Former Congressman Wants Investigation Into Cramer's Market Manipulations
By Nicole Belle Saturday Mar 14, 2009 10:00amOopsie-daisies. Talk about your unexpected consequences. The highly-blogged about tête-à-tête between Jon Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer has exposed the very ugly underbelly of how the former hedge-fund manager made money before his TV career. Former Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) says it's time some investigator takes a closer look at Cramer:
CNN reporter Jim Acosta reflected on limited regulation of hedge fund’s and how they attracted “wealthy investors.” He then turned to former Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., once chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, who said Cramer’s the reason hedge funds should be considered for more regulation.
“I think he’s become a poster child for why hedge funds need more regulation and transparency,” Davis said.
When asked if what Cramer said was illegal, Davis admitted that it was not, but “should be. He may well have crossed the line.”
Davis suggested the powers that be “ought to be looking at” Cramer’s confessed manipulation from 2006. “I think the tragedy is over the last few years nobody’s been looking at this at all.”
Wow. A Republican calling for more regulations and ethics over the interests of the oligarchy? Will wonders never cease?
Login or Register to post comments.
Any way the wind blows
doesn't really matter to he.
as long as it doesn't have an R-toady attached to it. Hmmmm, did we hear Tom Davis blustering about this kind of investigation of Republican oligarchs gone wrong?
Yes, by all means. Let's give Cramer congressional immunity and bring him in to testify about just who "everybody did it" was and just what they were doing....
Let the chips fall where they may.
in no time.
Small potatoes.
This is small potatos. Republicans will go all out to go after Cramer as if he's the problem. Remember he's a democrat, so its not like they are turning on one of their own. Sadly he is now the poster child for the mess, when he didn't create it.
They want to publicly investigate Cramer because he is the public face of these crimes now, but if they investigate Cramer it will only be so that the real criminals of Wall St. can continue to screw us all without consequence.
for their part in the naked short selling cabal, plenty more bigger fish out there awaiting indictments and trials.
These people were manipulating markets with phony news and punditry, then a combination of put options and naked shorts to drive companies into the ground, one thousand companies over two decades is prob the toll for ones destroyed or ruined to the point of easy picking for the hostile takeover merchants.
They also rode the CDO bubble burst and the subsequent Wall Street crash into the gutter, making massive profits along the way, then the gov and FR bail them out with taxpayer monies. Life is surprisingly sweet for connected financial crooks, not so for the taxpaying mugs who pick up the tab.
Plurals in English do not require apostrophes.
FUND'S implies that something belongs to the funds.
To make a plural, only an s is required.
If we want to enjoy making fun of the rightwing's spelling impairment, we have to do better ourselves!
...that was quoted text written by someone else, not me.
If I changed the text, someone would have gotten after me for that.
that someone else would say something. That's why they invented "sic"
All this aside though, I appreciate your articles and the fact that you put up with our manias in the comments ;-P
this (whole conversation) feels like deja vu all over again, doesn't it? :)
Since you brought it up, FUND'S implies that something belongs to the fund (no ess). :-) (The English teacher.)
x
The PUKIE central committee will soon be all over this man. Maybe he will turn Dem? It's the little things that will drive this man crazy, lets see............Audited by IRS (how soon?), THE KING will frown (GWBRAT), Rush Limpdick will trash him, ................
They'll put a "D" next to his name.
Just goes to show you how Stewart and his team are better reporters than the MSM! Keep it going guys. What does that tell you about NBC, ABC and CBS in terms of journalistic integrity? I'm not even going to dignify FOX!
I think it would be very wrong to scapegoat Cramer. There's plenty of blame to go around. There are people out there with far more culpability, including members of Congress who chose to look the other way.
..who has been manipulating the markets? Give me a break.
Yeah, go after Cramer. Then go after every other white collar criminal in the Wall Street hood. All these crooked sons-of-bitches have made their fortunes off the back of the investors.
Maybe if found guilty, we can fine them sufficiently to retake the billions they've f*cked us out of in the markets. I know my 401K could sure use a good boost.
Plenty of evidence that they exist, Overstock.com was one of their victims. More phantom shares selling in markets than issued.
The story of the players is out there, just google it.
because what cramer was doing, thanks to the repugs, wasnt illegal
immoral...not illegal
and come on...the people who should be going to prison....are no longer in office
bush and cheney must go to prison
Criminal conspiracy to manipulate markets through underhand methods.
For every WS genius making big money from share fluctuations, there are losers who gamble wrong. Thats why the SEC was born, to stop crooks gaming the system and fleecing people.
Cramer, you moron, now you're messing up the base republicans. It's so fitting, and telling, that another republican, with no moral values wants your ass..... yes it's time to follow the money. Since the GOP is dead it's time to pick their bones......
Hannibal
because he had little effect. Congress letting investment banking combine with regular banking and failing to regulate it however is truly criminal.
...butI've never voted for him since I'm to the left of most Northern VA dems, but I've got to say, he's one of the more reasonable republicans and I think he's pretty disgusted by what's happened to his party. He's extraordinarily intelligent and decent so I expect at some point he'll change the R to an I. But, as mentioned, repubs have the habit of throwing some low level culprit under the bus and then claiming case closed, so I'm not terribly optimistic about the former congressman's demand for investigation.
I think of Chelsea Clinton and wonder what she's learning in her job at American Capital Group.
Among other activities, American Capital Group made a large purchase of stock in Queenco Leisure International Ltd., listed as "the emerging markets casino developer and operator, operates and manages casinos and adjacent leisure properties in Greece, the Island of Rhodes, Romania's capital and Serbia. Club Hotel Casino Loutraki, in which the Group has an interest via a joint venture, is believed by the Company to be Greece's leading casino by drop and win with almost one million visits each year, and is located 80 kilometres from Athens. Casino Rodos, the only casino on the island of Rhodes, was recently ranked one of the top ten casinos in Europe. Casino Palace is located in the centre of Bucharest in one of the City's most historic buildings." -- RAMAT GAN, Israel, November 19, 2008
International finance indeed.
Cramer", the banner should read "Congress to repeal laws that got us into this mess in the first place."
I know, I'm dreaming...
Where they pick one poor shmuck to publicly execute as a scapegoat for the rampant corruption of government and industry. There's nothing like picking a fall guy to get everyone to stop demanding real change...
that was my first thought too. But Burnett does not contemplate the implication of her babbling
when I saw a Republican calling for regulation! :| This is the shock of the day! I know we'd all like to see regulation restored, and all the white collar thieves put in the crowbar hotel, but, baby steps, I guess?
And why Cramer? Call me cynical, but this smells of nothing more than some cheap political publicity ploy--especially as it's coming from the integrity challenged right--mayhap Tom Davis is gearing up to try n'reclaim his seat. That would make way more sense, imo.
Its a confession of how clever and 'good' he is.
Its a bit like that infamous beanie baby scammer, sold non existent rare beanies for $100K on ebay, then went and bragged about it some chat room, he got ratted out by disgusted chat denizens and arrested/jailed.
The old cliche of perps returning to their scene of crime to observe and feel good about how clever they are.
However, I still question Davis' motive...
As we watched the interview and Stewart showed the clips, Cramer was quick to say how he was being 'hypothetical' I told my friend 'He has to say that cause what he's talking about in the clips is illegal.'
...Cramer is a Democrat?
But while I'm happy to see ANY Republican finally going after ANY of the people who have so badly injured the country, I agree that Cramer is only the most visible tip of the iceberg.
We'll see...
check his cv out on wiki. I'd grab you the link, but I've lost my mouse, and I'm not well versed in keyboard shortcuts...
:D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer
from wiki "Cramer worked as a research assistant with Alan Dershowitz."
That explains a lot
in other words he works for a foreign country
I don't know how to reconcile the 'left' thing with the Dershowitz thing...
Righto - chase Cramer and ignore the networks, Wall Street, etc. Perfectly empty grandstanding politics.
Oh, and cover up Davis' own sorry history at the same time: hiding the Walter Reed privatization fiasco, opposing smart growth, links to Abramoff and incarcerated lobbyists, actually issuing a subpoena for brain-dead Terry Schiavo (making one wonder if Davis is even more brain-dead than she was), gaving $100's of thousands in PAC money to his wife, etc., etc., etc. ... I'm gonna puke -
It's what Cramer and the rest of the slags at CNBC and FOX Biz do.
It is AT LEAST unethincal, and probably actionable, if somebody would bring the action.
Cramer and Madoff: Cellmates? Who'd be the butch?
Investigating Cramer was a foregone conclusion. Slapping Cramer into jail for "manipulating the market" is also a foregone conclusion. But, with him will go all of the bobbleheads on CNBC who did the same.
This will be the largest full-scale investigation of media controlling the message/shilling the public ever in our history.
Cramer is the tip of the iceberg (just take a look at him lately - he knows he's doomed). This investigation will have a wide swath and will take down the bloviating bobbleheads on CNBC as well as mainstream journalists who participated in the scheme.
Then the invesigation will naturally move to the next issue: the lies of the media and complicity of leading this country to an illegal, unwarranted (and they knew it, too) war.
And all because of a little comedy news show.
Those comedians. They're so unimportant.
I don't get why we keep making the same mistake over and over again, blaming individuals for 'ethical failures' in business. There are no ethics in business. Business is neither moral nor immoral, it's amoral, like a machine. Businesspeople will make money in any way that's legal. That's their job. If you make a lucrative method of making money illegal for ethical reasons, they'll complain before and after the policy change, but eventually will just go back to concentrating on what IS legal. (Best example of that is slavery! Damned if THAT wasn't great for the economy.)
But it always makes me laugh when government (or people involved in government) shirk their responsibilities of oversight in commerce, and then when something goes wrong they blame the MORALITY of individual business leaders for doing something that was not illegal. It's like scolding your pet pig for eating your rose garden. IT'S A PIG! (Abusive analogy I know, but it's an accurate one.) A pig is useful because it provides pork, eventually. But, in order to synthesize that pork it will eat anything it can get to. YOU KNOW THAT! If you don't want it to eat your rose garden, you have to put a fence around either the rose garden or the pig so you can control what it eats. Sheesh...
Hedge fund managers have been manipulating markets for 20 years because they're largely unregulated. Ironically, Cramer used to complain about it on his show! He DID it when he was a manager, because he had to compete with all the OTHER managers who were also doing it (and were doing it because THEY had to compete with all the managers who were also doing it). So, everybody was doing it, and probably any of them who gave themselves a chance to think about it thought it was a bad idea. Cramer did it because he had to compete, but later said it was a bad idea. Since Jon Stewart clearly had his staff comb through a thousand hours of Cramer's show, he should also run the clips of Cramer criticizing un-regulated hedge funds. Those clips are there, I've seen them!
The banks failed because the government lowered the fractional reserve requirements, allowing them to take greater risks, and because the bonus' of the executives were structured around short term buying and selling, with little risk aversion built in. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/business/18...). In other words, they removed the fence around the rose garden, and trusted the pigs to be 'moral' enough not to eat the roses. Now they're going to haul the pig before Congress to explain why it ate the roses? Government neglected its responsibility to prevent the players of the free market from doing things that were dangerous to us all, for two reasons. 1. They were too damned lazy to do their job, and 2. the portable chorus of paid, free market shills had convinced the public that government SHOULDN'T do its job.
So, let's not have another show trial, dragging Jim Cramer before Congress to explain why he did everything he could to make money for his clients as long as it wasn't illegal. Let's just put some rules back in place that make sense.
Find out who the pigs were that ate the rose on 9/11 American Airlines (Put Options?)
http://www.rense.com/general46/911.html
Hey, as ugly and stinky as they can be sometimes, I LIKE my pigs. They eat my garbage and convert it into pork chops and link sausages. But, as useful as those services are, I'm not going to elect them to Congress for it.
(As for those put options, there may or may not be anything to it. I wouldn't know.)
to turn them into pork chops and link sausages
You are right on one point- that we should Never trust the Government to anyone who does not believe in Government. The Gang Of Pirates are screaming about impending Socialism, as any other feral child would scream and cry if folk tried to socialize it.
Of course if you let folks go Feral, the most feral will conquer the least feral in a "Lord of the Flies" writ large. How then does that absolve the feral from eventual accountability. Substitute Cramer, Madoff, Lewis Rukyser even, for any ghetto gangster, and watch how fast the kid gloves come off. What all those folks,(and lists more) did was no more legal than carjacking, but on a scale no carjacker ever contemplated.
(I never blamed any victims of the collapsed economy, by the way. So, I'm hoping that title wasn't directed at anything I said?)
