Backpage News: Perfect Example of Elitist Control Over the Public! Mary Jo White Nominated

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Wanted to get a little discussion concerning the nomination of Mary Jo White for Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. This article by "Time Magazine" has raised several red flags in regards to our banking system, the SEC itself, the relationship between banks and our government bodies, and, most importantly, the obvious manipulation of the general public away from the truth that banks and big government are truly partners. This article shows how even former conservative, now moderate political magazines are perpetuating the the manipulation throughout the population.


So it’s not surprising to see the left up in arms over the nomination of former Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White by President Barack Obama to head the SEC. White had a long and widely-praised career as a public prosecutor and then went to private practice. There she represented big banks and, among others, Time Warner, the parent company of Time Magazine, in a suit brought by Donald Trump that was eventually dismissed.

To summarize the case against White: because she represented financial titans including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, she’s morally tainted, sympathetic to the plight of big banks, and inevitably inclined to lean in their favor.



In the real world, where politics, economics and the law are much bigger than any one player, those same big banks should be scared witless this morning at the prospect of having Mary Jo White as a top enforcer.



First, she has a reputation as one of the toughest prosecutors in the country. Lightweights don’t run the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, and during her nine years in charge her list of busts was prodigious.

Second, her ethical reputation is unchallenged, despite the sudden urge to damn her by association. “Mary Jo has an impeccable reputation for integrity and professionalism,” says William Burck, who worked for her in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office and is now co-managing partner of the DC office of the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Most important, she’s seen the banks naked.



As the top lawyer for Bank of America in a fraud litigation brought by then-New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, she came to know everything about their books, their vulnerabilities and where and whether they crossed the line “Her time representing big banks should be viewed as an asset, not a liability,” says Burck. “She knows more about what is effective and ineffective regulation than just about anybody.”

Play the scenario out. An SEC investigator finds potential impropriety at a bank and opens an investigation. Even if White is recused because of specific representation of the bank, are the targets of the investigation more or less likely to cover their tracks or come clean knowing White is running the place and knowing that she has seen not just the banks’ general strategy for outmaneuvering regulators, but the details of how they do it?

Sure, the revolving door can lead to regulatory capture. But the mismatch between private industry and government in skills, knowledge and capacity is much more likely to produce that problem. Hiring someone who has seen the ugliest of the big banks is a smart choice.


swampland.time.com... gn=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

Here's my thing: I would bet my last dollar that there is no way in hell Mary Jo White will do anything to burn the bridges that led her to the top! She probably had not made many corporate or political enemies, at least not the important ones.

Also, what's up with the one sided hype-fest? How are the banks "scared witless" when they gladly allowed her to climb the ladder? And I understand she "know[s] everything about their books, their vulnerabilities...", she is also well aware of "what is effective and ineffective regulation than just about anyone else" meaning that she knows how to play the game!

When are we as the common-folk going to figure out a way to stand up to this brazen corruption? Why would we as a government allow a banking crony the job of regulating the banks? Why could we have not done the common-sense action of nominating an outsider with whom carried a suitable, qualified and adequate set of knowledge and skill to do the job, but whom may have not had a history of rubbing elbows with the banking elite?




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Well, they had it completely right in the absolute first paragraph:


In the binary world of wing-nut commentators, everything is personal. What matters most to ideologues is individuals taking absolute positions in a battle of good versus evil: you’re either with us or you’re against us, and professional association is moral allegiance, regardless of the circumstances.


In other words, they're saying that the rational and reasonable belief of critical thinkers that "professional association is moral allegiance" in that morally bankrupt s***hole (the banking world) is a mistaken belief.

Look at the loaded editorial-type language they use to discredit such thinking: "...the binary world of wing-nut commentators." It's forceful persuasive, not objective journalistic language. That alone is enough to signal any thinking person that it's a rotten, stinking lie....



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Exactly!! You know, there are soooo many " under the mainstream media" positions of power and authority that can (and are) held by corrupted individuals... they are corrupted by the elite figures of the particular industry whom control the "access and selection" of the "regulatory" authoritative position.

