All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
April 27, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24 7 Podcast.
I don't understand this, folks.
I literally don't understand this.
I thought we were in the middle of a robust recovery.
I thought we're gonna nail these evil Goldman Sachs guys to the cross today.
I thought we were gonna have health care for everybody.
And look at this, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is tanking, down 143 points, 140, well, 136 now.
Stocks fell late this morning after growing consumer confidence and the latest round of upbeat earnings reports, mostly offset.
Fresh concerns about Greece's dead props are back to Greece.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, 800, 282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com, not just Greece, Spain and Portugal, folks, the whole European Union.
It's a mess over there.
And our unfunded pension problems in California are just the tip of the iceberg here.
But at any rate, there are other things going on out there today.
We'll get to that as much as we can today.
In our three-hour period, uh numerous attacks on Goldman Sachs taking place, even as we uh uh as we speak, the hearings are going on.
Something very curious, though.
Sturdly, are you watching these hearings on uh C SPAN?
You're watching them on Bloomberg.
Here's the interesting thing.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh here we have the the regime, which is trying to make Goldman and therefore Wall Street the absolute worst enemy of the people ever, and yet the regime's network, MSNBC, is not televising it.
CNN is not televising it, and Fox is only intermittently joining it.
Uh there is, I I would think, I would think that the entire regime media network would be in on this because this is the day to nail Goldman to the cross, to nail Wall Street to the cross, to have the regime appear to be the best friends of the little guys, and what it tells me is this whole thing may be an act.
This whole thing may be a show.
That Goldman's in on this.
This is the price they got to pay for making billions and billions and billions of dollars later on in a partnership with the regime.
Now, I'm just speculating here because this is very odd.
It is extremely odd out there that the crucifixion of Goldman Sachs is not being televised.
So I I uh I just I find this fascinating, and as you know, my friends, um uh well I the the networks you might say that they're a little bit uh uh shy about live show trials.
You know, they got burned by the Oliver North hearings.
Uh, way back when the uh the Iran-Contra stuff.
So anyway, that's that.
Uh the Arizona immigration stack continues to grow here as I've prepped the show today, and I have just a uh a little bit of an observation to make before we get into this in great detail.
Uh, you know, the European Union, the wonderful European Union, these are the people we're supposed to emulate.
Uh, these are the enlightened souls that we are supposed to be like.
The French, the Germans, the Swiss, even the Spanish.
But the thing is they have no trouble whatsoever kicking out their illegal aliens.
Now, the Brits are not in on this.
Uh, but some of these other European Union nations, they don't put up with this.
Now, aren't we constantly told that they are so much more enlightened than us in every way that we need to emulate them in all things like providing universal health care and so forth.
Uh so yet we're not emulating them on immigration.
We're welcoming any number of illegals, or at least the uh the regime uh wants to make every illegal legal.
Now they're jumping all over this Arizona governor, a Republican, get ready for her to get the Sarah Palin treatment not too long from now.
Uh, a female Republican, they will be talking about all the things wrong with her appearance, and be talking about all the things wrong with her brain.
Uh they'll make jokes.
Somebody in the American uh thinker wrote, yeah, she'll probably be parodying her on Saturday Night Live that she says she can see Mexico from the front porch of the governor's mansion in Arizona, which, if it happens, would not surprise me.
Uh, But apparently people have looked at the Arizona law and it is locked solid.
It is a damn good law.
It anticipates all of these challenges.
It was put together pretty well.
San Francisco says that they are going to boycott Arizona.
And I'm sure the people of Arizona are happy as hell about that.
In fact, if I if if if I were the people in Arizona, would I capture the illegals and send them to San Francisco?
Sanctuary City, hey, you like them so much?
Here.
Glad to send them your way.
And by the way, you don't want to come here to see Arizona?
Fine and dandy with us.
You believe, and I totally do, the leader of this country, Barack Obama, is leading a charge by the Democrat Party against a state and a personal jihad against a governor.
He is supposed to be president of all the people.
But boy, you go against the regime and the regime will come after you.
It's going to be interesting to see.
