Mueller Files first Charges (MUELLER CONTENT GOES HERE)

[Diamondback]

I thought the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 did force them to give high risk loans.

Im not saying banks were innocent, but i think there were a lot of factors. Bad business decisions by banks, bad regulation by gov, and poor life choices by people that led to the crash- though i havent studied it in great deoth, just a little.

Ditto the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Oh, and do a google on "NINJA loans"--as in, "No Income/No Job or Assets"...

[26 Inf]

Yes the government did force the banks to make those loans to people who otherwise shouldn't even have mortgages. They would audit banks based on their lending criteria and who they turned down for loans. There was all kinds of fines and sanctions against the banks for refusing certain people loans. It was like affirmative action for lending- except no longer actually counting credit scores, just whether or not they had a job.

Okay, because, you know:

The CRA was originally enacted under President Jimmy Carter in 1977. The Act was set in place to encourage banks to halt the practice of lending discrimination. There is debate among economists regarding the effect of the CRA, with detractors claiming it encourages lending to un-creditworthy consumers and defenders claiming a thirty-year history of lending without increased risk

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (majority report) concluded in January 2011 that:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission issued three concluding documents in January 2011:

1) The FCIC "conclusions" or report from the six Democratic Commissioners;
2) a "dissenting statement" from the three Republican Commissioners;
3) a second "dissenting statement" from Commissioner Peter Wallison. (the guy you quoted AKA 'the Lone Ranger'

Both the Democratic majority conclusions and Republican minority dissenting statement, representing the views of nine of the ten commissioners, concluded that government housing policies had little to do with the crisis. The majority report stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "were not a primary cause of the crisis" and that the Community Reinvestment Act "was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis." https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FC...nt-detail.html

Wallsion publicized his dissent and responded to critics in a number of articles and op-ed pieces, and New York Times Columnist Joe Nocera accuses him of "almost single-handedly" creating "the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis" https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/o...etType=opinion

[RetroRevolver77]

Okay, because, you know:

The CRA was originally enacted under President Jimmy Carter in 1977. The Act was set in place to encourage banks to halt the practice of lending discrimination. There is debate among economists regarding the effect of the CRA, with detractors claiming it encourages lending to un-creditworthy consumers and defenders claiming a thirty-year history of lending without increased risk

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (majority report) concluded in January 2011 that:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission issued three concluding documents in January 2011:

1) The FCIC "conclusions" or report from the six Democratic Commissioners;
2) a "dissenting statement" from the three Republican Commissioners;
3) a second "dissenting statement" from Commissioner Peter Wallison. (the guy you quoted AKA 'the Lone Ranger'

Both the Democratic majority conclusions and Republican minority dissenting statement, representing the views of nine of the ten commissioners, concluded that government housing policies had little to do with the crisis. The majority report stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "were not a primary cause of the crisis" and that the Community Reinvestment Act "was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis." https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FC...nt-detail.html

Wallsion publicized his dissent and responded to critics in a number of articles and op-ed pieces, and New York Times Columnist Joe Nocera accuses him of "almost single-handedly" creating "the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis" https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/o...etType=opinion

Nope. Peter Wallison was absolutely correct in his assessment of the changes made specifically during the Clinton Administration as being the primary cause for the market melt down. Tired of this political garbage, you don't give loans to people without credit history or crap work history. Worse the government told the banks it was all backed by Freddie and Fannie- it was orchestrated wealth redistribution to cause a market collapse. No doubt in my mind, having worked right there seeing it first hand from both the mortgage lending side and the securities side.


https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ancial-crisis/

[26 Inf]

Nope. Peter Wallison was absolutely correct in his assessment of the changes made specifically during the Clinton Administration as being the primary cause for the market melt down. Tired of this political garbage, you don't give loans to people without credit history or crap work history. Worse the government told the banks it was all backed by Freddie and Fannie- it was orchestrated wealth redistribution to cause a market collapse. No doubt in my mind, having worked right there seeing it first hand from both the mortgage lending side and the securities side.

So, I don't think we are going to change each other's minds, huh?

[RetroRevolver77]

Anyway, to keep this on topic.



Here’s How Comey and Brennan Used Peter Strzok To Set Up Trump and Flynn.

"WASHINGTON — More and more details are pouring out about the underhanded conspiracy to damage and impeach President Donald Trump by Obama operatives John Brennan, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and a few others. The effort even has a special code name: Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

They used Peter Strzok as their go-to guy, which is why their operation is now falling apart. Strzok’s massive illegal activities and incompetence could open up the entire Crossfire Hurricane team to numerous federal charges."


https://bigleaguepolitics.com/heres-...ump-and-flynn/


Got to go big or go home.


From Rex on Twitter;

"I have no doubt that Obama will be indicted and found guilty of at least THREE major felonies, just from his central involvement in the framing of Donald J Trump."

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...720589825.html

[26 Inf]

The legislative changes during the Clinton Administration caused the 2008 financial collapse. It was a massive ripoff of the banks, which in turn the taxpayers, all to funnel money to low income Democrat neighborhoods. I imagine they'll use a similar tactic to tank the economy to get Trump out of office.

Okay, just to make sure I understand, it was only Democratic held lenders that made the loans?

Do the stats the indicate the rates of foreclosure for institutions that actually followed the CRA rules were significantly lower than institutions that adopted the 'here's free money model' outside the CRA rules, mean anything?

This little nugget is telling: In 2003, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York noted that dramatic changes in the financial services landscape had weakened the CRA, and that in 2003 less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans were subject to intensive review under the CRA https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibr...2/0306apga.pdf

Let me explain, yes, the Clinton Administration did ask regulators to make CRA examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.

Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans"
https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives....ubin.text.html

I think the key words in the history of the CRA, from Carter forward, are these: "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live."

I'm sure that the effort to make compliance easier and therefore ensure loans were made more strictly based on ability to repay versus where the loan was located made it easier for unscrupulous lenders to make bad loans and then quickly repackage and sell the paper.

That is really what it is all about. Your stance is akin to saying that I am responsible for the burglars actions if I don't lock my door. That is not honest IMO.

[RetroRevolver77]

So now on "The Hill" they are asking why Mueller hasn't filed hacking charges against the "Russians" which revealed Hillary and Podesta's e-mails, exposing their corruption. Thing is, they know who hacked those e-mails, they had him killed already- his name was Seth Rich. I think Wikileaks is going to finally reveal that source of theirs for those e-mails and when they do, it's going to come back around on these clowns. Worse part they just tried to have the lobbyist killed that was investigating Seth's death.


http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...QAGx6Y.twitter


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.246c985c1940



Now since all this Mueller investigation is based on an entirely false and made up document created by people spying on Trump, this little nugget is quite good.


Exclusive -- Roger Stone: ‘John Brennan Should Pop the Glass Capsule and Take the Cyanide Now; He’s Going to Die in a Federal Penitentiary’

“John Brennan should pop the glass capsule and take the cyanide now,” Stone told host Amanda House, Breitbart News’s deputy political editor. “He’s the perp who started the entire Russian dossier matter. He’s lied about it under oath. He’s going to die in a federal penitentiary.”

Brennan and the Obama intelligence community’s roles in the investigation of the Trump campaign have come under increasing scrutiny.

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/...mpression=true

[Todd.K]

So much for the myth that Comey wanted to hurt Clinton by releasing the email investigation was reopened.
From his book: "I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president..."

[platoonDaddy]

This is long overdue! The vast majority of these people have served with great honor and distinction. It’s unfortunate that people in key positions have damaged the reputation of this organization. Hopefully they will all be interviewed on the hill and broadcast via CSPAN. We the people need to know what the shit went on.

Last spring on WMAL Joe diGegnova called comey a dirty cop. What did he know and when did he know.

Pissed off agents:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-lynch-mccabe/

[C-grunt]

Just saw on CNN that Kushner got his secret clearance back. Not sure what the implications of that are but CNN didn’t seem to happy about it.