Here is the Staff Report released by the Senate describing the Justice Department's Housing Settlements >Millions of Consumer Relief Funds Disbursed w/ NO Gurarantees of Helping Homeowners
>Of the $36.65 billion in total settlements, the DOJ earmarked $13.5 billion for “consumer relief,” of which hundreds of millions of dollars are to be disbursed to selected third-party groups approved by the Administration. (pages 20-25)
>Of the $13.5 billion in consumer relief funds, there is no requirement for every dollar to be first distributed to any homeowners actually aggrieved before any money is spent on broader housing-related policy goals. (pages 20-25)
>The settlements did not require any proof of how the third-party groups spent consumer relief funds, and the independent settlement monitors have no visibility into the use of those funds. (pages 25-30)
>The DOJ has retained $575.7 million from three housing settlements for its own use as part of the “three percent fund”—an amount that could easily fund oversight of multiple housing regulators. (pages 32-35)
>The DOJ’s use of the housing settlements to indirectly effectuate housing policy ignores Congress’s power of the purse to appropriate funds for policy purposes. (pages 16-20)
>The third-party consumer relief entities chosen by the DOJ include politically active and controversial groups. (pages 25-27)
>The sole entity designated by the DOJ to receive undesignated surplus consumer relief funds has been struggling with “management shortcomings,” “contracting issues,” and other issues. (pages 27-30)
>The findings of this majority staff report are admittedly limited by the information available to the Committee. Because Chairman Johnson’s inquiry was a broad examination of the settlements...Nonetheless, concerns are apparent in the DOJ’s housing settlements. Chairman Johnson’s oversight has found:
See OP above 'key points'
Julian Garcia
this is all very abstract
to get somewhere i need a specific case of abuse
Hunter Turner
>Ctrl+F La Raza Seems to be a key discussion point
>unable to read without subscription >The scandal comes courtesy of the DOJ...for 16 months has engaged in a scheme to undermine Congress's spending authority by independently transferring dollars to President Obama's political allies
>Republicans talk often about using the “power of the purse” to rein in a lawless Obama administration. If they mean it, they ought to use their year-end spending bill to stop a textbook case of outrageous executive overreach.
This scandal comes courtesy of the Justice Department, which for 16 months has engaged in a scheme to undermine Congress’s spending authority by independently transferring dollars to President Obama’s political allies. The department is in the process of funneling more than half-a-billion dollars to liberal activist groups, at least some of which will actively support Democrats in the coming election.
It works likes this: The Justice Department prosecutes cases against supposed corporate bad actors. Those companies agree to settlements that include financial penalties. Then Justice mandates that at least some of that penalty money be paid in the form of “donations” to nonprofits that supposedly aid consumers and bolster neighborhoods.
The Justice Department maintains a list of government-approved nonprofit beneficiaries. And surprise, surprise: Many of them are liberal activist groups. The National Council of La Raza. The National Urban League. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. NeighborWorks America (which awards grants to left-leaning community organization groups, and has been compared with Acorn).
Wyatt Harris
>And surprise, surprise: Many of them are liberal activist groups.
Dylan Howard
Volkswagen anyone? Did their fines, which were hundreds of millions of dollars, for using software on their diesel powered cars, that that tricked emissions testing equipment?
Tyler Flores
...
Nicholas Taylor
Please expand, I don't follow.
Josiah Brown
Vw had to pay massive fines. JA is using these corporate fines to do an end run around congresses constitutional right to control tax dollars use.
Isaiah Foster
Where did you get that from?
I haven't fully understood the rapport yet, is this in there?
Oliver Lee
bump
this almost seems irrelevant to OP?
Ian Parker
What is going on today? Am I in all the wrong threads or are we being slid like crazy?
Carter Rodriguez
sliding is definitely in full force. something has turned up around here.
Alexander Stewart
i've got 20 tabs open in regards to this topic and my computer is having a hard time keeping up
William Lee
why is the department of justice allowed to give out money at all? that makes no sense..
Michael Clark
Share links to threads in need of eyes.
Kevin Harris
>III. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DISREGARDED THE ROLE OF CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY IN ITS METHOD AND MANNER OF COMPELLING THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO THIRD-PARTY GROUPS
William Roberts
i fear that they are just all old news so far, describing the penalties of the likes of JPMorgan and Co.
Brayden Foster
we got em
Austin Phillips
Taken from chapter III (headed above) of this investigation: >Leveraging the settlement process under threat of prosecution, the DOJ secured the banks’ agreement to provide consumer relief funds to third-party groups, rather than directly to individuals who were injured by the crash of the housing market. This course of action raises two primary concerns. First, the use of these settlements to create incentives for shaping broader housing policy shows a disregard for separation of powers considerations inherent in the U.S. Constitution. Second, the DOJ’s settlements divert funds away from harmed individuals or the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund, depriving Congress of any meaningful ability to conduct oversight of these funds after they have been disbursed to third-party groups
Zachary Garcia
>the DOJ’s settlements divert funds away from harmed individuals or the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund, depriving Congress of any meaningful ability to conduct oversight of these funds after they have been disbursed to third-party groups
Sebastian Carter
Keep it up.
Hold the celebration till after the fact.
Grayson Scott
DOJ isn't handing the money out. There's a court case where some big fish like VW fucked up, and is paying millions and millions to get out of it.
DOJ as the lawyer for the state has a broad authority to shape settlments. They're supposed to use them to help the victims. Example: Exon dumps a big ass pile of oil. Exon sets up a settlement fund to clean it up, and deal with lawsuits.
The accusation here is that DOJ shaped the settlements so that they required a big ass payment to say, La Raza. "You dumped crude on mexican americans, pay la raza a big ass pile of money". as a possible example.
Dominic Clark
Bump for clarification
Parker Green
what I've gathered so far is that the DOJ bullied the banks with litigation into a settlement that otherwise would not have stuck in courts.
And the executive branch "has used these settlements beyond the mere enforcement of the law." pg. 18 paragraph 2 of OP document
goes on: >The executive branch is using the settlements to push policy goals, including funding self-selected third-party groups
describes similar litigation towards tobacco, gun and lead paint manufacturers back in 1999
>Since the cases never go to court, precedent is not established, so it is unclear what exactly is illegal. >This undermines the predictability and clarity that serve as the foundations for the rule of law, and risks the prospect of a selective—and potentially corrupt—system of justice in which everybody is guilty of something and punishment is determined by political deals. t. economist.com link above
Gabriel Sanchez
Oh damn, I guess the reason this don't get more traction is that it's not something that's easy to understand. I still have no real idea about what this means or the scope of it.
Justin Baker
>DoJ avoids congress >Forces banks to pay out to pre-determined third-party groups (political interest) >Groups chosen by un-elected officials (DoJ) Definitely seems worthy of uproar
Brayden Fisher
>So legal but really shady?
TECHNICALLY NOT ILLEGAL
hillary's entire campaign
Henry Richardson
are you guys able to load the google.drive doc in OP? just curious if i uploaded/linked it correctly.
I'm taking a break for now, I'm at page 20 of the doc if anyone cares to pick up.
the good stuff starts on page 16, desu. if you want to catch up to speed.
helps to follow sources linked at the bottom of each page.
Camden Cruz
Ye, I have it downloaded so if it goes someone let me know and I'll put it back up.
Will keep bumped
Charles Sanchez
...
Matthew Young
Bump
Jacob Adams
I know this is super tangential to the thread, but as someone who works in corporate services, the idiots screeching about ending corporate personhood make my brain melt.
They have no idea what it means. And how repealing it would solve nothing because if the corporation isn't a person, the owners are and now they're the ones directly in control.
Corporate personhood is primarily the manner by which limited liability happens. This makes it important that someone sues the company, not the trader, because it's the company's assets he'd be taking, not the trader's himself.
If corporate personhood ended tomorrow, our economy would implode as very few people would dare trade if they'd end up homeless if their business failed.
Owen Ramirez
bump
Dominic Murphy
BUMP!
Gabriel Ross
bump
Liam Myers
>they'd end up homeless if their business failed
Sounds like entirely appropriate, humbling ordeal that would serve well the kind of people who knowingly and fraudulently bilked huge numbers of their fellow citizens into insolvency and homelessness.
Why don't we try it just a little? C'mon, just the tip
Elijah Richardson
Untested legally. It's a very high barrier to become a crime. The settlement would have to be so outragous that it becomes bribery.
Jack Bennett
>"If corporate personhood ended tomorrow, our economy would implode" >Being this much of a statist bootlicker Have you seriously not taken the ancap pill in the current year?
Gavin Murphy
> This leaf thinks that this will affect these people, instead of the average Joe trying to start a business.
Does the weather in Canada freeze your brains? I mean, something has to account for the sheer stupidity of what you just said.
If they "knowingly and fraudulently bilked huge numbers of their fellow citizens into insolvency and homelessness", there are "lifting of the corporate veil" provisions in most countries that deal with just that. They just need to be enforced.
As I said, people who don't know what they're talking about but have a hell of a strong opinion on it.