Now I want to talk about something else here before we get full blown into Goldman hearings in the Arizona stuff, and a lot of other things percolating out there.
Have you heard by now of the tech blog called Gizmodo?
Now, Gizmodo is part of the Gawker media universe.
And as you know, I kind of I have a I have a strange affection for the guys at Gawker.
They're in the closed-knit circle of New York media.
They have many different blogs and websites.
Among them is a gossip type site.
And they have no compunction coming after me in the most funny, vilifying personal ways, but still, for some reason, I kind of like the Gawker guys.
I don't know why.
I wouldn't recommend you go there, but I I I do I do like the Gawker guys.
Be very careful going to Gawker.com.
You have been warned.
Now Gizmodo is their tech site, and the people at Gizmodo are a bunch of Mac fanboys.
You know, Apple Mac fanboys.
And the story is here that this poor guy at Apple had his prototype iPhone 4G in a bar in um the Bay Area somewhere, I forget exactly where it was, but it was a it was a beer garden.
And he for some reason had his prototype phone.
I'm sure they have to test these things at Apple before they put them on the market.
Uh he had his off campus.
He had it in the bar, he left it there, left it on a stool.
And eventually the Gizmoto guys found out about it because they were offered a chance to buy the phone by somebody who found it on the bar stool.
Well, they then published pictures and reviews of everything about the new phone.
They they they ripped it open, they looked to see what's inside it.
Uh they gave away a whole lot of potential secrets that Apple competitors could really use.
There's a reason for corporate security here.
The mobile phone uh smartphone business, highly competitive, and the Gizmodally gave away as much as they could about what's in this phone that's supposed to hit in June.
Well, lo and behold, a short time later.
Oh, and then Apple asked for the phone back, since the Gizmode that they had it.
So Apple asked for the phone back, and the Gizmodo guys say, okay, but we want your request in writing.
So Apple's legal counsel sends a request in writing.
Now, you Gizmods and you Gawker guys, this is where you erred.
Your response to Apple's letter was juvenile and snarky and totally unnecessary.
Uh I don't know that Apple is behind these charges that have been brought or might be brought against one of the Gizmodo editors because this is a criminal, not a civil complaint.
So Apple may not have any control over whether or not the DA out there levels charges.
If it was a civil case, and Apple could say, okay, go after them or not go after him.
But if it is a uh uh criminal case, if the DA out there thinks that Gizmoto essentially knew it knowingly bought a stolen phone, traded in stolen merchandise, uh, then the the editor, the Gizmoto editor Jason Chen may not be protected by the SHIELD law.
The SHIELD law says that journalists cannot be charged and cannot have search warrants uh uh executed against their home or their office or whatever.
But in this case, if it's if it's stolen property, if that's the angle of cops are going for, then the SHIELD law may not apply.
And this uh little editor could be in for some trouble.
Now the guy that runs Gawker, Nick Denton, is loving every minute of this up until whatever charges come down the pike because he's getting all kinds of publicity out of it.
But it's amazing.
Because now the one of the questions that is up for uh debate is are bloggers journalists, and therefore are bloggers covered by SHIELD laws.
The SHIELD law again may not apply here because this is not protecting a source.
That's what the SHIELD law is for.
Uh this may involve, depending on how they want to proceed here, knowingly buying stolen property.
Well, because it wasn't returned to Apple.
It was stolen because the theory is because it wasn't returned to Apple.
The phone's left on the bar stool, somebody finds it, and instead of offering to return it to Apple, because it looked like it, it was camouflaged who looked like a current iPhone 3GS, and instead the person who found it offered it to uh to websites.
The first guy he offered it to was N Gadget, and in gadget refused to pay.
The Gorker guys, Gizmod, I think paid five grand, and therein lies the possible vulnerability.
But everybody is stunned here over what a big, big case this has become uh over a phone, over a telephone, uh even if it is Apple, even if it's a smartphone.
But from Apple's standpoint, the Gizmodo guys just gave away uh at least a month, month and a half before release, some of the stuff inside this new phone.
Well, now, Snerdley, the sni the cynic is piping up here by saying great publicity.
