My latest article at the MRC's Businessandmedia.org touches on a $7-billion omission on last night's evening newscasts.
"Fannie Mae took another step toward resolving its accounting fiasco by announcing a restatement of results that reduced retained earnings as of June 30, 2004, by $6.3 billion," The Wall Street Journal’s James Hagerty reported on page A4 of the December 7 paper.
The same day, The Washington Post and The New York Times devoted business section stories to the mortgage broker’s accounting errors.
The Fannie Mae story is hardly Wall Street’s garden variety profit revision.
"It took an army of accountants two years and more than $1.4 billion to quantify the mess," Washington Post reporter David S. Hilzenrath noted in his December 7 story. Hilzenrath went on to mention a Clinton connection in the scandal.
Fannie Mae’s accounting mess “toppled former chairman and chief executive Franklin D. Raines, who headed the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration,” the Post correspondent wrote.
In February, the Business & Media Institute (BMI) reported on how the media tend to ignore Clinton ties to the Fannie Mae scandal.
The media’s overall disinterest in what Newsweek reporter Charles Gasparino labeled a “government-sponsored Enron,” has also been chronicled by BMI.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What is it with the number
December 7, 2006 - 15:41 ET by james789What is it with the number 7 billion and the former Clinton Adminstration?, 7 billion dollars here, 7 billion dollars there, pretty soon at this rate its going to add up to some real money. I wonder where it went to.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt
If this is, indeed, an "
December 7, 2006 - 15:50 ET by j. frank wilsonIf this is, indeed, an "Enron-style" fraud, who lost money? The home owners who's mortgages were purchased by Fannie Mae? The folks who bought those packaged mortgages on Wall Street? The shareholders of Fannie Mae?
Please help me out here - where are the losses?
Maybe there's a financial whi
December 7, 2006 - 16:28 ET by mattmMaybe there's a financial whiz who can answer that, but a 6 billion reduction in retained earnings has to hurt shareholders to some degree. But the issue here is the media's active covering for the Clintons.
BTW For anyone interested, Enron was a Clinton scandal.
Gee, you're right. Why be b
December 7, 2006 - 17:02 ET by j. frank wilsonGee, you're right. Why be bothered with facts when you can speculate to your heart's content?
The fact is the share price rose on this news - please see "Market Watch" (or, probably, any other financial site) for details. These shares appear to be trading within their 52 week band. Certainly doesn't appear this news has hurt the shareholders any...but keep looking. I'm sure you will find a loss. Someplace.
Probably next to those Iraqi WMD...
PS; Kenny-Boy Lay was George Bush's good friend. And his #1 fundraiser. A long time contributer to Mr. Bush's political campaigns - first in Texas. Then when he ran for President. Member of the - Pioneers' Club? Wasn't Mr. Lay the chair of his fundraising committee? And the Enron execs huge campaign contributors?
1. A $6 billion dip in retain
December 7, 2006 - 18:08 ET by mattm1. A $6 billion dip in retained earnings is going to have negative effect. This is a FACT, not speculation - which is what you're engaged in. I was merely deferring to the accountants among us for the details.
2. Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and dozens of other democrats ALL warned about Saddam's WMD and his defiance of the U.N. weapons inspections. ---Another FACT you willfully ignore.
3. It doesn't matter who Ken Lay was "friends" with. The FACT is that the Enron scandal began with Clinton and ended with Bush.
Besides all this, you miss (probably on purpose) the point, which is the bias and double standard of the MSM.
Addendum: "During the 1990s, Enron CEO Ken Lay personally contributed $11,000 to former President Bill Clinton for his two campaigns. In addition, Lay gave Vice President Al Gore $13,750 for his 2000 election campaign.
During Clinton's eight years in office, the company and Lay contributed about $900,000 to the Democratic Party. Former Enron officials said an important part of their strategy to win favor with the Gore campaign was a significant increase in the company's donations to Democrats. In 1999 and 2000, the company gave $362,000 in soft-money donations to Democrats.
