It's Fun Watching Rep. Grayson At Work. He's The Kind of Democrat We Need.
Turns out Matt Taibbi is already acquainted with Rep. Alan Grayson. Here's his backstory ((and remember, reward good behavior):
Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul and others keep hammering away at this whole Fed-secrecy issue, and every now and then we get some pretty interesting exchanges. Zero Hedge relates this one between Grayson and Fed counsel Scott Alvarez. It’s becoming abundantly clear that at some point we’re going to start to hear details about monstrous front-running operations involving the major banks on Wall Street.
I recommend that everyone watch this clip just for the sheer entertainment value. I have personal experience with… well, let’s call it the unique personality of Alan Grayson. In his capacity as an attorney he once basically threatened to have me dismembered and have my body parts dumped in a tin canister and fired into the center of a burning supernova. And that’s actually underselling the real language he used.
We were having a disagreement about the use of information given to me by a certain source in a story about military contracting, and in the middle of what had been a normal contentious argument between two sane adults, dude suddenly assumed this crazy monster-voice and just went medieval on me. He was roaring into the telephone about how he was going to crush me, how I was going to wish I had never messed with him, how I didn’t know who the hell I was dealing with, and so on. One phrase I remember in particular was, “I am going to strip the bark off of you!” It came totally out of the blue and it was like being on the telephone with a metamorphosing werewolf — the whole performance genuinely freaked me out. I may even have peed a little, I can’t remember.
When I heard Alan Grayson was running for Congress, I remember thinking to myself, That Alan Grayson? The lunatic? It can’t be, I thought. I kept imagining trails of half-eaten sheep leading to his campaign appearances. But it turned out to be true. And when I checked, his platform turned out to be quite sane and even kind of interesting. Then he got elected and I suddenly started seeing his name attached to all of these calls for transparency, various crusades for FinReg reforms, etc.
And now every time I see Alan Grayson, he’s tearing some freaked-out bureaucrat a new a**hole in the middle of some empty conference room in the Capitol somewhere. I see the looks on the faces of these poor souls and I know exactly what they’re going through. Which is just hilarious, frankly. Especially since these people all tend to deserve it, like this nebbishy little creep Alvarez quite obviously does.
Now for most of last year Grayson’s public appearances didn’t rate any higher than a five or maybe a six on the craziness scale, but he’s a definite seven in this clip, trending toward eight. Watch Alvarez look around nervously, like he’s not sure whether to say something about how out of control Grayson is. He’s looking around like he expects someone to come out with a butterfly net and capture Grayson, so he can get back to lunch. But no help comes. Very entertaining stuff.
Zero Master here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
What clip?
*
This one
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Am I missing something? You pissed yourself over a Talking to like that? Are You kidding me. I’ve had worse tongue lashing from my 5 year old nephew over me not wanting to play Breath Of fire 3.
And he nurses grudges, too.
that we DID elect a few "BETTER" Democrats, not just 'more'.
That was fun to watch...I tried but could not feel sorry for the questionee.
Michelle Bachmann introduces Ron Paul to the "Young Americans For Liberty."
After the first few moments of platitudes Bachmann praises Paul for getting Congress to hear his 26 year old motion to audit the Federal Reserve, then enumerates the reasons for the audit.
She is clear, coherent and logical (up to the 10 min mark, at least!).
I am shocked!
YouTube: Rep Bachmann's Intro To Ron Paul
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Are the green $$$'s on the Rep's tie meant to be humorous, because they sure are.
was born to be played by William H. Macy.
I see Dick Smothers
Whoa boy.
William Greider's The Secrets of the Temple (C) 1987
Dismantling the Temple
By William Greider
This article appeared in the August 3, 2009 edition of The Nation.
July 15, 2009
Here is a list of the
FEEDER FUNDS, I meanFRONT RUNNERS, Whoops... I mean PRIMARY DEALERS! :-/The Federal Reserve is like One Big Ass Ponzi Scheme. It's not just who ya know, but how you know... when and why.
I'd like a job on the "Plunge Protection Team" aka "The Working Group on Financial Markets", I promise I won't use the info to get filthy rich... Nothin too worry about...[AIG's "FP" division] has got everybody covered. :-)
Some of my favorites...
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
UBS Securities LLC.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Primary Dealers List:
[ http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_... ]
Remember: Secured and un-secured collateral.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
The Federal Reserve is like One Big Ass Ponzi Scheme. It's not just who ya know, but how you know... when and why.
