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 going to nail these evil Goldman Sachs guys to the cross today.
I thought we were going to 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 professor 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, lrushbaugh 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, numerous attacks on Goldman Sachs taking place, even as we speak, the hearings are going on.
Something very curious, though.
Sturdley, are you watching these hearings on C-SPAN?
You're watching them on Bloomberg.
Here's the interesting thing.
Ladies and gentlemen, here we have 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.
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 just, I find this fascinating.
And as you know, my friends, well, the networks, you might say that they're a little bit shy about live show trials.
You know, they got burned by the Oliver North hearings way back when the Iran-Country stuff.
So anyway, that's that.
The Arizona immigration stack continues to grow here as I prep the show today.
And I have just a little bit of an observation to make before we get into this in great detail.
You know, the European Union, the wonderful European Union, these are the people we're supposed to emulate.
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, 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?
So, yet we're not emulating them on immigration.
We're welcoming any number of illegals, or at least The regime 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.
A female Republican, they will be talking about all the things wrong with her appearance.
They'll be talking about all the things wrong with her brain.
They'll make jokes.
Somebody in the American 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.
But apparently, people have looked at the Arizona law and it is lock 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 were the people in Arizona, I'd 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.
Do 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 and 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 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 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 the Bay Area somewhere.
I forget exactly where it was, but 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.
He had his off-campus.
He had it in the bar.
He left it there, left it on a stool.
And eventually, the Gizmodo 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 ripped it open.
They looked to see what's inside it.
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 smartphone business, highly competitive.
And the Gizmodo guys practically gave away as much as they could about what's in this phone.
It'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 Gizmodo guys admitted 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 Gizmodo guys and you Gawker guys, this is where you erred.
Your response to Apple's letter was juvenile and snarky and totally unnecessary.
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 him or not go after him, but if it is a criminal case, if the DA out there thinks that Gizmodo essentially knowingly bought a stolen phone, traded in stolen merchandise, then the editor, the Gizmodo 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 executed against their home or their office or whatever.
But in this case, if it's stolen property, if that's the angle the cops are going for, then the SHIELD law may not apply.
And this 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 one of the questions that is up for 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.
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 barstool.
Somebody finds it.
And instead of offering to return it to Apple, because it looked like it, it was camouflaged to look like a current iPhone 3GS.
And instead, the person who found it offered it to websites.
The first guy he offered it to was Ingadget.
And Ingadget refused to pay.
The Gawker guys, Gizmodo, I think, paid $5,000.
And therein lies the possible vulnerability.
But everybody is stunned here over what a big, big case this has become over a phone, over a telephone, even if it is Apple, even if it's a smartphone.
But from Apple's standpoint, the Gizmodo guys just gave away at least a month, month and a half before release, some of the stuff inside this new phone.
Well, now, Snerdley, 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, 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 have built-in anticipation for this.
Well, how are they?
It may not be that Apple's involved here at all, Snerdley.
He said, how is Apple hurt?
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.
By the same token, Apple cannot say do press charges.
It's up to the DA.
Now, they ran into this guy's house.
They opened, they broke the lock on his front door.
They stole four computers.
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 going through his stuff, and they took it all.
So, you know, it's become a huge cause celebrity here.
And over a telephone, over the new iPhone.
Now, I find it fascinating as heck.
Plus, this question are bloggers, journalists.
If this thing goes to terms, so to speak, the case isn't aborted.
And if it goes to term, then we might have a decision on that.
But I'm telling you, Gizmodo fanboys, 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 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, who knows?
It may be irrelevant because, as I say, Apple may have no possibility here to determine whether or not a case is brought.
Now, the SHIELD law does not apply if Chen, the Gizmodo editor, is suspected of breaking the law.
The SHIELD law applies when he is protecting someone else who broke the law, but 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 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, but whether the DA thinks so.
All right, now, quick timeout.
We will come back.
Lots more straight ahead here, just getting started.
EIB Network and El Rushbo.
