Archive for deal

Snarky analysis of the worst news anchor question o' the day


omg obama

Today Alex Witt asked this (slightly paraphrased) question of her guest regarding the Iran nuclear deal:

So if the Iran deal fails, does that mean failure for President Obama?

Let's dissect that, mmkay?

  • So what I'm asking is, if something fails, does it fail? And if Obama was involved, isn't he an epic fail, too? Well, isn't he? OMG!
  • So whaddya say, can I coax you to use the words "blame Obama"?
  • So if the deal doesn't go as well as the president hopes, is he the big fat failure we all know he is and always has been and always will be? OMG!
  • Can you please assume and/or predict a negative outcome of a deal that was finalized only hours ago, has six months to go, and hasn't even had a nano-chance to start working yet?
  • OMG! Is one potentially bad deal going to obliterate any and all successes he's had after 8 years of his presidency?
  • If making a peaceful, diplomatic attempt to avoid another insane, deadly war that would be terrible for the region, the United States, and the world doesn't produce an ideal result, don't you think it's time to prematurely condemn this president?
  • If things go the way President Obama's detractors want it to go, can we conclude that, OMG! his entire presidency sucks?
  • If the president doesn't succeed at this international effort that includes several other countries-- never mind that silly Osama bin Laden thing and avoiding war with Syria-- can we finally all agree that we should be dismissive of his entire foreign policy?
  • Can I garner higher ratings for my show by asking a meaningless-yet-annoyingly goading question that will-- OMG!-- incite more Obama bashing, blame, and disapproval?
  • Is this a particularly terrible interview?

blame Obama 2


Video- CBS's Bob Schieffer to GOP Rep.: Is Iran Deal ‘Diversionary Tactic’ for Obama Admin?


Got those RNC talking points right up there in the teleprompter eh Bob? Via.


Court docs: Enron convict Jeffrey Skilling reaches deal to be released early from prison


Jeffrey Skilling

Remember former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling (aka inmate #29296-179)? I wish I didn't. He was supposed to spend 24 years in prison for the Enron mess, but under a deal he's reached, that could be cut by ten years, according to court documents. He had 15 years left to serve. But apparently, not any more.

He was convicted in December 2006 for fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying to auditors in the largest corporate fraud in history.


"The agreement brings certainty and finality to a long painful process," said Skilling lawyer Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers. "Although the recommended sentence for Jeff would still be more than double any other Enron defendant, all of whom have long been out of prison, Jeff would at least have the chance of getting back a meaningful part of his life."

What, his life wasn't meaningful when he committed those many crimes? What about all the people who were affected by his fraudulent acts and lies? Will they get a meaningful part of their lives back? Their jobs? Their life savings?

More than 4,000 Enron employees lost their jobs, and many also lost their life savings, when the Texas-based energy company declared bankruptcy in 2001. Investors lost billions of dollars.

Part of the deal is that Skilling has to drop any further legal challenges to his conviction.

How about dropping off the edge of a cliff instead?


Shhh! FDIC made settlement deals with banks rather than sue-- and promised not to tell.


banks too big to jailwhat's the big secret

Elizabeth Warren said, “When banks are too big to fail, too big to jail, too big for trial, too big to regulate, too big to shrink… they are just too big.”

Gee, ya think she's on to something? She also said:

This is wrong — just plain wrong. We are a country that believes in equal justice under the law — not special deals for the big guys. And that’s not all the special deals that the big banks get.

Which brings us to a rather lengthy L.A. Times above-the-fold front-pager that could have been subtitled:


[T]he government cut a deal with the bank's lawyers to keep it quiet: a "no press release" clause that required the FDIC never to mention the deal "except in response to a specific inquiry." [...]

Under the Freedom of Information Act, The Times obtained more than 1,600 pages of FDIC settlements, made from 2007 through this year with former bank insiders and others accused of wrongdoing. The agreements constitute a catalog of fraud and negligence: reckless loans to homeowners and builders; falsified documents; inflated appraisals; lender refusals to buy back bad loans.

Defendants benefit by settling because they can avoid admitting guilt and limit the damages they might face in court. The FDIC benefits by collecting money without the hassle and expense of litigation. The no-press-release arrangements help close those deals.

Here's what Quicken Loans spokeswoman Paula Silver had to say:

"Quicken Loans and the FDIC entered into a 'confidential' agreement nearly three and a half years ago which clearly states that no party admits liability nor wrongdoing."

Former bank examiner Richard Newsom, who specialized in insider-abuse cases for the FDIC in the aftermath of the S&L debacle, said he couldn't understand the shift, unless the agency doesn't "want people to know how little they are settling for."

And coincidentally, as I was writing this up, I spotted this tweet:

tweet fdic deals banks