I disagree, though. Carjacking is illegal, what Madoff did was illegal, what Cramer did was not illegal (and I have no idea who Lewis Rukyser is). So, we're comparing apples and oranges. From a morality point of view you could make a very good argument that Madoff, Cramer, and car jackers are the same, and I'd agree. From a legal point of view they're not all the same, but maybe they SHOULD be, and the fact that they're not is clearly an example of government not doing its job.
yet you feel informed enough to declare the legal disposition of Jim Cramer's actions?
That's kind of LOL funny.
If you mean Louis Rukeyser, the financial journalist from PBS, yes I know who he is. I had no idea who Lewis Rukyser is. I've flipped by his show in the past, and thought it was funny how much he looks like the portrait of George Washington on the one dollar bill, but the show didn't interest me, so I never watched.
Louis Rukeyser at least was embarrassed enough to get out when the real value of his advice was made plain. He played the same games as Cramer and the rest.
Or he might have just got out of financial journalism when the profession embarrassed him, not the other way around. Like I said, I didn't watch his show, so I don't know what he said.
There used to be some good financial journalists around, but most of them disappeared around 20 years ago, when the stock market stated to become a circus.
(First Wiki then Google. When I googled Rukyser nothing came up. When I googled Rukeyser I found out who you meant. I never watched his show, but I remembered it was on PBS when I watched PBS regularly. When did he quit doing that show?)
When the market tanked over 700 points in a day, and proceeded to make a lie out of everything he was saying. The next time it came on it was a new person who's only reference to the lies was that he has sold the show to new owners who would now tell the truth. (of course it was more of the same, and I think 9/11 killed it the rest of the way)
The "new owners show" was the last time I saw anything of it, other than notice they were still up to the old tricks.
"Owners of the show?" Was it still on PBS? Whatever. I think I used to flip past his show, and confuse him with William F. Buckley, whom I never had any patience for either (except when he was getting his ass whooped in debates with Noam Chomsky), so I didn't watch.
It took a mighty stretch but that is what Martha Stewart went to jail for. What Cramer and all the folks at CNBC, and other such shows do for a living is not a stretch to call as the same crime. If the RICO statutes were invoked there would hardly be a person left in the Financial industry (including banks, Stocks, and the really big guys the Insurance industry).
Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading, or at least that's how I remembered it. So did the guy who owned the company and gave her the inside information. That's against the law, and therefore is illegal.
I have to admit I haven't seen all the clips where Cramer talks about what he did. I just saw the part where he admitted to creating activity (by buying and selling things) in order to drive the momentum in a direction he wanted, or to cause stop loss orders to kick in. Is that what you're referring to? I think he also said some things about Microsoft, but I wasn't really paying attention. What he was talking about there might have been illegal, but I don't know what he said.
But the only thing Stewart was convicted of was the statement "I have done nothing illegal" thus supposedly driving her stock.
The insider trading part was ruled bogus. Of course when one listens to the MSM one remembers only their talking points. That is why so many are still believing that Saddam launched 9/11.
What do you mean? What were the indictments?
that the jury said was true as they had the You-tube. And yes that was one of the indictments.
So what are we arguing about here? What's illegal, and may be difficult to prove in court, or what is not illegal but may be unethical?
Is that there are enough wide spread crimes that a prosecutor who was willing would find a very target rich environment. That the Gang Of Pirate cronyism made up law as they went along, punishing folk like Martha Stewart and Don Sigelman, while "Making Legal" or just not prosecuting everything from Madoff, to Blackwell, to Irey, as long as they were GOP in good standing (at least with them).
Unfortunately Obama does not go more than halfway (if that) to where he needs to go, but the alternative is worse by far.
First part I agree with. Second part I would say it's too early to tell.
Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Jonathan Turley,Quentin Young, Dr Dean, and many more.
You can tell what he cares about by which posts get actual Liberals and which get warmed over GOP.
And what I can see is that he cares about the optics involved in winning over moderate voters so he can stay in power. Who he gives jobs to, and who he gets advice from are not necessarily the same thing. (Having said that, however, I'm very sorry he didn't put Krugman on his economic council. )
it would be Young, and he does not, I understand that other than their own soapboxes the rest do not either.
It would be so easy to shoot fish in the barrel, and call out the unsocialized GOP as Antisocialists.
Instead they run up the fraud every day and leave it to KO and Jon Stewart to call them out.