Most Americans were not aware of Enron's dealings with a Chinese army oil company engaged in oil-for-blood in Sudan. The mass media neglected to inform the U.S. public about the cruel use of humanitarian aid by the Clinton administration that greased an Enron deal in Africa. The fiction writers who spin your news never mentioned the Enron donations to the DNC.
If you paid attention to any of the mainstream media outlets, you can be certain that Enron never existed during the Clinton years." - Newsmax's source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
"But the long-awaited re
December 7, 2006 - 18:25 ET by j. frank wilson"But the long-awaited restatement...increased stockholders' equity by $4.1 billion as of the same date...Those increases mroe than offset the reduction in retained earnings." - W$J 12/7/2006
Oh, those pesky facts.
The Journal also points out that today's share price if down from a February 2004 peak. It speculates as to the cause - one whould have to inquiry of the investors and potential investors to determine why the price has gone down. Kinda like claiming the housing price bubble on low interest rates...
I don't deny that the financi
December 7, 2006 - 18:45 ET by mattmI don't deny that the financial effects aren't anywhere near those of the Enron debacle, but you're still missing the point of the media bias.
But, assuming this accounting fiasco didn't really hurt anyone, this result should at least partly be credited to the fact that this government, under the Bush administration, actually did something about it.
Contrast this to the Clinton administration's active participation in the Enron scandals and it becomes obvious where the corruption lies, obvious to anyone but the MSM, that is.
You don't suppose that all
December 7, 2006 - 19:23 ET by james789You don't suppose that all the grief that GW has been taking lately is all because of his apparent refusel to, as Danny Devito said in the movie Johnny Dangerously, "play ball"?
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt
"That Lay was instrument
December 7, 2006 - 18:39 ET by j. frank wilson"That Lay was instrumental in Bush's rise to the presidency is indisputable. Since 1993, Lay and top Enron executives donated nearly $2 million to Bush. Lay also personally donated $326,000 in soft money to the Republican Party in the three years prior to Bush's presidential bid, and he was one of the Republican "pioneers" who raised $100,000 in smaller contributions for Bush. Lay's wife donated $100,000 for inauguration festivities. " - truthout.com
Instrumental activists
December 7, 2006 - 18:47 ET by dagdaKen Lay played both sides. He was "instrumental" in getting both Clinton and Bush elected by giving them lots of money. The scandal is still Clinton's, cleaned up by Bush (who refused to stop the investigation).
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
This is typical of big money
December 7, 2006 - 18:57 ET by mattmThis is typical of big money contributers to presdential candidates of both parties for the purpose of gaining favor with whoever wins.
This does not prove anything close to the nature of Clinton's direct ties to various deals with Enron and promises to Enron, that the Clinton administration could not deliver on, and the Bush administration refused to deliver on because they were not the ones who made the promises.
http://www.usasurvival.org/eron.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26550
http://www.softwar.net/enron.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200206/ai_n9097757
http://www.acsa.net/acsaonenron.htm
And James Riady funnelled mil
December 7, 2006 - 20:17 ET by NL207And James Riady funnelled millions into Clinton's coffers.
Then we see that Jon Huang funnellled millions of Chinese dollars into Clinton's hands rumored to be a quid-pro-quo for approval of sale of a satellite tracking system to the ChiComms.
These acts amount to treason. And you have trouble believing Clinton or his associates had something to do with the Fannie Mae fiasco? Hypocrisy is something you are darn good at, Wilson.
Oh, spare me NL!We're talking
December 7, 2006 - 20:23 ET by BlondeOh, spare me NL!
We're talking about the Clintons, here.
That doesn't count, as you should well know!
"Treason" and "Clinton" are two words to NEVER be joined in one sentence. I thought you knew that? It's taught in every Journalism 101 class in the country.
Disgusting. But true.
I'd bet you 98.5% of the population hasn't a clue who Riady is...care to take me up on that little wager?
