RUSH: The Washington Post today is: ‘In SEC vs. Goldman, Who’s Really at Fault?’ As you read the story, you become convinced here that this is really a weak case that has to have brought forward to help Obama cover up a second Madoff-type case that the SEC let go on for seven years after they knew about it. This is the guy in Texas. He was running a Madoff-type Ponzi scheme, and the SEC knew about it, and one of the theories about the timing of this announcement of charges against Goldman Sachs is that it hides and covers up and buries the news that the SEC is finally going after this guy — [Robert Allen] Stanford is his name — to cover up their lack of oversight and regulatory decency with this case. ‘Unless the SEC is sitting on more evidence than it has laid out so far,’ writes the Washington Post, ‘the charge sheet looks flimsy.
‘If Goldman has become a poster child for excessive power on Wall Street, the SEC might become a poster child for government power run amok.’ It’s amazing that the Washington Post just can’t see the connection here. Oh, they can see the SEC as a government agency running amuck but they do not see the ties to the Obama regime. They cannot connect those dots for some reason. ‘The SEC’s 22-page complaint states that Goldman sold fancy mortgage securities without disclosing that a hedge fund manager, John Paulson, was betting that those same securities would go bad,’ which is a non-scandal. When you get right down to it, this is the way the free market works. Okay, so this guy, Paulson, maybe was allowed to pick some of the mortgages to go in the pool. These were bad mortgages. He bet that they were not going to be a good investment because there was no solidity behind them.
But at the same time there were other people betting that they were — and the people involved in this, these were sophisticated investors. They know the risks of the game. I mean, Goldman even bet that these would be a winning investment. They lost money on their bet. The hedge fund guy made money, made a billion dollars when the mortgage-backed securities fell apart. So that’s the Washington Post version of the case. ‘Finally, the SEC asserts that Goldman, and specifically its young mortgage whiz, Fabrice ‘Fab’ Tourre, tricked ACA into believing that Paulson meant to bet on the mortgages’ soundness, not the other way around. This is the nub of the case, and if there’s proof that Goldman or Tourre was dishonest, the SEC could yet emerge with its reputation intact. But none of the e-mail fragments quoted in the complaint comes close to being a smoking gun,’ and then we have this from CNBC:
‘The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned. Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling. If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.’ So if you look at this story, you say, ‘This is not even a lawsuit. It’s a prop! It’s a phony, hollow, and flimsy prop,’ as phony and hollow and flimsy as the Greek columns Obama used at his acceptance speech outdoors in Denver. The SEC charges against Goldman Sachs are part of a deceitful and probably illegal plan to pass a bill putting the regime’s hands around the necks of every significant CEO in the financial sector. Let’s go to the audio sound bites. David Boies. You remember him? He represented Algore in the Florida recount in 2000. He’s a partisan Democrat and has the reputation being a brilliant legal mind, and he was on with Charlie Rose last night. Charlie Rose said, ‘David, what do you think of this complaint?’
BOIES: You read the complaint, and you don’t really understand what was illegal about what was going on. What’s illegal is misrepresenting. It’s deception. And you read the complaint and you see a lot of conclusions but you don’t see much hard evidence. I happen to think it’s no coincidence that it happens to come out just at the time that the administration is going after the financial regulatory reform in Congress.
RUSH: It’s not a coincidence! David Boies, a partisan Democrat, says it’s not a coincidence. It comes out just at the time the administration is going after the financial regulatory reform in Congress. Charlie Rose is aghast. He said, ‘Wait! Wait! You think the administration had some influence with the SEC in terms of bringing this complaint now?’
BOIES: I think that there’s a climate in Washington that wants to show aggression in terms of regulation. But I think you’ve gotta be careful when you bring an SEC complaint as opposed to bring a bill to change procedures or to add new regulations. This may be a good or bad lawsuit but it’s great politics. It’s moved the administration’s financial reform agenda way ahead, and I think that sometimes that ends up being a good thing for the society as a whole but it raises some troublesome issues if you’re a lawyer and you believe that cases ought to be brought for what the law says. It’s the kind of thing that makes you want to know more about what’s really behind this.
