Post by jannikki on Dec 14, 2006 18:00:10 GMT -4
Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog
Posted by: bobo
Normally I would write 2-4000 words of Sanity Check for your edification and titillation. However today, I don't need to.
Senator Grassley wrote a short but sweet letter to the WSJ, wherein he took the gloves off, and slammed the SEC for basically everything this blog has been harping on for years.
Well, not everything, but if running a cover-up for powerful Wall Street interests is the tip of the iceberg, it certainly sounded the alarm. In Beltway-speak, an investigation "fraught with problems" means a cover-up. It means the SEC didn't do its job. It is "fraught with problems" in the same way that police investigation that plants evidence and obstructs justice is fraught with problems. It's the polite way of saying the SEC has two sets of rules - one it pretends applies, and one that does apply - to Wall Street. That would be the one where insider trading and fraud are winked at by aspiring counsel for that power center, temporarily running interference for it at the Commission. It would also be the one where any honest, decent investigator will be terminated should they dare to believe that the law applies evenly to all participants and investors.
Here's the letter:
"Your Dec. 8 editorial "The Pequot 'Scandal" leaves the impression that Gary Aguirre and I are the only two people concerned about the way the SEC handled the Pequot investigation. In fact, Mr. Aguirre's concerns have been echoed by both former and current SEC officials, who provided candid testimony to our committees.
The focus of the Senate investigation I'm conducting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) isn't John Mack and Pequot; rather, it is whether the SEC retaliated against one of its lawyers and whether it wields an even hand in looking out for investors big and small. Our review is evidence-based, and so far the evidence suggests the Pequot investigation was fraught with problems, Mr. Aguirre's termination is suspect, and the inspector general failed in his duty to conduct a thorough and independent inquiry.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa)
Chairman
Committee on Finance
Washington"
The question is now, can the SEC be trusted to regulate anything, given Grassley's conclusions? Or more specifically, what will it take to get a special prosecutor appointed so that the miscreants can be brought to justice? There are clearly folks in the upper levels of the SEC who are bought and paid for by Wall Street, and who have been passing rules in direct conflict with the 1934 Act, scoffing at the idea that anyone could ever make them comply with it.
They do so with a sense of invulnerability that is troubling, and telling.
Send Senator Grassley an email or letter expressing your concern and support. The squeaky wheel is getting the oil.
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/tabid/56/EntryID/546/Default.aspx
Posted by: bobo
Normally I would write 2-4000 words of Sanity Check for your edification and titillation. However today, I don't need to.
Senator Grassley wrote a short but sweet letter to the WSJ, wherein he took the gloves off, and slammed the SEC for basically everything this blog has been harping on for years.
Well, not everything, but if running a cover-up for powerful Wall Street interests is the tip of the iceberg, it certainly sounded the alarm. In Beltway-speak, an investigation "fraught with problems" means a cover-up. It means the SEC didn't do its job. It is "fraught with problems" in the same way that police investigation that plants evidence and obstructs justice is fraught with problems. It's the polite way of saying the SEC has two sets of rules - one it pretends applies, and one that does apply - to Wall Street. That would be the one where insider trading and fraud are winked at by aspiring counsel for that power center, temporarily running interference for it at the Commission. It would also be the one where any honest, decent investigator will be terminated should they dare to believe that the law applies evenly to all participants and investors.
Here's the letter:
"Your Dec. 8 editorial "The Pequot 'Scandal" leaves the impression that Gary Aguirre and I are the only two people concerned about the way the SEC handled the Pequot investigation. In fact, Mr. Aguirre's concerns have been echoed by both former and current SEC officials, who provided candid testimony to our committees.
The focus of the Senate investigation I'm conducting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) isn't John Mack and Pequot; rather, it is whether the SEC retaliated against one of its lawyers and whether it wields an even hand in looking out for investors big and small. Our review is evidence-based, and so far the evidence suggests the Pequot investigation was fraught with problems, Mr. Aguirre's termination is suspect, and the inspector general failed in his duty to conduct a thorough and independent inquiry.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa)
Chairman
Committee on Finance
Washington"
The question is now, can the SEC be trusted to regulate anything, given Grassley's conclusions? Or more specifically, what will it take to get a special prosecutor appointed so that the miscreants can be brought to justice? There are clearly folks in the upper levels of the SEC who are bought and paid for by Wall Street, and who have been passing rules in direct conflict with the 1934 Act, scoffing at the idea that anyone could ever make them comply with it.
They do so with a sense of invulnerability that is troubling, and telling.
Send Senator Grassley an email or letter expressing your concern and support. The squeaky wheel is getting the oil.
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/tabid/56/EntryID/546/Default.aspx