Here's some pesky facts:
December 7, 2006 - 19:01 ET by Chris McMullenFrom Slate.com:
"In other words, investors plainly think there is some implicit
government guarantee of Fannie's debt. Not a total guarantee, but a
pretty substantial one. If things went seriously amiss at Fannie Mae,
they believe, the government would somehow step in. Meanwhile, there's
plenty of evidence to suggest that Fannie Mae enjoys
most-favored-company status. The president appoints five of the
company's 18 directors. Fannie Mae doesn't have to register its
mortgage-backed securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
It has its own regulator, OFHEO. It doesn't pay state and local taxes
and is subject to lower capital requirements than banks. Everybody knows that
Fannie Mae is too big and too important to fail, and that the
government and Congress have a huge stake in Fannie Mae's success...."
Basically, FM won't fail since it's chartered by the Feds. But, to say stockholders didn't lose a lot of money because of the likes of Raines and Gorelick is false.
Also:
"Lockhart “has indicated that we intend to bring charges against
individuals for misconduct involved in the Fannie Mae matter,” OFHEO
spokeswoman Stefanie Mullin said Thursday..."
http://www.signonsan...
So there is an implied guaran
December 7, 2006 - 19:53 ET by j. frank wilsonSo there is an implied guarantee - even if one accepts that arguement, where is the Enron-style fraud? Who has lost money? How much? How?
There's no argument to acce
December 7, 2006 - 20:52 ET by Chris McMullenThere's no argument to accept, it's a fact:
On Tuesday John Snow, US Treasury secretary, renewed the criticism, saying: "We don't believe in a too-big-to-fail doctrine, but the reality is that the market treats the paper as if the government is backing it."
http://www.unknownne...
That's the reason there aren't huge drops in FM's valuation.
Oh, and there are investors who've been burned.
Ohio sues Fannie Mae
http://www.bizjourna...
Great post Ken ....Unfortunat
December 7, 2006 - 16:10 ET by bigtimerGreat post Ken ....
Unfortunately it has been past frustrating for me for years, this is a humongous scandal, the media refused to pay attention to it when it broke, after all it has democrat ties, Raines is fired, and the media is silent...Congress had hearings, the media showed no interest, the politicians didn't make hay out of it as they should, this is government money that was ripped off, that is our tax-payers money, and the whole filthy fiasco was covered up.
Remind anyone of anything.....try the UN and the Oil for Food scandal.
Silence is golden if it is a leftist lovin' organization....
The conservatives do not know how to make a big deal out of a big deal when they have the bully-pulpit if they chose....and I mean big.
I am done getting frazzled and disgusted about it.....there is no justice.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
"...this is government m
December 7, 2006 - 16:49 ET by j. frank wilson"...this is government money that was ripped off, that is our tax-payers money..." Leaving aside for a moment that no "rip off" has been demonstrated, precisely what "tax-payers/government money" are you talking about?
Fannie Mae is a privately held for-profit corporation. We know there haven't been any losses, making one wonder what the rip off really is. But in the mean time please do let the rest of us in on this one -
The conservatives do not know
December 8, 2006 - 12:30 ET by pbanks7The conservatives do not know how to make a big deal out of a big deal when they have the bully-pulpit if they chose....and I mean big.
Maybe that's because they know the Gunga-din media won't cover it anyway. After all, we have a current Democrat former Klan member Senator who used the N-word in an interview in the 90's, and a former, disgraced Republican Senator who carelessly said something nice about a former segregationist at his 100th birthday, because of the way the media decides to cover these issues. It's like rooting for the home team they way they cover this stuff.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
TEFLON DON JUAN CLINTON
December 7, 2006 - 16:22 ET by PSPCplThe Teflon Don strikes again!! Once more the MSM comes to the rescue of the Clinton Legacy!! However, the real effort here is the MSM's desire and need to protect soon-to-be-Democratic-candidate-for-President Senator Clinton. If it weren't for her involvement in politics, this would have been front page news. So long as she has a chance to secure the White House, there will never be any coverage of any scandel related to her husband's shenanigans.
Fannie Mae, Jamey Gorelick, Hillary Clinton
December 7, 2006 - 16:25 ET by Jack BauerHilzenrath went on to mention a Clinton connection in the scandal.
Actually there’s another interesting Clinton’s connection to Fannie Mae which is not touched on in the article...