RUSH: You know, I sit here and knowing what I know about this, I wonder if Charlie Rose is aware that the administration (the regime) went out and bought the search terms, ‘Goldman Sachs SEC’ at Google — and that when anybody enters ‘Goldman Sachs SEC’ at Google, they are taken to the regime’s website, a website that is urging people to support the regime’s takeover (i.e., ‘reform’) of the financial industry. Charlie Rose is aghast that somebody as highly reputed as David Boies thinks that there’s not a coincidence here. Can Charlie Rose not read something other than the New York Times? In fact, even the Times, by the way, is making it clear that the evidence here is extremely flimsy, the evidence to support the charge. Don’t forget Mr. Jacobson from Cornell: You don’t really need evidence to destroy anybody. You have a complaint like this from the SEC, and you can go a long way toward destroying a firm’s reputation without ever getting a conviction or a guilty plea. That’s why Mr. Jacobson from Cornell thinks that this is a play to destroy Goldman Sachs.
RUSH: Steve Liesman, CNBC Squawk Box, senior economic reporter reported this morning on CNBC about the SEC complaint against Goldman Sachs.
LIESMAN: CNBC has learned that the government has testimony from a former top Paulson official that appears to contradict a part of its own case. Specifically, CNBC has reviewed documents that question the government’s contention in its case against Goldman Sachs that the Wall Street firm misled the financial insurance company ACA about Paulson & Company’s intentions to short the deal.
RUSH: Right. That’s what I just reported to you, and there’s the actual sound bite from CNBC, which is why I say, folks, this is not a lawsuit. This is a prop. Don’t doubt me on this. Every aspect of this has been coordinated and organized from the White House. How can anybody doubt it? It is what President Obama has always been, an organizer and agitator. This is how you do things in this regime. Nobody at the SEC is going to pipe up and say the White House made us do it. The people at the SEC are on the team. The Democrat that runs the show over there is Mary Shapiro, and it’s sort of like the FCC, there are three Democrats in the SEC, and there are two Republicans. Now, Shapiro goes way, way back – correct me if I’m wrong on this — I was told yesterday that she was a Reagan appointee, but she’s a Democrat, and everybody’s held onto her. But she is a Democrat. I don’t care what Rahm Emanuel says, I don’t care what Gibbs says, ‘Independent agency, we found out about it in the New York Times just like you did,’ blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This administration gets websites in advance, buys key word search terms so that their website pops up first on Google and who knows wherever else, it’s just the health care redux, everything just being done according to the same playbook. You create a panic, you create a crisis, you demonize somebody, you demonize doctors, you demonize the entire medical profession, you demonize insurance companies, demonize Big Oil, whatever you need to demonize. The thing that really frustrates me is that the government never gets demonized and whenever anybody speaks out about these practices in the government — and I pointed out, let a CEO try anything Obama has tried in the private sector and they are in jail, they are brought up on charges immediately, fraud and deceit. Where is it written that you can’t have any distrust of the government? Where is it written that you cannot question the competence of people in government? Who are these people in government? Somebody tell me just the hell, who is Barack Obama to run the entire health care business? Who is Barack Obama to run the American automobile business? Who is Barack Obama to now take over and regulate the American financial services industry? Who is he?
Why does nobody question his experience, competence, authority? Why is it just because he’s from the government people think, yeah, they’re out to protect us and these guys in the private sector are out to screw us? It’s the other way around. The people that are being manhandled, screwed, cheated, lied to, defrauded in this country are the victims of government behavior. It is just mind-boggling to me. We have people who have countless years of experience, education in many fields of endeavor in the private sector, and to listen to this regime, they’re all crooks. And they’re all out to shaft everybody and to enrich themselves, and at the same time these people are all in bed with the regime. They all donated to the regime. They all loved Obama. Goldman Sachs gave Obama a million dollars. Harry Reid’s out there demanding all kinds of Republicans return their donations to Goldman Sachs, but where’s Obama turning his back, returning his? These guys got what they voted for. I don’t know if they knew what was coming, I don’t know if they’re in on the game, if they’re going to be protected at the end of all this or not.
Crony capitalism, whatever this is, whatever you want to call it, I find it simply fascinating that nobody ever questions the competence — it’s not that nobody does; it’s if you do, then you are engaging in sedition. Sedition? It’s like I said yesterday and Monday, there’s a big difference between people on our side and the people on the regime’s side. It is Obama and his people who have their whole lives been whining and moaning and complaining about government, charging government with all kinds of illegal activities. Their people blow up the Pentagon. Their people engage in violent protests. Obama’s crowd joins the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. We are oriented toward the love of our country. We love what this country was. We understand American exceptionalism and we want to hold onto it. We want to preserve it for our kids and grandkids and everybody else that comes down the line. And we’re called seditious? They claim we’re engaging in sedition while this country is being dismantled and overthrown from within by people who have never liked it. Everything’s 180 degrees out of phase here.