Steve Wozniak, the former, 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 the 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, Gizmodo asked for Apple to formally, in a letter, ask 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.
Address.
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 the kid who lost it.
I don't think he loves anything more than Apple.
Well, 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.
It was especially, as I say, these Gizmodo guys are Mac fanboys.
And people make fun of them in the tank for Apple.
So, it's just, it's amazing.
And 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, 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 going to have video chat now.
It's got a forward camera to take pictures and a front-facing camera.
And 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.
Okay, this is not a 3GS.
I mean, it was clear that this was something new.
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 the tradition is that every June there's a new version of the phone itself.
And this operating system for the iPhone is going to be in the iPad come September.
So people are eager to find out what the hell's the operating system to boot.
So there are a lot of people in Silicon Valley who would see this thing and say, whoa, what do I have here?
Yeah.
And, oh, yes, let's return it to Apple.
Not if somebody can sell it.
Obviously, 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 contra pump about the new iPhone.
Now, I don't want you to think, 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 Blankfein.
You know, where is the decorum here?
Where is the civility?
Carl Levin, senator from Michigan, dropped the S-bomb four different times.
And Cookie said, do you want me to bleep that?
Or it was to Starks?
It was to Fortney Pete Stark.
Oh, it was not to Blankfein.
It was a different Goldman guy.
Well, anyway, he dropped the S-bomb for it.
Cookie said, you want to bleep it?
And I said, no, no, let it run.
She said, you know what?
I'm going to bleep it just to protect you.
I said, I didn't say it.
Carl Levin said it.
One more thing on this gawker Gizmodo 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 he made a fake attempt here to get a 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, El Rushbo, 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 the life of this show depended on it.
And clearly, some dude in a bar trying to get all, hey, you know what?
I think I got it.
One of your phones.
Oh, yeah, sir, why don't you just meet us here at our campus and bring it back?
Yeah, the thing's going to happen.
Well, sent me the phone.
Yeah, well, it's too late now.
But they told him the tech support people told me it was probably just a Chinese knockoff, a cheap Chinese knockoff phone, not to worry about it, that they weren't interested in.
Now, it was to Daniel Sparks that Carl Levin dropped the S-bomb seven times.
Now, of course, he was quoting Goldman Sachs' executive, naturally, in emails.
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 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.
They were lied to.
They had no clue.
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 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, 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 make political points, to embarrass enemies, to create public opinion against his opposition because his ideas fail in comparison to his oppositions.
Ben Nelson.
Nebraska, he voted against the bill yesterday, the financial reform bill.
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 soundbites.
This is Carl Levin this morning in Washington, a portion of his opening remarks to 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 essentially say 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 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 going to eliminate going short in every financial transaction now?
Because there's a winner and a 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 analysts 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 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 Raines, Jamie Gorellik, 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 choices, make decisions on 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 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 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, silver commodities, this stuff happens every day.
I'm not saying everybody involved in it as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, but this effort here by 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.
Rich, fat cats, big bonuses, evil, capitalizing on human loss, capitalizing on human pain.
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 a 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.
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 says, you better make these loans or we're going to conduct an investigation, which could fine 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 going to make me loan money to people who can't pay it back.
I'm going to have a bunch of mortgages that are worthless because the people paying them back cannot possibly pay them back.
So I've got to 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 going to 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 things that are attachment or itinerant 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 him.
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 and the whole deal is sealed.
And that's the cynic in me.
I'm way along here.
I got to take a timeout.
Don't go away.
Be right back.
Carl Levin, a little bit more on Carl 11.
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, 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 who 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 did were the bondholders at Chrysler.
But the screwed aren't the screwed because the screwed 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 Rino 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 could never pay it back.
And the Oxcords get their big house or their house, and they're living there, and they're fat, dumb, and happy.
And Barney Frank's happy because we have the affordable housing in America now.
The threat, affordable housing.
Now, Barney's out there saying, I never said that.
I said people should rent.
I didn't say there should be lent money that could 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.
Okay, 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 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 Hoosgau 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