Jack Butler
>ancap
lol no thanks I like to keep the corporate hegemony dystopia to my Shadowrun thanks
So it falls on the tax payers. Sooo, shouldn't that money be divvied out by elected officials that are suppose to represent the people? Not a group of un-elected officials appropriating the money where it fits their political agendas.
See activist groups named above: >The National Council of La Raza. >The National Urban League. >The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. >NeighborWorks America (which awards grants to left-leaning community organization groups, and has been compared with Acorn).
Perhaps these groups need to be investigated further to find their interests and provide this information to the public
Jace Lee
bump
Charles Jones
?????
You lost me.
Jonathan Reed
bump
Andrew Diaz
I can try explaining but I'm still trying to understand it all.
The groups mentioned are allegedly receiving financial support from a scheme put in place by Obama. (correct me if I'm mistaken please)
And this DOJ stuff seems to be where a big deal of those funds are coming from.
Justin Bennett
bump
Leo Young
ok, yeah. sorry, I still dont understand all of this either. and most of it is going over my head. but, if the tax payers bailed out the banks, should the tax payer not have say in how the settlement should be paid out?
instead the DoJ circumvented Congress to make their own decision where the money went.
Brandon Brown
>instead the DoJ circumvented Congress..
Did they? Like is that unusual or not the right procedure?
Just trying to make sure I understand this
Jason Williams
>Once a bank distributes funds to a third-party recipient, there is no effective mechanism in place to ensure the funds are ultimately disbursed to homeowners actually aggrieved by the banks’ actions.
Matthew Lewis
>Did they? Yes. >is that unusual or not the right procedure? I don't know but it appears to be the reason for this investigation and figuring out where the money went and what it was used for.
Elijah Myers
Ooooh, so this rapport is the result of an investigation? Not just some yearly rapport?
Christopher Jackson
bump
John Adams
bump
Alexander Sullivan
Taken from OP Doc: >In March 2015, Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, initiated an inquiry into the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) settlements with large financial institutions and credit rating agencies related to the 2008 financial crisis >Separately, on July 28, 2015, Chairman Johnson wrote individually to the independent monitors tasked with overseeing each settlement, seeking information about how the banks were distributing consumer relief funds and which entities had received funds to date. >The information obtained from the DOJ and independent settlement monitors informs the conclusions articulated in this majority staff report >From this information, it appears that billions of dollars have flowed through these opaque negotiations of each settlement without explicit accounting for actual damage done or a direct provision of assistance to those homeowners who already lost their homes >The DOJ’s settlements with these major financial institutions, however, show how the Obama Administration unilaterally made funding choices that effectuated broad housing policy with no oversight or little accountability for how the funds were ultimately spent.
Sounds like an investigation to me.
Adrian Morales
Sounds like the case, but even if it's not technically illegal everyone involved needs to lose their jobs. I love that both parties pretty much ignore the "harmed individuals" that the money was supposed to be for. Fuck homeowners, am I right?
Luke Bailey
So shamelessly with so much money. How the fuck is that real?
Caleb Hernandez
God damn niggers and Jews
Kill them all
Jaxson Price
>“Over $84 million in donations to thirdparty organizations and $193 million in credit for Bank of America towards its total consumer relief goal . . . It is unclear how many homeowners that lost their homes during housing crash actually received the funds.”
Ayden Nguyen
Seriously? What page is this on? That can't be total from the 36?..
Benjamin Morgan
>Fuck homeowners, am I right? >Deputy Associate Attorney General Geoffrey Graber, who led the settlement negotiations with the three banks, specifically testified in 2015 the monitors are responsible for determining if “the third parties were to use the funds in a way that is inconsistent with the terms of the agreement.” >In essence, these settlement provisions have become a blank check payable to third-party groups with little guarantee that the funds will be used to remediate homeowners who lost their homes during the housing crisis.
Pretty much
Benjamin Walker
that's just part of one..Bank ofAmerica
Levi Lopez
page 24 only
Carson Wright
God damnit! I hate this, my brain can't handle these types of documents.
Luis Reed
Page 26: >The National Council of La Raza, in particular, has had a particularly checkered history. The group has garnered attention from some lawmakers as being particularly extreme in its views on immigration—with some suggesting that La Raza promotes illegal immigration and advocates for benefits and driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.
Interesting world views, A?
They alone received $1.5M from Bank of America. As told to do so by the DoJ.