I don't think if you have any understanding of Apple's relationship with the media, this runs counter to everything.
Planting a phone, hoping to get publicity out of it, uh as in i.e.
a publicity stunt, this is not how Apple does things.
Apple has working relationships with journalists already.
Access journalism, and it's very smart on Apple's part.
They allow certain journalists to have their items weeks in advance and test them.
And if they get a good review, then they get the next product.
If they don't get a good review, then they pull the next product.
So it's a way for Apple to control what's reported, and they've got plenty of people they do this with.
So they don't need to plant a phone, especially with the iPad out there, and everybody now anticipating what's the next iPhone going to be.
They've had they have built in anticipation for this.
Uh well, how are they it it it may not be that Apple's involved here at all, Snerdly.
He said, How is Apple hurt?
It m Apple may not have any say-so here over how the cops in California proceed, how the DA proceeds.
Remember now, if this is trafficking in stolen goods, if that's how they want to go after it, Apple can't say, well, don't pursue them.
We don't want you.
They can do that in a civil case.
But Apple can't say don't press charges.
It's not up to them.
But the same token, Apple cannot say do press charges.
It's up to the DA.
Now they they ran into this guy's house, they opened, they broke the lock on his front door, they stole four computer.
Well, they seized four computers, and his phone, and all kinds he came home from dinner, got home at 9.45, found a cops in there, uh, going through his stuff, and and they and they took it all.
So, you know, it's it's it's become a huge cause celebrity.
And over a telephone, over the new iPhone.
Now, I f I find it I find it fascinating as head, plus the other's question are bloggers journalists.
If this thing goes to terms, so to speak, uh the case isn't aborted, and if it goes to term, then we might have a uh you know, a decision on that.
But these I'm telling you, Gizmoto fanboys, if you'd adjust, if you just wouldn't have sent that response, that snarky juvenile tacky response.
I wish I had it here and could read it to you.
I didn't, I didn't print it out, and it's from two or three days ago.
But if you hadn't sent that thing back to the Apple lawyer, uh who knows?
Uh and it may be irrelevant because as I say, Apple may have no uh possibility here to determine whether or not a case is brought.
Uh Now, the SHIELD law does not apply if Chen, the Gizmoto editor, is suspected of breaking the law.
The SHIELD law applies when he is protecting someone else who broke the law, but not he's not allowed to break the law.
Journalists is not allowed to break the law.
You're allowed to shield sources and this kind of thing.
So journalists, journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes, but it's not a license for journalists to commit crimes.
So it's all going to come down to whether or not the DA and the cops out there think Jason Chen committed a crime.
Not whether Apple thinks so, uh, but whether the DA thinks so.
All right, now quick time out.
We will come back.
Lots more straight ahead here, just getting started, EIB Network and El Rushbo.
Steve Wozniak, the former uh, well, one of the co-founders of Apple, has a picture of him out there wearing a t-shirt drinking a bottle of beer.
And a t-shirt says something like, I went to such and such beer garden, and all I got was this cheap iPhone prototype.
They're having a lot of fun with it.
Here is the email.
This is the letter.
You know, Gizmoto asked for Apple to formally in a letter asked for the device back.
So an Apple lawyer wrote a formal request.
I read it.
It was straight up and forward, asking for their device back.
They met Jason Chen and the Apple lawyer met and did a personal handover after this letter was sent by Gizmodo back to Apple.
This is what's so snarky.
Bruce, thanks.
Here's Jason Chen, who has the iPhone.
Here's his address.
You two should coordinate a time.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Add.
Happy to have you pick this thing up, was burning a hole in our pockets.
Just so you know, we didn't know this was stolen, as they might have claimed, meaning real and truly from Apple.
It was found and to be unproven origin when we bought it.
Now that we definitely know it's not some knockoff and it's really Apple's, I'm happy to see it return to its rightful owner.
P.S. I hope you take it easy on a kid who lost it.
I don't think he uh loves anything more than Apple.
Uh well, it's it maybe it doesn't okay there.
Now staff is disagreeing with it, doesn't sound so snark.
When I read it at first, it sounded snarky.
Thanks, Bruce.
Not I mean, thanks, Bruce.
The thing is burning a hole in our pocket.
Uh it was especially the these, as I say, these Gizmoto guys are they're they're Mac fanboys.
Then people make fun of them by being for in a tank for Apple.
So it's just it's amazing.
And I a lot of people think Rush, you're getting suckered into this.
Who in the world would find a phone that looks like a current 3GS phone and call a website with it and say, hey, guess what we got here.
Well, no, here's here's the problem, though.
This thing has a front-facing camera.
You can tell by looking at the front of it that it is not an iPhone 3GS.
It has a front-facing camera, which everybody thinks, okay, we're gonna have video chat now.
It's got a it's got a forward camera to take pictures and a front-facing camera.
And it's it there, there are other things.
There was a Facebook app on it.
Facebook is not, there is not a Facebook thing for the current iPhone.
There's a lot of stuff people saw just using it.
That, okay, this is not a 3GS.
I mean, it was clear that this was something new.
And and Apple people, you know, Apple fanboys know this is the they know that there's a new iPhone OS 4.0 that's out there being tested.
And uh the tradition is that uh every June there's a new version of the phone itself.
And this operating system for the iPhone is gonna be in the iPad come September.
So people are fine, eager to find out what the hell is the operating system to boot.
So there's there are a lot of people in in in Silicon Valley who would see this thing, say, whoa, what do I have here?
Yeah.
And oh yes, let's return it to Apple.
Not if somebody can sell it.
Obviously, he wanted to make some money.
Five grand in gadget, too much money.
Unemployment's high.
You take what you can get.
So anyway.
Look at this.
Look at this.
See, here's the thing.
The first 20 minutes of this program taken up by explaining this contrepump about the new iPhone.
Now, I don't want you to think, uh, ladies and gentlemen, we have been dissuaded nor distracted from our daily analysis of the regime and what it's doing.
We've got audio soundbites coming up.
Carl Levin, I mean, mock or real.
I don't know if the outrage is fake or real, but he dropped the S bomb four times, talking to Lloyd Blankfine.
You know, where is the decorum here?
Where's the civility?
Carl Levin, Senator from Michigan, dropped the S bomb four different times, and Cookie said, Do you want me to bleep that?
Uh it was to Starks, it was to Fortney Pete Stark.
Oh, it was not to blank fine, it was a different Goldman guy.
Well, anyway, he dropped the S bomb for it.
Cookie said, Do you want to bleep it?
And I said, No, no, let it let it run.
She said, You know what?
I'm gonna bleep it just to protect you.
I said, I didn't say it.
Carl Levin said it.
One more thing on this Gawker Gizmoto Apple new 4G iPhone thing.
And I forgot this.
The guy in the bar who found the phone on the bar stool did try to return it to Apple.
He called tech support.
He called every number that you can find for Apple, and everywhere he called, the people didn't know what he was talking about, assumed he was a cook and hung up on him, or thanked him and sent him away.
Because none of the people he talked to had any idea Apple was field testing a new phone.
Now, I just explained this to Snerdley and said, well, of course that may be a fake attempt here to get hold of the lower level people.
I said nobody knows how to get hold of the upper level people at Apple.
I mean, not even I, L. Rushbow, uh, one of the most powerful influential members of the media.
I wouldn't know how to get hold of the executive suite at Apple if uh if the life of this show depended on it.
And clearly some some dude in a bar trying to get hold of, hey, you know what?
I think I got it.
Uh one of your phones.
Oh, yeah, sir, why don't you just meet us here at our campus and bring it back?
Yeah, the guess is gonna happen.
Uh well.
Sent me the phone.
Yeah, well, it's too late now.
Uh, but uh they they told him they the tech support people told him it's probably just a Chinese knockoff, a cheap Chinese knockoff phone, not to worry about it, that uh that they weren't interested in.
Now, it was it was to um Daniel Sparks that Carl Levin dropped the S bomb seven times.
Now, of course, he was quoting Goldman Sachs executive, uh, naturally, in uh in emails.
Uh now, Carl Levin, Carl Levin runs a government oversight committee where he has the ability to issue subpoenas without the vote of the committee itself.
That is very unusual on Capitol Hill.
Carl Levin is the Democrats' top smear guy.
Carl Levin collects information from his targets.
He twists and spins the information, he then leaks it to the media, and then he holds hearings like this.
He did it throughout the Reagan administration as well.
Nothing Carl Levin says can be trusted.
Not one thing.
You know, as you well know, Warren Buffett is one of Obama's boys.
And Warren Buffett is a major stakeholder in Goldman.
And George Soros is one of Obama's, or maybe I should say Obama is one of George Soros' boys.
And that could be one of the reasons why we're not seeing a whole lot of televised activity on the popular cable channels about this.
Millions of emails, millions of emails, are created by companies.
They are being used selectively.
Now, I'm not defending Goldman.
That's not to say they're wonderful, but this is how kangaroo courts work.
This is a show trial.
I would love to see all the emails created in Carl Levin's office since he's been a senator, which I think dates back to the mid-70s.
I wonder if any of Carl Levin's emails, internal emails to his staff or other senators, say something like, let's screw these guys.
Or let's let's not use that information.
Let's withhold that information.
Or let's look, let's leak this.
We know that Jay Rockefeller prepared a memo for internal use on how to politicize 9-11 and a number of other things against George W. Bush to turn the Democrats' position from supporting the invasion of Iraq around that they were lied to, they had no clue, blah, blah, blah.
It was an internal memo.
So we know these Democrats do exactly what they accused everybody else of doing.
So I would invite Senator Levin to make his emails available to the public, since that seems to be an important standard here for going after whoever the enemy of the regime happens to be on a daily basis.
Now, yesterday, Dingy Harry failed in his uh in his test vote on the new financial regulatory reform bill, and he turned around at the end of the vote and voted no, which allows him to bring it up again today.
And he's going to keep bringing it up because the whole point of the vote on the financial regulatory reform bill is to embarrass Republicans and to make Republicans the evil accomplices of Goldman Sachs and all of these evil Wall Street guys, when in fact the giant bed in which everybody's sleeping and doing who knows what else contains Democrats and Wall Street fat cats, not Republicans.
The whole point there is this is why I said last week there is nothing that Obama does that ends up winning on the basis of policy.
Obama cannot convince anybody of the supremacy or the superiority of his ideas.
He uses thuggery and traditional political shows to uh to to to uh make political points to embarrass enemies to create public opinion against uh his opposition because his ideas fail in comparison to his opposition.
Ben Nelson, Nebraska, he voted against the bill yesterday, the financial reform bill, uh, and why?
Because he's the senator from Nebraska.
And that's where Warren Buffett lives.
And Warren Buffett wants no part of this bill until his company's involvement in derivatives is exempted.
He wants to be exempted from whatever new regulations there are.
The whole financial regulatory reform bill is filled with exemptions for the typical big cronies of the Democrat Party.
And we're going to be getting into the details of all of that as the program unfolds before your very eyes.
All right, to the audio sound bites.
This is Carl Levin.
This morning in Washington, a portion of his opening remarks into the Inquisition against Goldman Sachs.
The evidence shows that Goldman repeatedly put its own interests and profits ahead of the interests of its clients and our communities.
Surely there is no law, ethical guideline, or moral injunction against profit.
But Goldman Sachs didn't just make money.
It profited by taking advantage of its clients' reasonable expectation that it would not sell products that it did not want to succeed.
Its conduct brings into question the whole function of Wall Street, which traditionally has been seen as an engine of growth, betting on America's successes and not its failures.
Folks, this has me fuming.
What Levin here is essentially saying is that Goldman Sachs had devised not one but a series of complex deals to profit from the collapse of the home mortgage market.
Now, isn't that precisely what an investment firm should be doing for its clients?
Would it not be irresponsible for them to do anything else?
What are clients of Goldman Sachs supposed to do other than profit from hiring them?
This is what's wrong with the and well, you might be saying, but Rush, but Rush, this was a this is a housing market.
This was the American dream.
And Goldman Sachs was betting on it to fail.
Well, they betted both ways.
They bet both ways.
But people bet short all the time.
Are we gonna are we gonna eliminate going short in every financial transaction now?
Because there's a winner and loser, it's a zero-sum game, folks.
Every winner, there's a loser.
I don't care which way the loser or winner goes.
Sometimes a short seller loses, sometimes a long seller loses, but somebody wins.
Now, if Goldman Sachs has a bunch of clients and they're sitting there and their job is to analyze a particular market, and they're looking at the home mortgage market and the subprime thing.
And if the analyst at Goldman Sachs say, you know, this is a house of cards, and this is going to collapse.
Is it not their responsibility to their investors to come up with ways for their investors to profit from this?
Rush, how can you say this?
How can you, how can you say people should profit from something in the market that's falling?
It happens every day.
Remember, the housing market bubble was created not by Goldman Sachs.
The housing market bubble created by, you want the names Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Rains, Jamie Garellick, the whole subprime mortgage market and acorn, it was created to put people into homes who could not afford them in the first place.
Anybody in their right mind would know this is a house of cards waiting to fall.
And at some point somebody wants to make some money off of that.
Where is it written that we are not allowed to make money off of government stupidity?
People do it every day.
There aren't just regulations on the subprime mortgage business.
Government has regulations on every aspect of business, and people bet in the form investors make uh make choices, make make decisions of what a market is going to do based on whatever their analysts think.
Sometimes the analysts get it right, sometimes they don't.
But Goldman's like a bookie in the sense that they're trying to make money on both sides of the deal.
People who set the point spreads in football are not predicting winners and losers, and they don't care if they if they say Steelers minus six over the Cincinnati Bengals.
They're not hoping the Steelers win by six.
They're hoping they get an equal amount of money on both sides because one of the teams is going to win.
And that somebody's going to beat the spread or not, they just want to make sure they don't take a bath at the end of the game.
Same thing here, except this involves not you can look at this gambling, but this involves real live events taking place in the economy.
The mortgage market, the housing market, uh silver, commodities, this stuff happens every day.
I'm not saying everybody involved in it is clean and pure as the wind driven snow, but this effort here by a there aren't there aren't.
I'll bet you there aren't five people on Capitol Hill in the Senate or the House who have the foggiest idea how Wall Street works, how the free market investment system works.
They sit there and they regulate it each and every year and each and every day.
But they haven't the slightest clue.
They get to sit around as spectators, and when something happens they don't like, particularly in an election year, then they can fulfill a myth that is a page in their playbook.
In this case, Wall Street.
Capitalizing on human loss, capitalizing on human pain and what human pain?
Have these people been kicked out of their houses?
Who are the big losers in the subprime crisis?
Who are the big losers?
The people who got their homes in the subprime crisis largely are still there.
They were never able to pay the loans back.
This was the point.
The big losers in the subprime crisis are the people forced by government to go along and finance this.
And they were financing worthless ideas, so they had to come up with ideas to make these worthless ideas worth something, hence collateralized debt obligations and all they were.
I mean, when the government tells you you've got to do something and they have oversight control over you and regulatory control, you snap two.
Corporate cronyism.
So they tell you that you've got if Janet Reno calls you, it's you better make these loans, or we're going to conduct an investigation, which could find the bank or put it out of business.
What do you do?
Okay, you go ahead and you do it, but you're a free market guy, you're an entrepreneur, and you're saying to yourself, okay, they're gonna make me loan money to people can't pay it back.
I'm gonna have a bunch of mortgages that are worthless because the people paying them back cannot possibly pay them back.
So I gotta figure out how can I either game the system so the government will bail me out at the end of all this, or how can I game the system so that I can concoct a way to package these mortgages in pools that other people will buy, and they take the risk that these things are gonna be worth something or worth less.
So you have creativity and entrepreneurism going on here, and it is the Result of the market, the referee entering the game.
The referee is the government.
They entered the game by demanding that banks make loans to people that they otherwise wouldn't touch.
And that's why the housing bubble occurred, and that's why we're here today.
And so the very people that caused it, including Carl Levin, are now seeking the occasion to once again blame the people they forced to do this.
Well, they get to act as innocent bystanders and then cream these people by reputation, tie them to the Republicans, and create all of this phony anger over class envy and all the uh things that are uh attachment or itinerate to that.
So that's basically what is happening here.
Now, don't misunderstand me.
I am not, and I never do this anyway.
I'm not saying that anybody here is clean and pure as the wind driven snow.
In fact, I'm still not convinced that Goldman isn't in on this at the end of the day.
You know, pay a $500 or $400 million fine at the end of this in exchange for a couple of billion dollars in profit down the road.
I mean, the deal is Goldman goes along with this, they take the hit, Republicans get tied to them, Democrats win in November or don't lose as bad in November, and all's well.
George Soros gets to continue to destroy the economy and profit from it.
Warren Buffett gets his exemptions from his derivatives, uh, and and the um the whole deal is sealed.
And that's the cynic in me.
And I'm way along here.
I gotta take a timeout.
Don't go away, be right back.
Uh Carl Levin, a little bit more on Carl Levin.
Carl Levin said the surge failed.
Back in February of 2008, Carl Levin, one of the major forces behind the bailout of GM and Chrysler, Michigan.
Now, the central charge against Goldman Sachs, let me make this simple.
Simple charge is the SEC is suing Goldman and they lost $90 billion.
Goldman lost $90 billion in the case that they're being sued for.
Where did it profit?
Carl Levin had a hand in creating the housing bubble, a central charge here.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, against Goldman Sachs, is that they did not inform their clients as to all the details of the package they had put together.
Now, if that's true, where are these clients who got screwed?
Who are these clients that got screwed?
Why did these screwed clients just sit around and stay screwed?
Why didn't they sue Goldman Sachs?
Why aren't these clients who got screwed testifying?
I mean, these are the losers, right?
These are the people that got scammed.
That's what we're being asked to believe.
That Goldman scammed a bunch of people.
Well, who are they?
Where are they?
See, the dirty little secret is that there are no losers.
Even the government, at the end of the day, got paid back with a profit.
All these people ended up getting bailed out.
The only people that didn't were the bondholders at Chrysler.
But the screwed aren't the screwed because the screw didn't stay screwed.
The scammed aren't the scammed because the scammed didn't stay scammed.
Had they been scammed, you would have been hearing about them long before Carl Levin popped open about this.
The banks had to give out loans.
They had to give out these bad loans or face getting a bad community reinvestment act raving.
And that's what they were being threatened with by Janet El Reno and others.
And if you got a low community reinvestment act raving, the government would punish you in any number of ways.
Because the Community Reinvestment Act was financial regulation.
What else would you call it?
So here are these banks, subject to financial regulation, they're being told what no trained banker would ever do.
Loan money to Zeke and Mary Oxcord, who can never pay it back.
And the Oxcords get their big house or their house, and they're living there, and they're and then they're fat, dumb, and happy, and Barney Frank's happy because we have no affordable housing in America now.
The threat, affordable housing.
Now Barney's out there saying, I never said that.
I said people still went.
I didn't say there should be lent money that couldn't pay back.
Yes, you did.
You did it over and over and over again.
So to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act Financial Regulation, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for compliance.
They take this information into consideration when approving applications for new branches.
Or for mergers and acquisitions, these banks have no choice.
They're being regulated.
They've got to do what the government says if they want to expand in other areas.
And this Carl Levin and this committee and this entire regime now going after Goldman Sachs is as phony as a $3.
Can I say that anymore?
That's just right now, there is no criminal allegation against Goldman.
It's all civil.
Now, if they do find evidence of fraud, then there's a big problem.
But so far, Goldman hasn't done anything illegal except try to profit from this from the from the game that the government rigged.
But we all know this is why Goldman will pay a huge fine, because if this case goes before a jury, average Joe will send Goldman to the Hoosgow for a 50 million years with no get-out-of-jail free card.
That's what the Democrats know.
The Republicans know it too.
▲
Export Selection