Feb 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Your Moments of Catharsis
By Brian Beutler
The clips pretty much explain themselves. I’m not sure what privilege they were claiming, but surely it wasn’t executive privilege. Right? Maybe someone should give them a crash course in the meaning of the word “executive” vis a vis “executive privilege”.
39 Responses to “Your Moments of Catharsis”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Ackermann is devastating – although one wonders where the Congress’s oversignt has been for the last 8 years or longer.
But, those folks on the panel should be GONE. That may be hard to do without abolishing the SEC and immediately establishing a new regulator who can hire (or not) whatever people of competence and integrity may be in the old agency.
I have growing doubts about ‘independent regulatory agencies’. They’ve never been independent, and they are not subject to executive and congressional oversight. They are captive to those who should be regulated. FTC, FCC, SEC, et al are not serving the public interest.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Two questions:
(1) Why hasn’t Obama fired these people?
(2) Why hasn’t Obama explicitly disclaimed “executive privilege” for them?
(3) Why hasn’t the committee cited these witnesses for contempt of congress? If they don’t do that, they’re implicitly granting their made-up claim of “executive privilege”.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Sorr, that was three questions.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Give him time.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
What Moron said.
I’m not up on Contempt of Congress laws but why can’t they have the Sergeant at Arms take the guys into custody.
I’m so damn pissed right now. I’m starting to understand why the guillotine seemed like a good idea at the time during the French Revolution. Laws have been broken. Investigate and, if you can convict, start throwing people UNDER the damn jail.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I’m assuming their reasoning is this: There is an ongoing investigation, and we don’t want to give away anything that might screw it up. Say for example an SEC person is believed to be in on it, and there’s an ongoing wiretap with the FBI. If the Panel said they thought that SEC person might have been involved, that SEC person might stop talking about it on the phone and screw up the wiretap.
Farfetched, I’m sure, but that’s the reasoning. Same with Bush and Scooter Libby. But the bigger problem is that no one takes congressional hearings seriously. People lie and refuse to answer questions all the time and BS, and never pay any penalty.
Unless people start doing time for refusing to answer congressional questions, this is what will happen.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
We’ve given Obama enough “time”.
Two weeks was more than enough time for him to screw up the stimulus, capitulate to the rump GOP, do an about-face on DADT, engineer a multi-trillion dollar give-away to failed banks with no upside for taxpayers, and arrange for the appointment of two new republican high officials — one to the Commerce department and another to replace him in the Senate.
How much more “time” does he need to completely destroy the country?
February 4th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I understand the anger. I have been skeptical, however, so I am not feeling disillusioned. There is so much that is wrong, I don’t expect much to be made right in two weeks.
The response of the SEC is unbelievable. “I’m sorry you feel that way?” I suppose there are more unprofessional responses, responses less like something someone might say to put the ball in their partner’s court after they’ve wronged that partner. This is so pathetic. They should be thrown into jail for contempt.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I mentioned this at the tail end of the Open Thread but I’ll repeat it here:
A number of people in Congress think that the person who also dropped the fucking ball –in failing to nail Madoff –
was Mary Schapiro.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123194123553080959.html
3) By the merest coincidence, Mary is also the person who — Ta Da! — Obama just appointed to be the New Chairman of the SEC.
“Change you can believe in”.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Cathartic, yes. But constructive?
I dunno, this all seems like Security Theater’s cousin, Oversight Theater. Our Leaders stand up and yell and say mean things to the bad guys. But nothing is learned and no one is actually held to account.
Granted, yes, these people were, shall we say, less than forthcoming. But I don’t really get a whole lot out of my Congressman grandstanding.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
What rufus said above. In any encounter between a U.S. Congressman and another member of the human race, my sympathy is going to lean toward the person who’s not a U.S. Congressman.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
There’s is a bright side to all this. Harry Markopolos, the whistleblower, thinks that some of the funds who got ripped off by Madoff were holding money from the Russian Mafia and Latin America drug cartels.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/business/05madoff.html?hp
If so, then i suspect ole Bernie has a lot more on his mind than government prosecution.
And those SEC senior officials sitting at that table today had damm well hope certain parties don’t decide that SEC incompetence cost them money.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Rufus and too many – It’s important that leaders show, with facts and emotion, the utter incompetencea and curruption of these people, in a way that can be put on TV. I wish he hadn’t made that backside comment, because that will be the soundbite, but the anger is more than appropriate, it’s necessary.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I guess you’re right, Bloix. I just don’t think any congressman looks too good calling anybody else incompetent or corrupt. Plus, I’ve seen so many hearings where all the “questions” were just grandstanding statements that I just tune it out now.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
He can’t. They are civil servants.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Re jmo’s comment “He can’t. They are civil servants.”
——–
He can definitely order them to testify to Congress.
SEC is an independent agency , however. So he can’t fire his recent appointee to the Chairmanship, Mary Schapiro, on a whim.
What is interesting is that the Committee is not calling former SEC Chairman Chris Cox to testify. Or current and previous Commissioners — both Democratic and Republican.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
If enough Members of Congress feel like Ackerman, couldn’t Congress impeach and remove the senior SEC officials testifying today?
February 4th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Plus Congress could form a new Agency, move SEC duties to it, and leave the senior officers we saw today managing a shell with an annual budget of $3.59 .