Thomas Nguyen
>The DOJ required the banks to distribute portions of their settlement payments to certain third-party groups. 92 Despite the DOJ’s assurances that it “plays no role” in selecting specific third party recipients, 93 it is evident that the DOJ influenced which groups received disbursements. Specifically, the DOJ narrowed the list of entities eligible to receive funds by selecting “HUD-approved housing counseling agencies” as the only entities to which the banks could make disbursements for credit. 94 In this respect, the DOJ directed the consumer relief funding to third-party groups and away from homeowners directly aggrieved by any wrongdoing.
This lead me to believe most of the funds in the graph numbered 1 went to slushfunds or people who the DOJ liked. Or am I mistaken?
Brayden Young
>went to slushfunds or people who the DOJ liked yes supported by > the DOJ narrowed the list of entities eligible to receive funds by selecting “HUD- approved housing counseling agencies” as the only entities to which the banks could make disbursements for credit. consequently >the DOJ directed the consumer relief funding to third-party groups and away from homeowners directly aggrieved
Justin Wright
For fucks sake, been keeping this alive for so long but it's not getting tracktion, 24 posters in 6 hours.
You should try and summarize it and make a big post with all the graphs, I think most people just don't wanna bother downloading and reading. Like me for 5 hours.
John Myers
>obama campaigns on taking down wallstreet >is actually heavily financed by wallstreet, with the largest amount spent on a campaign ever >when it comes around to breaking up the huge banks he insteads bails them out kek
Jack Baker
That's badass and I will definitely be using it.
May Kek bless you.
Lincoln Cruz
What about Toyota and Takata? Were all the big hulla-balloo stories about different companies messing up all just for extortion?
Have no evidence, just posing the question.
Josiah Phillips
I know it. Coming along the "Three Per Cent Fund" where by the DoJ is allowed to collect 3% of any settlement made. Interestingly, they are allowed to take these monies before any reparations are made. And, they bring in 50 times the amount of monies projected when this bill was brought forward to Congress back in 1993.
Let's find out where this money is going.
>Holding excessive amounts of unobligated funds in its account contravenes this purpose and suggests the DOJ is gaining the ability to insulate itself from the congressional budgetary process.
Dominic Stewart
t. pages 31-33
Tyler Wright
does this have anything to do with the housing market crash under Bush. He's been under the radar until recently.
as in knowing it would fail as a way to set up slush fund, laundering schemes from lawsuits?
Nicholas Rodriguez
It's outrageous that Obama and Holder bailed out all the big banks, but gave virtually nothing to homeowners. And then Holder came out flat and said that the banks are too big to jail even though there's all kinds of evidence proving the mortgage/ratings fraud was a top down scam.
James Thomas
All Trump has to do is have people constantly dig for all the scandals the media wouldn't dig for during the Obama years, throw it out there as red meat for the media to try to diminish and dispel and spin, while he pushes his agenda through.
If middle and working class americans are better off he will be good to go for reelection. If blacks and hispanics are significantly better off than they were under Obama, and they will be if illegal immigrants are gone and the labor market gets tight, then the demographics of a generation may shift to the GOP.
Dylan White
no mention of Bush. but it is pointed out that monies have been funneled to support the Obama administration.
Reminds me of the Samsung "exploding phones" media hit job, when all phone companies are using those same batteries and never any fines for Apple when their phones explode.
Landon Robinson
had low expectations. but that turned out to be a humorous example of the discourse that occurred bw those posts. admittedly, my comment in there too.
Daniel Brown
Every user by now should know that La Raza means "the race" and is a self-proclaimed seperatist group that advocates reconquista (taking back California, New Mexico, and other former Spanish/Mexican states). Funding that with federal money is treason.
I remember middle/early last year thread after thread of them coming to Sup Forums and being all, "fuck you whities, we're taking it back."
Samuel Collins
The fact that MSM is not covering this story proves they are FAKE news.
The entrenched government is out of control. These NGO's are out of control.
Learn how even pre WW1, these tax exempt foundations were subverting America. Instigating wars and infiltrating educational institutions is what they focus on.
Learn more about a congressional investigation done in the 50's: youtu.be/YUYCBfmIcHM
Obama and the Holder DOJ were supporting seditious foundations that are enemies of peace.
Jose Thompson
All these groups who literally popped out of nowhere and suddenly had money to hire staff, rent offices, transport, websites, etc. etc.
It was all so shady to begin with. Now it's confirmed it's being run top down from Obama.
Connor Johnson
Hard to believe Obama had the gall to pull photo op stunts like this
I started a sub to this thread for info on La Raza and the other groups selected by Obama to recieve funds
Long story short, La Raza is a seperatist groups that believes in Aztlan and wants to flood former Spanish states with immigrants eventually vote for secession. Essentially the Islamic verion of invasion, but literally closer to home and well on it's way to execution.
