Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tom Skerritt

I LOVE Elizabeth Warren: All aboard - WOO WOO!!!

1,413 posts in this topic

10 hours ago, Doctor Detroit said:

All the details of this Wells Fargo thing is appalling, it really is.  It's like something some Chinese bank would do, a real cooking of the books at a cultural level.  5000+ employees spread nationwide?  That's not a coincidence, that's a top down fleecing of America. 

Getting 5000 employees to do something is quite difficult. Getting them to do something illegal on top of it? Wouldn't there be mountains of evidence that they were directed to do so consistently? Just teaching 5000 employees to do something can be damn near impossible, the amount of effort to teach people to freaking punch in properly to a new timekeeping system is absurd. More than likely this was a grass roots response to a bonus structure that mgmt turned a blind eye to because they liked the results.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Getting 5000 employees to do something is quite difficult. Getting them to do something illegal on top of it? Wouldn't there be mountains of evidence that they were directed to do so consistently? Just teaching 5000 employees to do something can be damn near impossible, the amount of effort to teach people to freaking punch in properly to a new timekeeping system is absurd. More than likely this was a grass roots response to a bonus structure that mgmt turned a blind eye to because they liked the results.  

:lmao:

This is so true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Slapdash said:

Was some other politician responsible for creating the agency that exposed this fraud?

Just to be clear, the work that the CFPB does was previously being done across a variety of federal agencies. Dodd Frank just consolidated all of that into a new agency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the numbers are anywhere near accurate... 

 

Over 2,000,000 fake accounts / 5,300 fired employees = almost 400 fake accounts per person. That is a tremendous amount of fraud. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Getting 5000 employees to do something is quite difficult. Getting them to do something illegal on top of it? Wouldn't there be mountains of evidence that they were directed to do so consistently? Just teaching 5000 employees to do something can be damn near impossible, the amount of effort to teach people to freaking punch in properly to a new timekeeping system is absurd. More than likely this was a grass roots response to a bonus structure that mgmt turned a blind eye to because they liked the results.  

It absolutely happened, these aren't MC Gas Herpes types, these are people with financial degrees trying to work the system encouraged by Wells Fargo HQ. 

The State of California dropped their Wells Fargo accounts today, every person with an account there should immediately leave.  This is a huge fraud case where the fundamental position of the financial establishment was to steal from its customers. 

Edited by Doctor Detroit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doctor Detroit said:

It absolutely happened, these aren't MC Gas Herpes types, these are people with financial degrees trying to work the system encouraged by Wells Fargo HQ. 

The State of California dropped their Wells Fargo accounts today, every person with an account there should immediately leave.  This is a huge fraud case where the fundamental position of the financial establishment was to steal from its customers. 

I don't disagree with the second paragraph, but I think the only sales people on the retail side with a finance degree have it from the University of Phoenix.  Fresh out of college, I was temping there in an accounting type of role.  It didn't pay a ton, but even that was more than what the retail sales pulled in.  If I were given the option of working as a retail banker or going back to temping, I'd temp in an instant, and I think I even gave that advice to Eminence.  All that being said, I've only known a few people that had worked in a branch, so my experience is very limited, but I really empathize with anyone that has chosen that path at any bank.

 

That being said, I don't think you need a finance degree to realize that if you need that paycheck and they're squeezing you, you find ways to meet the goals, or you start looking for a new job.  I know plenty of history majors and journalism majors, maybe even a poli-sci major that have worked in banking.  All were crafty enough to do something like that, but even the shadiest of them wouldn't have done it for ethical reasons.  According to a story I read 98% of the bankers did not get fired (maybe just not caught, I don't know), maybe if I had 50 friends that worked at one, I'd know one that cheated, but I'm just speculating and assuming I have an average base of friends.  I like to think they are above average ethical people, but below average fantasy football owners, maybe an ideal combo.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Vanilla Guerrilla said:

I don't disagree with the second paragraph, but I think the only sales people on the retail side with a finance degree have it from the University of Phoenix.  Fresh out of college, I was temping there in an accounting type of role.  It didn't pay a ton, but even that was more than what the retail sales pulled in.  If I were given the option of working as a retail banker or going back to temping, I'd temp in an instant, and I think I even gave that advice to Eminence.  All that being said, I've only known a few people that had worked in a branch, so my experience is very limited, but I really empathize with anyone that has chosen that path at any bank.

