photo: Lingaraj GJ via flickr Back in March, Dr Rajendra Pachauri was cleared of alleged financial misconduct related to his work as chair of the IPCC. Pachauri had been accused of improperly profiting from his work in an a since-retracted article in The Telegraph, but an audit carried out by KMPG completely exonerated him. Well,
View post:
IPCC Chairman Cleared of Any Financial Misconduct, Again
Posted in Gossip, Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged bennyhollywood, Celebrity, financial, ipcc, rajendra, via-flickr, work, work-as-chair
George Stephanopoulos on Friday showed that it is possible to force a Democratic politician to answer tough questions. The Good Morning America host grilled Representative Maxine Waters over allegations that she misused her office for personal gain. Every single one of Stephanopoulos’ questions was hard hitting, including this query: ” The ethics committee is bipartisan. Five Democrats and five Republicans. If these charges are so groundless, how did this happen to you?” Waters is charged with assisting in obtaining TARP money for a bank that her husband had $175,000 worth of investments. Stephanopoulos never bullied Waters, but methodically laid out the case against the Congresswoman: STEPHANOPOULOS: But, let’s look at the evidence compiled by the House Ethics Committee. They say that you did benefit, that your husband had a $175,000 investment in a bank called One United. And that the bank received $12 million in government bailout money from the TARP. And it goes on to say, “If One United had not received the money, your husband’s financial interests would have been worthless. Therefore, you did personally benefit.” Your response? After Waters asserted that the bank, One United, obtained private investments before getting TARP money, Stephanopoulos retorted, ” Well, wouldn’t they have failed if the money didn’t come through?” A transcript of the August 20 segment, which aired at 7:15am EDT, follows: STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn now to a GMA exclusive. Representative Maxine Waters of California speaking out in her first television interview since the bipartisan House Ethics Committee charged her with misusing her office for personal gain. The charges involve her husband’s investment in a bank that was granted millions in government bailout money. Specifically, the committee found that Waters chief of staff, who was also her grandson, worked to get that government help for the bank. The trial’s set for this fall. And Congresswoman Waters says she’s going to fight, not settle. She joins us this Morning from Los Angeles. Thanks for getting up so early, Congresswoman. MAXINE WATERS: You’re welcome. Nice to be with you. STEPHANOPOULOS: As I said, You said you’re going to fight the charges hard. And you summarized your defense very succinctly in a powerpoint presentation last week. We’re going to point it up now. It said, “No benefit. No improper action. No failure to disclose. No one influenced. No case.” But, let’s look at the evidence compiled by the House Ethics Committee. They say that you did benefit, that your husband had a $175,000 investment in a bank called One United. And that the bank received $12 million in government bailout money from the TARP. And it goes on to say, “If One United had not received the money, your husband’s financial interests would have been worthless. Therefore, you did personally benefit.” Your response? WATERS: That’s not absolutely not true. First thing you’ll find is the decisions about who to fund were made by the FDIC and by the Treasury Department. And Representatives from both of those agencies have said publicly nobody influenced them. Nobody called them. Nobody wrote to them. Nobody did anything that interfered with their decision making. One United was vetted properly. They met the criteria. And they received TARP funding. And you have to know, George, that the meeting that is referred to that I set up, was at a time when there was not any TARP program. program at that time. There was no TARP program at the time. So, I could not have influenced anybody about TARP. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there. Because, that is true. WATERS: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, then , after that, and the ethics committee goes through this. Your chief in staff, they say he was actively involved in helping the bank request money from the Treasury Department and crafting legislation, authorizing the Treasury to set up this TARP fund. WATERS: That is absolutely not true. If you take a look at the allegations, you will see that they cannot identify anything that he actually did. Did he call somebody? Did he write a letter? Did he ask me to do anything? They have not been able to verify what it is he supposedly did. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me- They did have at least one e-mail that I want to put up. It was from September 19th, 2008. WATERS: Sure. STEPHANOPOULOS: From your chief of staff, Mikael Moore, to a staffer for Congressman Frank, who was the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. It says, “OU,” which stands for One United, the bank, “is in trouble.” That does seem to be a kind of action alerting the chairman of the committee. WATERS: So, what does that mean? Is that the kind of e-mails that are sent between staff? It’s more staff chatter than anything else. It does not identify that he took any action. He responded to any e-mail. And we did not receive, and my husband did not receive, any benefit from any of this. As a matter of fact, it’s kind of a complicated case and a little bit hard to understand all of the details of it. But as you know, One United qualified because they were adequately capital and they were CDFI institution. Their capital came from the private market. They received private capital to secure that bank before they got TARP. money. So, that any investment that any of the investors had was secured by the private capital. And not by the TARP. funding. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, wouldn’t they have failed if the money didn’t come through? WATERS: I beg your pardon? STEPHANOPOULOS: Wouldn’t they have failed if money didn’t come through? WATERS: That has nothing to do with my case. The fact of the matter is, if you’re accusing me of influence to get them TARP money, when in fact, there was no TARP money involved when I arranged access for the trade association, the MBA, to meet with the Treasurer, that’s not a question that deals with this case at all. Maybe they would have failed, I don’t know. But the fact of the matter is, they had private capital. And they would not have failed if they had not gotten any TARP money because they got the money from the private market to make them adequately capitalized. STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the things the ethics committee points out, you realize you shouldn’t be involved in this. I want to show an e-mail from you. It says, “I realize that I, perhaps, should take a distance from that. I should not be involved in that.” Yet, after you said that, and I think it was said to the chairman of the committee, you, your chief of staff did ha these various e-mails. Various contacts with these other staffers. WATERS: No. STEPHANOPOULOS: And they’re saying you should have stopped him from taking any kind of action. WATERS: No. George, that’s misinformation. As a matter of fact, the meeting that I arranged with the Treasury was about the loss of preferred stock investment by the banks in the trade association when we took over and placed Fannie and Freddie in conservativeship. That took place early September. And the conversation that you’re referring to, took place in early October, long after that meeting had taken place. And only when United- One United was interested in TARP. That’s when I said to Barney Frank, they’re your constituents. It’s your district. So, you should take a look at this. I was out of there. STEPHANOPOULOS: We only have a few seconds left. The ethics committee is bipartisan. Five Democrats and five Republicans. If these charges are so groundless, how did this happen to you? WATERS: Well, as a matter of fact, we have the OCE. That is the initial committee that takes up concerns or criticism or complaints from the public. They can take a telephone call, a newspaper report, anything. It is recently established. It’s not very tight. They don’t do very good work. Rather sloppy work. And a lot of complaints from members about the OCE. And, of course, when they referred it on to the subcommittee of the standards committee or the ethics committee, the ethics committee basically said- STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m going to interrupt you. We only have five seconds left. Thank you for your time. It is clear you’re going to fight. And thanks for sharing your story with us this morning.
Read the original here:
George Stephanopoulos Actually Grills Dem Politician on Ethics Violations
The word from Indiewire’s Todd McCarthy is that Terrence Malick’s oft-delayed Tree of Life is delayed once again: “I’m convinced we won’t be seeing The Tree of Life until, at the earliest, the 2011 Cannes Film Festival. Or perhaps it could turn up at the New York Film Festival a year from now.” Or perhaps when hell freezes over; bear in mind, this film was supposed to come out last year . Between Malick’s infamous perfectionism and the financial woes of Apparition , Tree of Life seems caught in a perfect storm of inertia. So when will it finally get released? Click ahead to vote in Movieline’s patented Tree of Life release date poll.
More:
Just When Exactly Will Tree of Life Get Released? Vote in Movieline’s Poll!
