twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Just now, Hersh said: You mean oversight by Congress? or oversight after money is distributed? Oversight by someone authorized to distribute funds and a public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcunning15 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/news/banking-finance-law-daily/house-investigates-whether-mortgage-lending-settlement-donations-benefit-homeowners-or-nonprofits This article gives a pretty comprehensive view of the arguments for and against this practice. The conservative argument seems to think that these funds are public funds and that the DOJ lacks authority to divert these funds to groups of their choosing but the reality of these settlements is that these funds never belonged to the public/treasury in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 The funds never belonged to the groups the DOJ was funneling them to either The practices revoked by Sessions were unprecedented and disturbing. Quote https://judiciary.house.gov/press-release/goodlatte-hensarling-to-ag-holder-why-does-doj-require-banks-to-donate-to-activist-groups/ These terms appear unprecedented. The Department’s November 2013 mortgage-lending settlement with J.P. Morgan Chase, for example, included only direct forms of consumer relief. Certain previous agreements, including during the George W. Bush Administration, provided that any funds remaining after all consumer injury had been redressed could go to third-party groups. But that is far different from earmarking mandatory minimum donations to activist groups as central provisions of settlements, and giving banks twice the incentive to funnel settlement funds to third-party groups instead of to harmed consumers. In light of these concerns, we request that the Department conduct a briefing for the Judiciary and Financial Services Committees as soon as possible on the foregoing settlement terms and ask that you provide the following answers and information before the briefing and no later than December 9, 2014: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcunning15 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: The funds never belonged to the groups the DOJ was funneling them to either Those were the terms that were agreed upon by the prosecutor and defendants you can argue about precedents but the reality of this situation it seems perfectly legal and it really comes down to the DOJ to decide how they want to control prosecutorial discretion or Congress can pass a law to stop the practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 minute ago, mrcunning15 said: Those were the terms that were agreed upon by the prosecutor and defendants you can argue about precedents but the reality of this situation it seems perfectly legal and it really comes down to the DOJ to decide how they want to control prosecutorial discretion or Congress can pass a law to stop the practice. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. It's the way things work. The people in charge ALWAYS find legal ways to funnel money to their chosen groups. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Just now, mrcunning15 said: Those were the terms that were agreed upon by the prosecutor and defendants you can argue about precedents but the reality of this situation it seems perfectly legal and it really comes down to the DOJ to decide how they want to control prosecutorial discretion or Congress can pass a law to stop the practice. It may be legal but it is improper........and it has been stopped Do you consider it a good practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcunning15 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, twa said: It may be legal but it is improper........and it has been stopped it was unprecedented, not improper and it seems as though the current DOJ wants to reign in prosecutorial discretion in regards to how plea deals and settlements are arranged and the attorney general has the authority to do that and stop this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Would it have been improper if they were directing funds to right wing groups? At least we agree it had never been done before.....probably because of laws that attempted to prohibit doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, twa said: Would it have been improper if they were directing funds to right wing groups? At least we agree it had never been done before.....probably because of laws that attempted to prohibit doing that. How do you know "right wing" groups haven't received any money? What makes some of these groups left wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcunning15 Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: Would it have been improper if they were directing funds to right wing groups? At least we agree it had never been done before.....probably because of laws that attempted to prohibit doing that. It has been done before but not to this magnitude then again I don't think we've ever had banks defraud people at this magnitude as well. "There are hundreds of housing counselors and legal aid agencies to choose from, including faith-based organizations and nonpartisan community development groups whose political orientations range from left to centrist to nonpartisan to right" https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/news/banking-finance-law-daily/house-investigates-whether-mortgage-lending-settlement-donations-benefit-homeowners-or-nonprofits So it looks like the funds could have gone to housing groups with a right wing agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, Hersh said: How do you know "right wing" groups haven't received any money? What makes some of these groups left wing? He doesn't. Brown people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, mrcunning15 said: It has been done before but not to this magnitude So it looks like the funds could have gone to housing groups with a right wing agenda. Never that I've seen other than funds left over AFTER,and the 2fer deal is nothing but subverting law....not a good look for DOJ Do you have the approved list provided to those threatened?....if not,why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: He doesn't. Brown people. http://www.groupsnoop.org/National+Council+of+La+Raza The National Council of La Raza (“La Raza”) is a left-of-center Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said: It may be legal but it is improper........and it has been stopped Do you consider it a good practice? Wait wait wait, you've been all about legal=fine when it comes to anything the GOP does (read SCOTUS nomination) but now you want to talk "improper" because money went LEGALLY to groups YOU disagree with. #ThatsRich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Wait wait wait, you've been all about legal=fine when it comes to anything the GOP does (read SCOTUS nomination) but now you want to talk "improper" because money went to groups YOU disagree with. #ThatsRich If you read, you would know I oppose the practice no matter the group and approve ending it....not simply shifting the funds to my side now. I'm not a hypocrite like Schumer and company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, twa said: If you read, you would know I oppose the practice no matter the group and approve ending it....not simply shifting the funds to my side now. I'm not a hypocrite like Schumer and company. And yet you ignore the other half of my criticism of your position. You've argued in favor of legal obstruction of an Obama nomination and rejected our cries of impropriety because in your world legal makes right. Your complaint is wholly moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Just now, AsburySkinsFan said: And yet you ignore the other half of my criticism of your position. You've argued in favor of legal obstruction of an Obama nomination and rejected our cries of impropriety because in your world legal makes right. Your complaint is wholly moot. I am fine with the lame duck rule, which is done in public and fully disclosed.......which seems much different than the subject at hand. Care to tell me why the information on the funding is not provided ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 4 hours ago, twa said: I am fine with the lame duck rule, which is done in public and fully disclosed.......which seems much different than the subject at hand. Care to tell me why the information on the funding is not provided ? Care to tell me why you still insist on calling what happened the "lame duck rule"? You are AGAIN redefining words to suit your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Care to tell me why you still insist on calling what happened the "lame duck rule"? You are AGAIN redefining words to suit your argument. Biden’s ‘92 rule: No lame-duck nominees http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 12 hours ago, twa said: Biden’s ‘92 rule: No lame-duck nominees http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/ Yawn...again you are redefing "lame duck". Lame duck is AFTER a final election takes place. If Scalia died Nov 11th I'd agree with you, but he didn't. THAT would have been a lame duck appointment. A President is not a "lame duck" for entire final year of the term. You are wanting to redefine the term to suit what you applaud because it suits your ends. You say it was legal because the GOP had the power to do it. But here because you don't like the groups that got voluntarily and legally funded to want to cry improper. Again, all because you are a GOPer. If you would honestly start looking at these issues first and then checking which party was doing what you'd save your integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Yawn, I used Biden's and Schumers definition. it is improper to take money away from the victims, which the 2fer deal does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Funny how you consider Schumer and Biden wrong on EVERYTHING else and yet they are infallible on this singular point. I wonder if there were GOPers arguing against Biden at the time that you are now in disagreement with! Good heavens, what will you do if they found out that you disagreed with a Republican?! It's ok, I won't tell. Oh, and if you think I buy the GOPer allegator tears supposedly on behalf of the victims then you're nuts. It was the GOPers who blamed the victims of predatory lending. I ardently believe that the GOPers who have diverted all of that money away from the victims anyways, because the GOP never saw them as victims. At least this money went to someone who would actually help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 21 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: At least this money went to someone who would actually help. keep telling yourself that. I disagree with them all the time, they are still better than the other option so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said: keep telling yourself that. I disagree with them all the time, they are still better than the other option so far. Keep telling yourself that. Oh wait, you must because you defemd the indefensible continually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.