February 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I’m kind of glad they weren’t under executive oversight during the past eight years. If they were, they probably would have been investigating prominent Democrats for financial frauds they had nothing to do with and figuring out way to funnel the money to the Republican National Committee.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Ackerman abusing these witnesses when they are powerless to abuse him back is bullshit and jsut typical Congressional grandstanding, as though Congress isn’t deeply complict in the mess we are in. The senior senator from NY, Charles Schumer, for one example, is up to his balls in deregulation and letting his rich contributors run amok. .
Second, no matter their incompetence–and it is profound–at this point should these SEC officials shoot their mouths off they might cause legal problems in the prosecution of Bernie Madoff and others. Who ants that, besides Bernie and his boys?
This wasn’t cathartic. Ackerman was occupying a false position just for public show, so typical of our elected representatives. He might be a great and progressive guy, might have fought the economic corruption every where and at every time, but this performance is ridiculous.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Don,
As I understand it, the woman that Mr. Markopolous(sp?) worked with was a YLS grad. I’d like to see what her background was. Was she a CPA, CFA, did she even take an accounting course back in college? Or, was she some history major from Brown who couldn’t figure out what she wanted to do and so went to law school?
Not that it is her fault. If the SEC hires a smart hardworking kids out of law school that’s great. But, they need to be sure they train them for the job.
My money is on the SEC’s piss poor training program as the root cause of their failure. It also might be the case that they need to hire more accountants and CFA and fewer lawyers.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Well, that’s ugly. What an ass. A typical showboat. WTF does he know about investigations? And if he’s so damn smart, why wasn’t he asking these questions at any point over the last 18 years? The SEC reportedly had its first opportunity to discover Madoff’s scheme during the first Bush administration–in 1991. But certainly the evidence was there for Congress and the press as well.
Watching a bully go after people who are unable to respond in kind and unable to fully respond without jeopardizing an on-going investigation is not something I enjoy. Did Ackerman take money from Madoff? Is he trying to help him avoid successful prosecution?
And does Ackerman realize these folks are civil servants? And these are the good ones, the ones recognized as the best and advanced in responsibility over the years? If this is what a successful career at the SEC looks like, who would want to work there?
jmo, if the country can be run by lawyers, why can’t lawyers do everything else?
If you don’t like numbers–if you went to law school because there’s no math, and went to the SEC so you wouldn’t have to do M&A or corporate finance work in private practice, is training really going to help you understand what folks are doing?
February 4th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Thomas,
“is training really going to help you understand what folks are doing?”
It can’t hurt. I’d also have to think that if your LSAT scores were good enough to get you into Yale you might just be able to figure it out.
However, you sure did nail the back story behind the poor hapless SEC staffer
February 5th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Ackerman’s performance was disgusting.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am
1) Ackerman’s performance was useful if it represents the mood of a faction within COngress which will clean up this mess. Obviously, if nothing happens from here then it was just showboating.
2) I don’t think “these people are just civil servants” is an excuse for letting Madoff screw people out of $50 Billion. There were a number of charities screwed by Madoff. If the whistleblower was warning someone in SEC for the past decade, then I think one or more people should be fired on the spot.
An example should be made.
3) This incompetence hurts ALL of us. ALL of us depend upon an efficient economy — which in turn depends upon investment –which in turn depends upon investors having confidence that their assets aren’t going to stolen at random intervals. Which , in turn, requires a law enforcement agency that doesn’t have its head buried in its ass.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Re ostap’s comment “Ackerman’s performance was disgusting.”
Only in its timidity. In some Asian countries, it used to be the custom to behead “civil servants” in the fucking town square if they fucked up this badly.
Especially if corruption was involved –which may well turn out to be the case in the Madoff affair.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Ackerman’s tirade was not pointless. There is a very real possibility that the system we have in place – the SEC – is intrinsicly incapable of fulfilling its function. If so, it will need to be abolished and replaced by a more empowered agency. That is a significant undertaking that will need a powerful grassroots movement to succeed. Ackerman’s actions make that marginally more likely. Abolition of the entire SEC might be the only threat to job security that those responsible for the lack of action on Maddow face.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Plus Congress could form a new Agency, move SEC duties to it, and leave the senior officers we saw today managing a shell with an annual budget of $3.59
On the other hand, Don, these folks would probably be able to leverage that $3.59 into a couple of billion dollars by the end of the week.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
You say more than you know. If a successful career at the SEC means that you’ve risen to the top of an organization that is not capable of performing its function, who indeed would want to work there?
Sure, there is an ongoing investigation being protected. That’s irrelevant. The SEC has had Maddow’s fraud sitting on a silver platter for about 15 years. That’s 3 presidents, 6 SEC heads,and any number of federal and regional directors of the Office of Compliance, Inspection and Examnation. The problem isn’t that some investigator got bribed (though that might be the case). The problem is that their organization does not work.
These people are that organization. The idea that they would go before congress with nothing is insane. They have to have something that they can say. Their treatment, if nothing else, will make the next witness demand that their boss give them something to placate congress without undermining any investigations. If nothing else, the next witness is likely to give their superior’s name as the person forbidding them to talk to congres.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I particularly liked this part of the non-Ackerman questioning:
Yes, she can answer that. She is just choosing not to do so because it would be more embarrassing to answer than stonewall.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 3:27 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:27 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra