"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."
> > https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/07/new-york-times-rewrites-the-timeline-of-the-feds-wall-street-bailouts-giving-banks-a-free-pass/ > New York Times Rewrites the Timeline of the Fed’s Wall Street Bailouts, > Giving Banks a Free Pass > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/07/new-york-times-rewrites-the-timeline-of-the-feds-wall-street-bailouts-giving-banks-a-free-pass/> > > *By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: July 28, 2020 ~* > [image: A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times] > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/A.G.-Sulzberger-ii.jpg> > > A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times > > Last Friday, the New York Times officially embarked on what we have been > expecting – an attempt to rewrite the current, ongoing Wall Street bank > bailout. We were so certain that an alternative reality was going to emerge > at the Times, that we had the foresight to create an archive > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/9426-2/> of Wall Street On Parade > articles (122 so far) that document every major bailout step the Fed has > taken since September 17, 2019 – five months *before* the first COVID-19 > death was reported in the United States. > > One of our articles, published on January 6, 2020 > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/01/federal-reserve-admits-it-pumped-more-than-6-trillion-to-wall-street-in-recent-six-week-period/>, > shows that before the first COVID-19 case had even been *reported* in the > U.S., the Fed had pumped more than $6 *trillion* cumulatively into the > trading units of the largest Wall Street *banks — not* *hedge funds,* > that the Times now attempts to blame for the crisis. > > Before we delve into the latest propaganda war for Wall Street by the New > York Times, you need a bit of background. > > On May 12, 2012 Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times wrote one of the > most factually-challenged articles > <https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/> > we have ever read by a business writer in the U.S. Sorkin attempted to > rewrite the 2008 financial crisis and knock down efforts at the time by > Senator Elizabeth Warren to restore the Glass-Steagall Act. > > The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was passed by Congress at the height of the > Wall Street collapse that began with the 1929 stock market crash that > ushered in the Great Depression. The legislation tackled two equally > critical tasks. It created Federally-insured deposits at commercial banks > to restore the public’s confidence in the U.S. banking system and it barred > these commercial banks from being part of a Wall Street investment bank or > securities underwriting operation because of the potential for speculative > trading to render the taxpayer-supported bank insolvent. > > The Glass-Steagall legislation protected the U.S. banking system for 66 > years until its repeal under the Bill Clinton administration in 1999. It > took only nine years after its repeal for the U.S. financial system to > crash in a replay of 1929, requiring the largest banking bailout in history. > > To make his case in the 2012 article, Sorkin writes that Lehman Brothers > owned no commercial banks at the time of its collapse. In fact, Lehman > Brothers owned two FDIC insured banks, Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB and Lehman > Brothers Commercial Bank. Together, they held $17.2 billion in assets as of > June 30, 2008, less than three months before Lehman Brothers filed > bankruptcy on September 15, with more than 900,000 derivative contracts. > > Next, Sorkin says that investment bank, Merrill Lynch, had nothing to do > with Glass-Steagall. In fact, Merrill Lynch also owned three FDIC insured > banks in 2008, which would not have been allowed under the Glass-Steagall > Act. Merrill was such a basket case that the Federal Reserve had to > secretly pump $2 *trillion* cumulatively in loans into the firm to keep > it afloat until its purchase by Bank of America, according to an audit done > by the Government Accountability Office. > > Next Sorkin asserts in the article that Citigroup – the poster child for > the evils unleashed by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act – didn’t begin > to experience its problems until “all hell was breaking loose” on the cusp > of the fall of Lehman, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which > occurred in September 2008. > > That is simply a blatantly false and preposterous statement that flies in > the face of a mountain of facts to the contrary. Citigroup began receiving > emergency funding from the Fed in December 2007. > > A December 13, 2007 article > <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-citigroup-sivs/citi-to-take-49-bln-in-sivs-onto-balance-sheet-idUSN1326316020071214> > at Reuters by Christian Plumb and Dan Wilchins reports the following about > Citigroup’s condition at that time: > > “Citi is already wrestling with billions of dollars of assets whose market > value has declined, prompting Moody’s Investors Service on Thursday to cut > the bank’s debt ratings… > > “Assets linked to subprime mortgages spurred some $6.5 billion of > third-quarter writedowns at Citi, and could spur another $11 billion in the > fourth quarter… > > “Fears about Citi’s assets have contributed to the 44 percent decline in > Citi’s shares this year, about double the decline of the broader banking > sector…” > > We wrote to the Editors and Publisher at the New York Times in 2012, > supplying the documented facts and requesting corrections to Sorkin’s > article. They did not respond. We wrote again. They did not respond. The > article was not corrected. > > We attempted to embarrass the New York Times into correcting the article > with an article of our own in July 2012 > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/how-the-new-york-times-hides-the-truth-about-wall-streets-catastrophic-misdeeds/>. > No corrections occurred. > > In January 2018, when Arthur Gregg (A.G.) Sulzberger succeeded his father, > Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., as Publisher of the New York Times, we wrote > again requesting that Sorkin’s article be corrected. We received no > response and the article was not corrected. > > There is no other way to look at the New York Times’ refusal to correct > that article than to see it as an intentional effort to undermine efforts > to restore the Glass-Steagall Act. > > Why would the Times be invested in that outcome? Because the universal > banking model allows these behemoth banks to pillage the rest of the > United States > <https://bettermarkets.com/sites/default/files/Better%20Markets%20-%20Wall%20Street%27s%20Six%20Biggest%20Bailed-Out%20Banks%20FINAL.pdf> > like a roving band of pirates, bringing their plunder back to New York to > invest. This pumps up the economy in New York City and sends related ad > dollars to the New York Times. > > It’s not just Sorkin that has pedaled this Big Lie for Wall Street at the > New York Times. Paul Krugman has played a major role in the propaganda > machine as well, as we reported > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/02/paul-krugman-returns-to-perpetuating-the-big-lie-for-wall-street/> > in February of this year. > > The Times was not just some quiet observer to the debate about repealing > the Glass-Steagall Act. The Times’ Editorial Board played an aggressive > role in pushing for that outcome, something that few Americans realize > today. > > In 1988 a Times editorial read: “Few economic historians now find the > logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive.” Another in 1990 ridiculed the idea > that “banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture,” writing that separating > commercial banking from Wall Street trading firms “makes little sense now.” > > On April 8, 1998, the Editorial Board of the New York Times became an > unabashed cheerleader for the creation of Citigroup, which was in violation > of the Glass-Steagall Act at the time. Ten years later, Citigroup became a > basket case, receiving the largest taxpayer and Fed bailout of any bank in > world history. The Times wrote in 1998: > > “Congress dithers, so John Reed of Citicorp and Sanford Weill of Travelers > Group grandly propose to modernize financial markets on their own. They > have announced a $70 billion merger — the biggest in history — that would > create the largest financial services company in the world, worth more than > $140 billion… In one stroke, Mr. Reed and Mr. Weill will have temporarily > demolished the increasingly unnecessary walls built during the Depression > to separate commercial banks from investment banks and insurance companies.” > > Now, along comes the Times with its latest propaganda war on behalf of the > hometown pirates. > > On Friday, the Times headlined an article by Jeanna Smialek and Deborah B. > Solomon as: *A Hedge Fund Bailout Highlights How Regulators Ignored Big > Risks* > <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/business/economy/hedge-fund-bailout-dodd-frank.html>. > Smialek is regularly present at the press briefings of Fed Chairman Jerome > Powell so she can’t claim ignorance of what the Fed has been doing since > *September* 17, 2019. > > Nonetheless, the reporters write that “in *March*…the Federal Reserve > came to Wall Street’s rescue for the second time in a dozen years.” In > *March*? What about the onset of the crisis on September 17, 2019 and the > launch of the Fed’s money spigot on that date? Is the New York Times really > going to attempt to erase from the history books a $9 trillion bailout > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/03/the-fed-has-pumped-9-trillion-into-wall-street-over-the-past-six-months-but-mnuchin-says-this-isnt-like-the-financial-crisis/> > of the Wall Street banks’ trading firms? > > According to the New York Times reporters, the blame belongs on hedge > funds, while “commercial banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America > are better regulated and safer” than before the last crash in 2008 because > of the Dodd-Frank reform in 2010. (Carefully note that there is no mention > of Citigroup being “better regulated and safer.” That’s even a bridge too > far for the New York Times.) > > If JPMorgan Chase is “better regulated and safer,” someone forgot to tell > the federal body that accumulates data on dangers lurking at the nation’s > biggest banks. That body, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination > Council <https://www.ffiec.gov/about.htm> (FFIEC), ranked JPMorgan Chase > to be the riskiest bank in America, as we reported in-depth on November 25 > <https://wallstreetonparade.com/2019/11/its-official-jpmorgan-chase-is-the-riskiest-big-bank-in-the-u-s/> > of last year. According to charges brought last September 16 by the U.S. > Justice Department > <https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/current-and-former-precious-metals-traders-charged-multi-year-market-manipulation>, > the bank has also allowed two current and one former trader to turn its > precious metals desk into a racketeering conspiracy. The traders were > indicted under criminal RICO charges, a law typically reserved for members > of organized crime. > > Organized crime is exactly how two trial lawyers, Helen Davis Chaitman and > Lance Gotthoffer, described how JPMorgan Chase’s Chairman and CEO, Jamie > Dimon, runs the bank. The lawyers wrote a book in 2016, JPMadoff: The > Unholy Alliance Between America’s Biggest Bank and America’s Biggest Crook > <https://www.amazon.com/JPMadoff-Alliance-between-Americas-Biggest/dp/1522886206/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1568720534&sr=1-1>, > comparing the bank to the Gambino crime family. They wrote: > > “In Chapter 4, we compared JPMC to the Gambino crime family to demonstrate > the many areas in which these two organizations had the same goals and > strategies. In fact, the most significant difference between JPMC and the > Gambino Crime Family is the way the government treats them. While Congress > made it a national priority to eradicate organized crime, there is an > appalling lack of appetite in Washington to decriminalize Wall Street. > Congress and the executive branch of the government seem determined to > protect Wall Street criminals, which simply assures their proliferation.” > > This is how JPMorgan Chase assesses its own risk in its most recent 10-K > filing > <https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961720000257/corp10k2019.htm> > (annual report) with the Securities and Exchange Commission: “JPMorgan > Chase faces significant legal risks from private actions and formal and > informal regulatory and government investigations.” The 10-K notes that the > bank has “several hundred” legal proceedings ongoing against it as well as > a criminal investigation of the bank itself by the Justice Department in > the precious metals matter. > > The Justice Department would be hard pressed to hand JPMorgan Chase a > deferred prosecution agreement again for the third time. This bank, that > the New York Times tells its readers is so much safer now than in 2008, > pleaded guilty to two criminal felony counts in 2014 for its involvement in > the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. It pleaded guilty to an additional criminal > felony count in 2015 for its role with other banks in rigging foreign > exchange trading. > > In 2013, the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations > released a 300-page report > <https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/chase-whale-trades-a-case-history-of-derivatives-risks-and-abuses> > on how JPMorgan Chase had used hundreds of billions of dollars of its bank > depositors’ money to gamble in exotic derivatives in London, losing $6.2 > billion along the way. The case became known as the “London Whale,” because > the trading was so large that it distorted the market. The FBI conducted a > criminal investigation but no charges were brought. The bank did pay > regulators $900 million to settle the matter. The Senate’s report concluded > this about the safety of JPMorgan Chase: > > “The JPMorgan Chase whale trades provide a startling and instructive case > history of how synthetic credit derivatives have become a multi-billion > dollar source of risk within the U.S. banking system. They also demonstrate > how inadequate derivative valuation practices enabled traders to hide > substantial losses for months at a time; lax hedging practices obscured > whether derivatives were being used to offset risk or take risk; risk limit > breaches were routinely disregarded; risk evaluation models were > manipulated to downplay risk; inadequate regulatory oversight was too > easily dodged or stonewalled; and derivative trading and financial results > were misrepresented to investors, regulators, policymakers, and the > taxpaying public who, when banks lose big, may be required to finance > multi-billion-dollar bailouts.” > > According to the latest report from the Office of the Comptroller of the > Currency > <https://www.occ.gov/publications-and-resources/publications/quarterly-report-on-bank-trading-and-derivatives-activities/files/pub-derivatives-quarterly-qtr1-2020.pdf>, > as of March 31, 2020, JPMorgan Chase held notional (face amount) > derivatives of $59.5 *trillion*. That’s 22 percent of all derivatives > held by the more than 5,000 commercial banks and savings associations in > the United States. > > The New York Times needs to come clean and issue a full apology and > explanation to the public about its inaccurate reporting and damage control > efforts for Wall Street banks. > > > > --- Support News from Underground: http://bit.ly/NFUSupport You received this email because you are subscribed to News from Underground. To unsubscribe from this email list, please go to: http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=pIdjNUgiG2h8yxbhC54SSy4SEskAoEMs