Though it's most likely that not EVERY elitist is in cahoots with each other, it's plausible that the reason we feel that they are, that a massive conspiracy exists, is that we are just witnessing the natural resistance to the loss of power on a grand scale, mostly occurring independently but nonetheless together from certain perspectives.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by apokalupsis33vital
 


Yes. A sound hypothesis, I believe. The way I think of it is that we now have incontrovertible proof of decades (or more) of wrongdoing in the banking and investment world. And we have what--one recent arrest? Madoff? And he was just some random thief.

I now think of the entire charade of "regulation" as being no more than a crime syndicate's attempt to clothe the nakedness of their avarice. That is to say, to keep calm the sheep so that they can continue to be profitably sheared. Even sheep can stampede and cause injury and harm....



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well, the MSM is treating it like a "swing to the left" for Obama in nominating former prosecutors to positions of regulatory authority. In this instance it looks like a few post-prosecutor job details were omitted from the appointment announcements. Media, banksters & big government: the unholy trinity.

ganjoa



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I remember hearing about Mary Jo White from one of Matt Taibbi articles.
Mary Jo White was a lawyer for Morgan Stanley.
Mack, the head of Morgan Stanley was involved in Insider Trading and one of the lower pleebs, Aguirre on the bottom of the totem pole wanted to question him. Suffice to say, Mary Jo White went 4 levels above his head and got Aguirre fired.

How can anyone believe putting her in charge of the SEC, when she was a Wall Street Lawyer protecting To Big To Fail Criminal Banksters is a good idea?


Aguirre didn't stand a chance. A month after he complained to his supervisors that he was being blocked from interviewing Mack, he was summarily fired, without notice. The case against Mack was immediately dropped: all depositions canceled, no further subpoenas issued. "It all happened so fast, I needed a seat belt," recalls Aguirre, who had just received a stellar performance review from his bosses. The SEC eventually paid Aguirre a settlement of $755,000 for wrongful dismissal.


Read more: www.rollingstone.com...
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Matt's latest article on Mary Jo White
readersupportednews.org...


I was shocked when I heard that Mary Jo White, a former U.S. Attorney and a partner for the white-shoe Wall Street defense firm Debevoise and Plimpton, had been named the new head of the SEC.

I thought to myself: Couldn't they have found someone who wasn't a key figure in one of the most notorious scandals to hit the SEC in the past two decades? And couldn't they have found someone who isn't a perfect symbol of the revolving-door culture under which regulators go soft on suspected Wall Street criminals, knowing they have million-dollar jobs waiting for them at hotshot defense firms as long as they play nice with the banks while still in office?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
HA!

I had to laugh at this part:


Second, her ethical reputation is unchallenged, despite the sudden urge to damn her by association. “Mary Jo has an impeccable reputation for integrity and professionalism,” says William Burck, who worked for her in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office and is now co-managing partner of the DC office of the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.


Just who do these people think they are fooling??
She stopped an investigation and got a guy fired for doing his job.
She is a Financial Terrorist that needs to be locked up along with a bunch of other Wall Street Cockroaches.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
An interesting part from Matt's article:

readersupportednews.org...

Apparently, The SEC official who had squashed Aguirre's investigation, expressed an interest in working for Morgan Stanley, to Mary Jo White.

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'll get Aguirre off of Macks Back, if you have a position for me at Morgan Stanley.

What is wrong with this country? Why aren't people going after these Aholes?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
HA!

I had to laugh at this part:


Second, her ethical reputation is unchallenged, despite the sudden urge to damn her by association. “Mary Jo has an impeccable reputation for integrity and professionalism,” says William Burck, who worked for her in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s the office and is now co-managing partner of the DC office of the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.


Just who do these people think they are fooling??
She stopped an investigation and got a guy fired for doing his job.
She is a Financial Terrorist that needs to be locked up along with a bunch of other Wall Street Cockroaches.




Exactly! I mean, sure she was professional, loyal, and had integrity but for whom? Plus, how were her ethics never challenged??!! Anyone with the facts on the Mack case knows that the SEC and the GAO had a real case, but ethics and justice did not have a say against powerful banking employers, a big paycheck and room for advancement... the American way! Lol smh





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join