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged awards, between-malick, finally-get, financial, Hollywood, movieline, seems-caught, the-earliest, TMZ
Filed under: Mel Gibson , Oksana Grigorieva , Celebrity Justice TMZ has learned the financial needs of baby Lucia were front and center yesterday in the Mel Gibson/Oksana Grigorieva custody hearing. We’re told yesterday’s marathon court hearing involved a request by Oksana Grigorieva and her lawyers to increase Mel… Read more
Read more:
Baby Talk in Mel Gibson Court Case
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff
Tagged financial, gibson, grigorieva, hollywood-news, Lawyers, learned-the-financial, lucia, mel gibson, oksana, oksana-grigorieva, stars, TMZ, told-yesterday
Joe Jackson, father of the late Michael Jackson, is feeling disrespected. His lawyer, Brian Oxman, says his client has not been treated with ” dignity and worth ” so far by the judge in the Michael Jackson probate case. Oxman filed papers with a California appeals court, claiming the probate judge was wrong in shutting down Joe’s attempt to 86 MJ’s executors. Close friends John Branca and John McClain have been administering MJ’s estate at the late icon’s request, and as specified in his last, valid will. Joe’s attempts to score cash have been repeatedly struck down by them, as have his attempts to have them removed by the judge in the case. Joe Jackson: One of the all-time characters. The trial judge ruled Joe Jackson had no legal standing to object to the duo, since Joe himself was intentionally excluded by MJ as a beneficiary. Rough . Oxman claims Joe was dependent on his son and should have a right to object to the appointment of men making the financial decisions for the Estate. Although Joe is alleging various misdeeds by the executors – fraud, embezzlement, whatever he can make up next – he’s doing more harm than good. A lawyer for Michael Jackson’s kids – Paris, Prince and Blanket – claims Joe is actually harming them with the “procedural wrangling.” Margaret Lodise says Joe only cares about his stake and, therefore, he’s “the ultimate dog in the manger.” Ouch. The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Go here to see the original:
Joe Jackson Just Wants to Be Treated With Dignity
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip
Tagged attempts, brian-oxman, danielle, financial, Gossip, hollywood-news, House, joe jackson, Michael Jackson, prince, probate, teresa, the-appointment, ultimate
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Monday dismissed the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque as a “political smokescreen.” The liberal anchor derided opponents of the planned construction who live in other states, sneering that there are ” people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying ‘Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end!'” He compared, “But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” Earlier in the segment, Ratigan wondered, “But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions.” The co-host talked to Nate Silver of the website Fivethirtyeight.com. As he pointed out, while 61 percent of voters believe that the Muslim group behind the mosque has a right to put it there, 64 percent oppose the plan. Yet, Ratigan seemed to put all the responsibility for tolerance on those who oppose the construction. He again wondered, “But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque?” A transcript of the August 16 segment, which aired at 4:01pm EDT, follows: DYLAN RATIGAN: Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat feeling the same way, apparently. Within the past hour, Majority Leader Harry Reid became the highest profile Dem, so far, to break ranks with the White House and publicly oppose the mosque. But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions. Can you have the legal right to do something and at the same time a moral obligation not to? And why is it that the people who that live the closest to Ground Zero seem to be the least resistant to the mosque? And those who may be the furthest away, maybe have never even visited New York City in their lives, are the most adamantly against it? Our first guest this afternoon, Nate Silver who has been crunching the numbers, a founder of 538.com. It’s a pleasure to see you again, sir. Your data basically falls into three categories in your poll. Tell us what you’ve come up with. NATE SILVER: Well, I mean, the distinction, like you said, that Obama was struggling with on Friday night is the same ones Americans struggle with themselves, right? Where about two thirds of people think they have the right to build the mosque. Not terribly controversial. About two thirds of those people also think it’s in poor taste. Right? So, you look at the overlap. And there’s this one third in between who thinks, “They have the right to do it. But, I’m not sure how I feel about it so much.” And especially with, I guess, with some of this hedging, or the some of the way the media portrayed it as hedging, Obama is in that middle camp, too, right now, but seeming to satisfy nobody in particular. RATIGAN: You say this falls politically into a similar category as flag burning. Can you explain what the parallels are? SILVER: Well, sure. Flag