Jamey Gorelick of 9/11 cover-up fame; and best gal pal to one Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Gorelick used to be Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, luckily (yeah right) she bailed just before the scandal broke to join as Senior Partner in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP – the world’s largest law firm
And guess what? WCPH& D is also the main law firm representing Fannie Mae!!
She also inserted a few of WCPH& D colleagues in key positions on the 9/11 Clinton Cover-Up Commission.
Here's another interesting factoid.
Guess who is the leading law firm who rushed down to Guantanomo defending foreign terrorists uninvited and pro bono (for free)...
You got it: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
Amongst their many triumphs is McCain-Feingold. WCP represented Senators McCain and Feingold by making it illegal (in some cases) for you to donate money to political campaigns. Thus trampling your constitutionally guaranteed first amendment rights to political free speech.
So here we have the situation. Former Fannie Mae VC Jamey Gorelick, who had the luck to bale was the Clinton government hack who...
1. Stopped the FBI and CIA working together to thwart terrorist plots that culminated in 3000 dead on 9/11.
2. Who used the 9/11 commission to cover up the Clinton administration's criminal neglect of Muslim terrorism which led to 3000 dead at the WTC.
3. And whose firm at which she is Senior Partner is now working flat out (for free) to free those dangerous terrorists.
Good huh?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Jack, you are the man."H
December 7, 2006 - 16:31 ET by kathleenirishJack, you are the man.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Attorney Client Privilege Jack
December 7, 2006 - 16:32 ET by PSPCplAnd if she is involved in the case, they can argue attorney-client privilege and keep the whole mess very quiet. Man what a neat deal all this is.
PSP -- WOW ... that sounds
December 7, 2006 - 16:40 ET by Jack BauerPSP -- WOW ... that sounds correct.
I had not thought of that extremely SNEAKY angle.
As she is now counsel for her former employer she (presumably) would have total immunity from revealing any information, that (presumably) as VC would have been her fiduciary duty to be aware of what was going on.
Anyone an expert on client/lawyer privilege?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Free?? Where do you think t
December 7, 2006 - 19:08 ET by james789Free?? Where do you think that 7 billion dollers went?
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price,
peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of
soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt
Jackson: Don't believe ever
December 7, 2006 - 20:16 ET by j. frank wilsonJackson: Don't believe everything you see on t.v. Jamie Gorelick had nothing to do with the so-called "wall" between the CIA & FBI. But you don't have to take my word for it. Read what Slade Gorton (R-WA) wrote to The Washington Times:
"She [Gorelick] had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else."
The problem was some folks at the FBI simply didn't have the drive/guts/interest/initiative to do what the law permits. These regulations go back to the Church Commission - but that's another story for another day.
j. frank, you are going to
December 7, 2006 - 20:36 ET by JABj. frank, you are going to back a R.I.N.O. for your side of the argument to offset a posters conclusion without a link?! Well that's not very nice, try to put some substance to your argument before attempting to chop someone down at the knee's.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful to the Ignorant"
Slade Gorton (R-WA) wrote t
December 7, 2006 - 20:39 ET by Jack BauerSlade Gorton (R-WA) wrote to The Washington Times:
And what he says is "gospel" to you. Oh dear.
She did. You're wrong. That simple. End of story.
“The (9/11) Commission must be viewed in the context of its makeup. There are five Republicans and five Democrats on the Commission, and logic holds that it should be fair and balanced – nothing could be further from the truth. The democrats are for the most parts, a very political, ideological, and ruthless group of Clinton supporters, while the Republicans are, for the most part, tepid centrists that lack extensive foreign policy experience.
Jamie Gorelick... is a known partisan for Bill Clinton”
Intelligence Failure, by David Bossie. p 219.
Foreword:
“A thorough and powerful indictment...” R. James Woolsey, Former Clinton appointed CIA Director.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Gee - if you say so it must b
December 8, 2006 - 18:52 ET by j. frank wilsonGee - if you say so it must be true. Especially since the CIA is part of DoJ.
Oops! It isn't? Then I guess you're wrong.
Read the memo and find out for yourself:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/supplementarymaterial.pdf
Those pesky facts again...