.
Q U E S T I O N:
What do you call a financial analyst that can't forecast?
.
.
.
.
.
A: UNEMPLOYED!
(or at least, should be!)
.
A: UNEMPLOYED (with a $20 000 000 severance settlement).
(Okay, that's enough blogwhoring.)
Sorry,
One or two posts and it's blog whoring?
WTF???
You don't like the way I post, is that it?
Should I be saying the same to you?
Some people put all sorts of crazy stuff together for posts/comments.
But blog whore? I'm not pushing any superfluous links to my own blog...
... Hell, I don't even have a blog to whore out?
.
{ Clearly there has been a misunderstanding. Let it go. OK? SiteMonitor?
It was a joke. Sheesh.... Try the decaff, it's pretty good.
.
:)
mental telepathy.
I'm feelin you guyz.
Just don't mistake symmetry for simpatico. ;)
.
Q U E S T I O N:
Now, what should you call that financial analyst when he misleads the public into a billion dollar loss?
.
.
.
.
.
A: Prison B!tch!!!
.
Who were so profitably "innocent" I would still not be surprise to learn that Ken Lay was still alive.
Exactly my thought, too.
Bernie took no plea and instead is going straight to jail...
... Where the birds mysteriously dies of heat attacks.
I see the same for Jim.
I was just talking to a friend of mine and we were saying the same thing. "Who is buried in "Kenny Boy" Lay's grave?"
and she's unemployed. Didn't set too well with the boss that she was antsy and told to STFU way back at the beginning of last year, then was proven right about all this, several months later.
She was shown the door right before Xmas.
They should also look into the crew at "Fast Money." They are doing the same thing as Cramer. The whole CNBC network are up to their eyeballs shilling for the hedge funds and traders on Wall Street. This is going to BLOW UP BIG in the face of CNBC. That whole network is a scam.
Dispite it being small and running a high speed, they both run disclaimers. I am quite sure they have lawyers that review the shows. Probably nothing illegal, more idiotic.
CNBC financial shows are finished, as are other financial advice shows. Burry them, they're stinking up the place. It's only a matter of time. What they were doing (ie-offering 'advice' about stocks, and disguising the advice as 'opinions' for legal purposes, for the actual purpose of selling advertising spots) was probably not illegal. Like you say, they had disclaimers. However, when they start getting their asses sued in CIVIL COURT, win or lose, the court action expenses will drag them down so much that it'll never be worth it to put on another financial show.
I agree that CNBC probably are not too worried about the legal aspect of this but the viewers are what counts. If people stop watching because the network has no credibility then they are finished. Adios, goodbye!! They went for the big bucks with Cramer and his circus not thinking what would happen if he got caught shilling for his hedge fund or just the idea that he and
EricErin Burnett and "Fast Money and "The Money Honey" could be shilling for the big boys, if people started losing money hand over fist what they would think about the money network and figuring out that they have "been had" for years. It is not difficult to think back about how these jokers treated different situations. The Bear Sterns fiasco is only one of many. There is Lehmann and... oh shit, there are probably hundreds of examples especially if you look at Cramer's "Mad Money" and the "Fast Money" cluster fuck. Just like for economics it is all about trust and how you feel, with the TV money channels it is all about credibility. Right now they have none.Disappointing that...
1. Recent government has either reluctantly or never enforced regulations.
2. When the SEC and FED have people who can't find their way around a balance sheet its not exactly a good starting point.
3. Significant misinformation about the financial markets is used in the news to play to the populace, which in turn stoke the do nothing congress who call more hearings to yell and hand out more favours and cheques.
Yes, Cramer is a two-faced liar / jackass, but he hasn't done anything illegal... maybe asides from being an idiot who spits general financial knowledge at people... and being a jackass along with the rest of the CNBC "its a bull market / life is full of sunshine never mind the bodies" network.
Have the government investigates itself, and it's agencies. Discover it's not all peachy. Throw a few low-level pawns to the mob. Carry on with business as usual. Wave a lot of flags in 2012.
What congressperson is willing to bite the hand that feeds?
instead of renting them to the highest bidder. I understand that Maine has started that, as has Arizona, but Arizona has other problems as well.