burning is something where if you ask people, “Hey, do you like flag burning, right?” I don’t think too many people would say- would yes. Or, “Hey, should they build a Hooters down at the shopping mall? You might say “No, I would rather they didn’t.” But they’re clearly within First Amendment rights. There’s not too much debate about that. I mean, you know, some people have said some groups have said, “No they actually don’t have the right.” Newt Gingrich said something along those lines this morning. But, for the most part, that’s not that controversial. I think Obama went a little bit far in saying “We not only look at the right, the First Amendment’s technicality. We should respect their ability to choose how they want to worship and not try and intervene and say, “No, I would rather you not believe a different thing.” Or that you’d go worship at a different time or a different place. So, he did go a step further than just saying “Hey, it’s about the First Amendment.” But not quite saying, “Hey, I love this idea.” RATIGAN: What about the distinction between people like myself who have lived in lower Manhattan for many years and worked around Ground Zero, walking with past Ground Zero everyday to and from work for five years straight, who look at this as really not that big of a deal? We deal with a lot of other things. This isn’t that big of a big deal. Versus people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying “Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end.” But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” SILVER: Well, you know, I think part of it, it shows that polls it shows that people in Manhattan are supportive of the mosque- mosque. Not people in New York overall, but in Manhattan where it’s being built. I think it has to do with the geography of the city. I walked around Ground Zero when the controversy started and kind of scouted out the perimeter. And you would not see the mosque anywhere from the Ground Zero property. It’s not really on the way. It’s kind of on a side street where there’s a Burlington Coat Factory. It’s very dense. And it’s not like you’re on main street where there’s one road to Ground Zero. RATIGAN: But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque? SILVER: Well, hopefully some ambitious polls, do a poll of people in the financial district in Tribeca or do a poll of who were victims in 9/11. They’re the people who should have a larger say, frankly, than the former governor of Alaska, I think. It is a local issue.
Go here to see the original:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’
Best-selling author, syndicated conservative radio host and friend of NewsBusters Mark Levin has sent along his warm wishes for our fifth anniversary. We thought we’d let you hear The Great One for yourselves. Click here for the MP3 . Transcript included below the page break: Hi, this is Mark Levin. Congratulations to NewsBusters on its fifth anniversary. Frankly, I don’t know what I’d do without NewsBusters. I go there first thing every day to look for the most important, hottest information that’s out there, and I’m not alone. Hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans do exactly the same. I want to salute the folks at NewsBusters, you’re doing a tremendous job. Keep it up, now more than ever.
Read the original post:
Mark Levin Wishes NewsBusters a Happy 5th Anniversary
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged financial, Hollywood, immigration, maria-bartiromo, mark levin, media, News, politics, white
On Thursday’s Today show, NBC’s chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd started building the narrative for the liberal media to spout in case the Republicans win majorities in the House and Senate in the upcoming midterms – that the voters are just cranky about everyone and everything. Todd even went on to absurdly state that if the GOP has a big win it will still be seen as a “A bad election night for all of Washington.” All of Washington? Even for the party that is victorious? Todd, on with Today co-anchor Ann Curry, came up with that conclusion after reciting results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that showed “Everybody is angry at all things Washington” as Todd noted “Democrats hit an all-new high in their negative rating. Republicans have even a higher negative rating. The Tea Party, which had enjoyed a positive rating for awhile, now they have a negative rating.” Todd, then, went on to prematurely throw cold water on any sort of GOP win as he claimed: “If the Republicans get the majorities, it’s because people have decided to go into the ballot box and hold their nose, they’re not happy with anybody.” The following is the full transcript of the segment as it was aired on the August 12 Today show: ANN CURRY: What do Americans think about the economy and about the politicians in charge during these tough times? We’re getting some answers this morning from a newly released NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. We’ve got NBC’s political director and chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd here in the studio this morning to fill us in. Hey Chuck, thanks for being here. CHUCK TODD: Good morning. [On screen headline: “Unhappy America, NBC News/WSJ Poll On Economy, Obama & Congress”] CURRY: So even though Jim Cramer sounds very positive, there’s a lot of pessimism, as we’ve seen in the markets, but also on Wall Street, but also on Main Street according to this new poll. TODD: Americans are feeling doom and gloom. He may not be seeing doom and gloom but look at those numbers about where people feel like we’re still in a recession. Sixty-four percent say we have yet to hit bottom. It’s an unbelievable number. Nine months ago in January, only 53 percent had that. So here we were the Obama administration told us that this was going to be recovery summer. We’ve had the administration arguing that the recovery is on their way. Jim Cramer was telling us that the financial numbers say that. The American people don’t feel it. CURRY: And they don’t feel like the country is heading in the right direction, which is even more and they’re, they’re really concerned about where it’s going. TODD: That’s right, that’s right. And they say 58 percent say we’re heading in the wrong direction. Of course this is taking a huge political toll on President Obama. Right now, his highest yet negative rating on handling the economy – 52 percent. Even people who approve of his job overall, are disapproving of the way he’s handling the economy. CURRY: And, and they’re disapproving him, I mean we’re getting into the nubbins- TODD: Sure. CURRY: -in terms of what specifically they’re disapproving him, about, in terms of what he’s done. TODD: That’s right. They don’t, they’re not, they don’t feel the recovery. And I think part of this may be a disconnect. He’s out there every day saying it’s coming. It’s getting better. And he goes to these places that are hiring 500 people here and 1,000 people there, and they’re trying to say, “Look, it’s gonna get better. It’s gonna get better.” People aren’t feeling it. And now they’re getting more pessimistic and you do wonder if they’ve stopped listening to Washington because they’re sitting there saying, “Hey, Washington’s saying it’s getting better. I’m not feeling like it’s getting better.” And then that leads to this crankiness, right now, that they feel about all politicians. CURRY: They’re feeling crankiness about both political parties. TODD: That’s right. CURRY: Republicans a bit more, but even the Tea Party gets a hit in this poll. TODD: It does. Everybody is angry at all things Washington. Democrats hit an all-new high in their negative rating. Republicans have even a higher negative rating. The Tea Party, which had enjoyed a positive rating for awhile, now they have a negative rating. Look, what this is leading to is in November, Democrats are still in big trouble. They could lose both of their majorities. But if the Republicans get the majorities, it’s because people have decided to go into the ballot box and hold their nose, they’re not happy with anybody. CURRY: So the bottom line is Americans are unhappy and this could, the midterm elections could be a- TODD: It’s going to be, it’s going to be a bad election night for all of Washington. Democrats are in big trouble. Even if they hold their majorities the public is saying, “You’re not doing your job right and we don’t like it.” CURRY: I was gonna try to bust you because what you said, privately, is that it’s gonna be a hold your nose election. Alright. TODD: It is! It’s a hold your nose election. They’re gonna walk into that ballot box and whoever they pick, they’re not happy about it. CURRY: Chuck Todd, not good news. But it tells us something. TODD: It does. CURRY: Thank you so much this morning. TODD: You got it, Ann.
Follow this link:
NBC’s Todd Proclaims If GOP Wins in November It’s Still ‘A Bad Election Night For All of Washington’
Victor Davis Hanson and Kyle Smith explore two upcoming bailouts, one directed at state governments – and therefore at the public employee unions whose lavish contracts threaten to bankrupt a number of state treasuries – and the other at homeowners who can’t afford their mortgages. “What did you expect?” asks Hanson . Progressive culture, where ads blare hourly about skipping out on credit card debt, shorting the IRS, and walking away from mortgages, did the public employee unions really think they were exempt from a Chrysler-like renegotiation? In the age of Obama, there is no real contractual obligation: everything from paying back bondholders to fixing a BP penalty is, well, “negotiable.” When the money runs out, the law will too. Law? There is no law other than a mandated equality of result. “That’s right,” Smith notes : If you bet badly in the housing-market casino of the Aughties, the government is thinking of refunding some of your chips so you can play again. You may have heard something about a sub-prime real-estate bubble that popped and nearly took down the financial system with it? President Obama wants to double down. Are we starting (continuing) to see a pattern here?
See the original post here:
Open Thread: You Thought the Bailouts Were Over?
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged aughties, celeb news, credit-card, employee-unions, financial, Money, mortgages, Obama, open thread, president-obama, public, public-employee, the-government, victor-davis
Breaking Sports Video
Pac-12 NCAA Sports
Justin Bieber Fan Site Breaking News
