not the best deals available at Countrywide or in the marketplace at large. In sum, participation in the VIP or FOA programs did not necessarily mean that borrowers received the best financial deal available either from Countrywide or from other lenders.
...After examining the extensive record before it, the Committee found no credible evidence that you knowingly accepted a gift, including a loan not available to the public.
First, your mortgages were made in a commercially-reasonable manner based on terms and conditions available to borrowers with similar loan profiles. While your Countrywide loans were handled through the V.I.P. loan unit and designated as F.O.A. loans, the service you received was available to thousands of non-Senate customers at Countrywide and the loans you received appear to have been available industry-wide to borrowers with comparable loan profiles. It appears that your loans met all applicable underwriting standards and that you and your wife were excellent loan candidates and established Countrywide customers in good standing. You sought competing mortgage offers from other lenders that offered terms substantially similar to the ones Countrywide provided. There is no evidence that the interest rates for your Countrywide mortgages were below prevailing market rates.
Second, there is no credible evidence that you sought or knowingly received any financial benefits not available to other borrowers with similar loan profiles. The Committee has found no evidence that you or your wife ever asked for special treatment or that anyone ever communicated to you or your family that you were receiving specific discounts or other special treatment not available to other borrowers because of your status as a Senator.
[Emphasis added.]
In other words, the testimony of Robert Feinberg, the so-called Countrywide "whistleblower," had no credibility whatsoever.
Even worse, Emshwiller immediately followed up that lie with the highly misleading suggestion that Countrywide's VIP "scandal" was part of a larger financial fraud and mortgage fraud committed by former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo:
In court filings, Mr. Mozilo repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Last year, he and the other defendants settled with the SEC. Mr. Mozilo agreed to $67.5 million in penalties without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
Yes, I know, by referring to "congressional investigators" Emshwiller must have been referring to Darrell Issa's "investigators" instead of the investigators for the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, whose work product has been conspicuously in the public domain for two years. But "journalists" like Emshwiller aren't really interested in disclosing facts that might challenge a narrative that was prepackaged for them by Darrell Issa.