Obama and Holder extorted money from banks to fund liberal groups. The DOJ suits against banks Citigroup and Bank of America, netted a total of 24 billion dollars, but unlike previous government suits, the money wasn’t earmarked to the actual victims of the bank’s crimes. Written into the settlement agreement was what many people call unprecedented. (A word invented just for the Obama administration) The clause in question in the case against Citigroup states that they must contribute 50 million of the settlement to La Raza and NeighborWorks America. (NA is one of the aliases that the Former ACORN now uses.)
Editor’s Update: Video report from The Daily Caller added:
If that isn’t outrageous enough, Citigroup can either give the balance to the DOJ or for every additional dollar they contribute to these liberal groups they reduce their fine by 2 dollars. Gee, that doesn’t give Citigroup much incentive to give billions of dollars to La Raza and NeighborWorks America, does it?
In the Bank of America settlement (16 billion), they must contribute 100 million to community organizing organizations (ACORN descendents?) and again, for every additional dollar they lower their debt to the DOJ suit. Now, I wonder whether they paid the balance of the 16 billion to the government or just nearly 8 billion to these groups. Should not this money gone to the actual victims of the violations? Not in ObamaWorld.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling are questioning why this money would be earmarked for liberal groups and not to the victims. They have sent Eric Holder a letter, requesting that he explain why settlement money was earmarked for liberal organizations:
“It seems that the alleged victims are not the primary beneficiaries of these multi-billion dollar settlements. Instead, the terms in the Justice Department’s two latest settlements look less like consumer relief and more like a scheme to funnel money to politically favored special interest groups.”
The banks could have given the victims relief by means of loan modifications counted as just dollar for dollar credit, meaning giving to liberal organizations is much more desirable for banks than to compensate the victims of their violations. Goodlatte and Hensarling question why the settlements were negotiated this way:
“This makes donations to activist groups far more attractive to banks than providing direct relief to injured consumers. As a result, the settlements appear to serve as a vehicle for funding activist groups rather than as a means of securing relief for consumers actually harmed.”
Hold onto your hat, the spin could kick up quite a wind.
Steven Ahle’s article appears courtesy of Red Statements.