This alert came to me via grassroots4obama@yahoogroups.com ("Yes We Can, Si Se Puede"), immediately I went to Daily Kos and searched under the name Eliot Spitzer only, I figured that if this story was posted here, it surely would have the name in the tags.
Why do I think it is important to look into it? Well, read below the fold and see what my fuss is all about.
I got 24 results with one Diary which had a link to the Spitzer's op-ed at the Washington Post on February 14, 2008, which in my opinion, missed the main story and a second one 2 days later which is a good analisys on the mortgage crisis and the Bush's Administration role on the affair, but didn't really connect the dots.
- What if Eliot Spitzer were now the U.S. Attorney General, by arodb Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:14:26 PM PDT
This post got 50 comments and 8 recomendation.
- Bush vs. Spitzer - Current Affairs, by mtspace Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:17:18 PM PDT
This post got 1 comment and 2 recomendations
This Diarist intentions are not to give you a long disertation on how just about everybody's attention was directed by the MSM into the sex aspect and juiceness of it, but what if it was a concerted effort to take him out to muzzle him and make an example of it?
I did also a Google search to see which MSM outlets had picked up on this story, I urge to do one yourself and see what you find out.
I give you the links to the articles for you to read and decide the value of "The rest of the story" (As Paul Harvey used to say).
from my nephew who is a 9/ll activist and lifelong career in military.
dorinda
Most people have the sense that there was something bizarre and surreal
about the sudden coordinated FBI and US news media attack on New York
Governor Eliot Spitzer.
After all, unproven allegations about how he may have chosen to spend his
own money on his own time hardly seems a worthy subject of front page news
for a week straight.
Meanwhile, the US news media remained characteristically clueless about why
Spitzer was taken out.
It's simple.
He had the goods on Bush adminstation colusion with predatory lenders and
was preparing a case that would have tied the administration directly to
wide spread fraud and criminality in the lending business.
Full details here...exclusive to Brasscheck TV:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/...
Eliot Spitzer's op-ed was also picked up by:
Predatory Lenders’ Partners In Crime: How the Bush Admin Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers -- BushFlash.net
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - truthout - editorial
By Eliot Spitzer
The Washington Post-- Thursday 14 February 2008
How the Bush Administration stopped the states from stepping in to help consumers.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Wasington Post
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.