"The Federal Reserve is best known as an economic shepherd(Insert...like Madoff?), responsible for adjusting interest rates (Insert...like Madoff?) to keep prices steady and unemployment low.(Or increase prices/returns like Madoff?) But since its creation, the Fed has held a second job as a banking regulator, one of four federal agencies responsible for keeping banks healthy and protecting their customers. Congress also authorized the Fed to write consumer protection rules enforced by all the agencies."
"The Obama administration has proposed shifting consumer protection duties away from the Fed and other banking regulators and into a new watchdog agency. That proposal, a central plank in the administration's plan to overhaul financial regulation, is opposed by the industry and faces a battle on Capitol Hill." Not only do I support President Obama's plan with my limited knowledge, but if the plan is opposed by the industry, quite like what the health insurance industry is doing today... I support it even more! Damn crooks
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Ok, I'll say it... JPMorgan Chase! Feeling itchy?
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Chase ]
Reno, Nev. — April 15, 2008
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC), and Citibank, N.A., a subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), said today they have signed a definitive agreement for Wells Fargo to acquire the account relationships of Citibank’s customer households in six northern Nevada and two California Sierra Foothills communities, including approximately $500 million in deposits and $60 million in loans.
[ https://www.wellsfargo.com/press/2008/2008041... ]
Then
Remember on Sept. 29, 2008, 6:35 p.m. EDT / Citi to buy Wachovia banking business for $2.16 bln
FDIC backs roughly $300 bln of Wachovia assets to avoid another huge failure?
[ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/citi-to-buy-... ]
Then
OCTOBER 4, 2008 Citigroup Inc.'s takeover of Wachovia Corp. was torpedoed on Friday when San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to pay $15.4 billion to buy Wachovia.
[ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1223031900295... ]
and
Sun Oct 5 2008 Not So Fast: Judge Blocks Wachovia Sale To Wells Fargo, Citibank Rejoices
[ http://consumerist.com/5059168/not-so-fast-ju... ]
Then
October 6, 2008, 8:37 am "showdown between two of the nation’s largest banks over the Wachovia Corporation grew into a widening battle involving two courts and a cast including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and an army of bankers, lawyers and other regulators trying to resolve the fate of one of the biggest prizes to emerge from the credit crisis, The New York Times’s Eric Dash writes."
[ http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/... ]
Who would of known Citi was so down on their luck come bail-out time? :-/
History: JPMorgan Chase, as it exists since 2008, is the result of the combination of several large U.S. banking companies over the last decade including Chase Manhattan Bank, J.P. Morgan & Co., Bank One, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. Going back further, its predecessors include major banking firms among which are Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover, First Chicago Bank, National Bank of Detroit, Texas Commerce Bank, Providian Financial and Great Western Bank. Capitalism at it's finest!
Study the symptoms not the virus...
...So then you could not say anything do to lawyer client confidentiality rules RIGHT!? The pompous snake says after a brief pause to make sure he is covering his ass... Why Sure I can, not only can I... but it would be my obligation!(Insert Foot)
Yes, now wouldn't it, go on... please continue. :-P
Alan Mark Grayson: (born March 13, 1958 in Bronx, New York)
Grayson graduated from Harvard College, then received a law degree (with honors) from Harvard Law School as well as a Master of Public Policy from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Grayson is an alumnus of the Bronx High School of Science. Thanks Susie
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I have to admit I didn't find that funny at all. What I saw was Grayson sitting there with this idiotic smirk trying to trick the witness into saying something he obviously didn't mean - even to the point where when the witness asked Grayson to define what he meant by "manipulate," Grayson refused to, instead going "I think you know what I mean."
At which point I think the witness should have said, "No, I don't, Congressman, and until you define exactly what you mean by the prejudicial term 'manipulate' I can't answer the question. So now you have to decide if you actually want an answer or not."
One one level, Grayson knew the answers---like any good attorney would--and simply wanted his witness to say what he already knew. This is SOP when appearing before congress.
But Grayson is definitely a level 7 crazy! He KNEW he had the witness by the balls, and knew he wasn't going to get certain answers, which is why he asked leading questions....getting denials from the guy is almost as good as getting the real answers.
And he appears to be really sharp, just the kind of guy you want on your own side. Never heard of him before, but I'm suddenly a big fan. He was a little heavy with the witness, but his questioning time was limited.
I can see Grayson heading up some congressional investigation at some point, and that's an event not to be missed.
............your 'concern' is duly noted. Hohum. PUKIE much?
Speaking of hohum....
The Working Group's main goal, officials say, would be to keep the markets operating in the event of a sudden, stomach-churning plunge in stock prices -- and to prevent a panicky run on banks, brokerage firms and mutual funds.
If it's possible for them to..."prevent a panicky run on banks, brokerage firms and mutual funds"
Could it be possible to "enable a panicky run on banks, brokerage firms and mutual funds"?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
As Subprime Lending Crisis Unfolded, Watchdog Fed Didn't Bother Barking
Snip - They began to present research in 1999 showing that large banking companies including Wells Fargo and Citigroup had created subprime businesses wholly focused on making loans at high interest rates, largely in the black and Hispanic neighborhoods to the south and west of downtown Chicago.
→ [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/... ]
My gut hurts
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Not sure what was supposed to be so impressive about that. Grayson maintained a combative tone, but the questions were simplistic and vague (e.g. the "manipulate the market" question), allowing Alvarez to easily dance around them. I was assuming there'd be a series of follow-ups to demonstrate how and why Grayson thinks the Fed is manipulating markets, but Grayson just went on to another topic.
Taibbi seems to find it impressive that Grayson once called him some colorful names. Not seeing that either.
In Grayson's defense, the question period was far too brief to allow for much depth in followups. Even so Grayson didn't seem to take full advantage of the time he had.
interpretation is a funny thing. What I noted, was the fact that the FED's Wonder-boy not only confessed to manipulation in it's legally accepted narrow purpose, regarding employment etc, but by pulling that "JPMC"... JPMorgan Chase out of him, he also admitted that any bank who received the money from the FED could be audited by GAO. Around 3:45 he says GAO audits government and it would be up to congress to audit a private
sectorentity.Yet around 4:35, it's said... A loan to a particular Bank as you pointed out, "would be subject to an GAO audit". It reminded me of the tail end of this clip.(around 4:50)
Alan Grayson on the Worst Deal Since Manhattan Was Sold for $24 in Trinkets
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-DOwLnQ4nk ](5:18)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
how much those trinkets would be worth today .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
And thanks for pointing out non-obvious interpretations, which admittedly flew a bit over my head.
I looked through some of the other Grayson YouTubes that are available, and the pattern of questioning gets clearer; he's pushing relentlessly for disclosure and (hopefully) oversight over these vast, shadowy financial transactions the Fed has undertaken. I wish him luck.
The other thing that the Grayson YouTube oeuvre makes clear is that the man's strong personality is reflected in his, shall we say, brash sartorial choices. Having Fed muckey-mucks under withering cross-examination by a guy in full gangster stripes is something you don't see every day.
Guess I'm turning into a Grayson fan after all.
It wouldn't be the first time. But still:
confessed to manipulation in it's legally accepted narrow purpose
Y'see, this's part of my problem with this whole thing. He "confessed" to acting legally? What does that mean?
The Fed is allowed to use interest rates in order to influence markets for (theoretically, anyway) the benefit of the economy. It is, that is, supposed to regulate.
But the word "manipulate" has a much wider - and much darker - connotation than either "influence" or "regulate." It still seems to me that Grayson was trying to trick the witness into saying or at least implying that the Fed had acted illegally.
That is, for all his surface brashness, he was less pressing the witness for answers than trying to maneuver him into saying something he didn't mean. (Not didn't mean to say, didn't mean.)
And frankly, anyone who says "You know what I mean" when asked to define a vague, pejorative term like "manipulate" loses me.
& when I shook his hand, I asked for more YouTube. This guy keeps his promises. :D
I wish he was my congressman; unfortunately, mine is the execrable Cliff Stearns.
Grayson's statement about "stripping the bark off" you is Southern, not Bronx, and probably black Southern-style invective. Of course, it's a double-entendre implying that the subject is all bark, no bite. In-kind responses to such threats, or laughter, are the best responses possible. "MOTR" (man on the rag) or letting him know that the bicycle pump he airs his head up with each morning "ain't a bark stripper nor a wood chipper" also are appropriate.
Good clip, though. Made Mr. Wall Street Attorney look like granny's dried-out douche bag.
That was priceless.
I totally see the W H Macy connection... it was as if he was trying to sell Grayson undercoating.
Comments are closed on this entry