Change the rules for campaign financing, and that problem will solve itself. Campaign finance reform should be a top priority. Personally, I'd like to make it illegal for anybody but the average citizen to donate money to a campaign, shutting out PACs, lobby groups, unions, and other organizations. But I doubt that'll ever happen. I had my hopes when Howard Dean started running his 2006 campaign based on small donations over the internet that this was going to be the wave of the future, but now I'm not so sure.
Just revist the notion that corporations should enjoy personhood status and all will right itself. Corporations should not be enjoying privacy, free speech, etc., as the Constitution never lays the framework for corporations. Only persons. ANd in fact the SCOTUS has NEVER adjudicated the notion, but has a very interesting issue with one of their case back in the 1860's that ended up becoming a false case for corporations to enjoy personhood rights and privledges.
KILL CORPORATIONS.
Well... apart from the bit about killing corporations. But no, it's F-KING NUTS to put corporations on the same legal status as individual citizens/human beings! F-ING depression era bullsh-t. There is a LOT of work to be done on the whole legal status of corporations thing.
It's no surprise that the free market types keep pointing to China as the model for free enterprise. (The irony makes my head explode.) The Chinese system is to have no regulations on industry, and when poison ends up in their pet food exports, just grab the first guy you can find, put him in front of a firing squad, and declare "problem solved, back to business as usual." What's you've just described is the American equivalent.
However, they DO have a vested interest in regulating the markets just enough so that they don't cause a total implosion of the economy, like we just had. That's not in their interests. So, I expect them to take care of that, at least, and then get back to the "good" old days (using the early 90s as a model) of where the upper 20% of the population benefits from the financial industry, the middle 20% gets fleeced do to lack of skill and insider information, and the bottom 60% is locked out entirely. As a result of that arrangement, government will go back to being a slave to the top 20% of income earners, like it always has been. If any Wall Street Wizards end up going to jail this time, it won't be for the crime of fleecing the public, and then raiding the treasury. It will be to punish them for the crime of making it OBVIOUS that that's what they were doing. Criminals don't go to jail for committing crimes, per se. They go to jail for drawing ATTENTION to the crime racket. People are not convicted of committing crimes, they're convicted of committing DUMB crimes.
Do not stock broker and bond broker licenses carry ETHICS clauses? Do not all sorts of financial accounting licenses carry ethics clauses? Pericles you are being very naieve in your "ethics" vs. Legal argument.
They probably do, but they'd be even harder to enforce than the legal clauses. I'd rather stick to regulations first, laws second, and ethics dead last, based on ability to enforce.
Sounds like a definition of "if".
And start with the banks. Just like Andrew Jackson's tombstone says:
I killed the banks.
I thought Andrew Jackson's tombstone says "I spit chewing tobacco at banks."
Since corporations think they should enjoy free speech, this gets a seat at the table of government. Since they have so much money, they then have foreced the courts' hand to allow them to spend it on electing government players. But, if we take our blinders off, we see that Corporations SHOULD not enjoy civil liberties, especially ones that they do not enjoy even in the world they presently occupy, and that is voting. So WHY, would a govrenment ALLOW corporations to pay to play (Free speech) in an arena they do not even have the right ot partake of, namely voting? Corporations need to federalized. Presently, corporations are created at the state level. This then allows states to carve out the rules (laws) that the corporation must live by. But, if any corporation was actually truly interested in civil liberties, they would see that the states are basically allowed to carve up the corporate civil liberties differently state to state. To any true civil libertarian, should push for the unconstitutionality of state corporate law, and move that corporations, especially those who do inter-state commerce, MUST be created under a federal charter and not a state. This then allows Federal Gov to mandate the liberties that corporations CAN enjoy. And this is the beginnging of returning the corporation to the state it was at the time of our founding. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations. Imagine that? Huh, how different our world would be right now if that were true.
Best 213 min you can spend in a weekend.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5153...
People should wake up to this joker, he has been wrong forever.
Who believes that these hacks have foreign banking accounts where they put money received from CEOs for everytime they manipulate the markets? Why was Martha Stewart the only hack in jail when things like these are much more obvious?
And how about the nerve of these republicans to talk about regulation on TV but voting against it everytime it comes up in the senate or the house? WTF?
Cramer obviously knows alot more than he wants to admit ! Why can't he be brought to testify about who else profitted from these manipulations ? He is basically admitting to fraud - isn't that illegal ?
Login or Register to post comments.