 

That being said, I don't think you need a finance degree to realize that if you need that paycheck and they're squeezing you, you find ways to meet the goals, or you start looking for a new job.  I know plenty of history majors and journalism majors, maybe even a poli-sci major that have worked in banking.  All were crafty enough to do something like that, but even the shadiest of them wouldn't have done it for ethical reasons.  According to a story I read 98% of the bankers did not get fired (maybe just not caught, I don't know), maybe if I had 50 friends that worked at one, I'd know one that cheated, but I'm just speculating and assuming I have an average base of friends.  I like to think they are above average ethical people, but below average fantasy football owners, maybe an ideal combo.

 

Interesting, thanks. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keeps getting better...

 

Quote

Wells Fargo will pay $24 million to settle allegations that it mistreated members of the military -- including illegally repossessing their cars.

The bank, already reeling from a scandal over fake accounts, will pay $4.1 million to settle Justice Department charges that it seized 413 cars owned by service members without a court order, a violation of federal law.

The Justice Department said the illegal repossessions took place from 2008 to 2015. The first complaint came from an Army National Guardsman in North Carolina who said the bank seized his car while he was preparing to deploy to Afghanistan.

Wells Fargo then auctioned his car and tried to collect a balance of $10,000 from his family, the Justice Department said.

The bank will pay $10,000 to each of the affected service members, plus lost equity in the cars with interest, and repair their credit.

The bank was fined $20 million more by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for breaking three provisions of the same law by denying members of the military certain banking protections, including capping their interest rates at 6%. Those violations began in 2006, the OCC said.

Wells Fargo said in a statement that it apologizes for not living up to its commitment of ensuring that all service members "receive the appropriate benefits and protections."

"We have been notifying and fully compensating customers and will complete this work in 60 days," the company said.

News of the penalties came as Wells Fargo and CEO John Stumpf faced the wrath of the House Financial Services Committee at a hearing about the millions of fake bank and credit card accounts, plus claims that it retaliated against whistleblowers.

The company is also facing lawsuits from shareholders, former employees and customers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Warren is a Senator, I think it's a little unfair to lump her in with the other "politicians".  She only took elected office 3 years ago.  Her background is in consumer protection and commercial law so unlike most of the others, she actually knows what she is talking about.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else see this thread title and exist it to be about over priced cactus water at Whole Foods? Just me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2016 at 10:34 PM, Vanilla Guerrilla said:

I don't disagree with the second paragraph, but I think the only sales people on the retail side with a finance degree have it from the University of Phoenix.  Fresh out of college, I was temping there in an accounting type of role.  It didn't pay a ton, but even that was more than what the retail sales pulled in.  If I were given the option of working as a retail banker or going back to temping, I'd temp in an instant, and I think I even gave that advice to Eminence.  All that being said, I've only known a few people that had worked in a branch, so my experience is very limited, but I really empathize with anyone that has chosen that path at any bank.

 

That being said, I don't think you need a finance degree to realize that if you need that paycheck and they're squeezing you, you find ways to meet the goals, or you start looking for a new job.  I know plenty of history majors and journalism majors, maybe even a poli-sci major that have worked in banking.  All were crafty enough to do something like that, but even the shadiest of them wouldn't have done it for ethical reasons.  According to a story I read 98% of the bankers did not get fired (maybe just not caught, I don't know), maybe if I had 50 friends that worked at one, I'd know one that cheated, but I'm just speculating and assuming I have an average base of friends.  I like to think they are above average ethical people, but below average fantasy football owners, maybe an ideal combo.

 

:bowtie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2016 at 8:42 PM, Doctor Detroit said:

 every person with an account there should immediately leave.

I'm sticking around in hopes of some settlement money :popcorn:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he had some stripped, he lost $41 million to be exact because of this.

Which means he lost 1/4 of his total worth he had gotten over 40+ years.

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 3:22 AM, Sebowski said:

Anyone else see this thread title and exist it to be about over priced cactus water at Whole Foods? Just me?

I'm almost certain its just you Sebowski.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MaxThreshold said:

Warren had him ousted?  Or was he leaving anyways?

Catalyst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MaxThreshold said:

Warren had him ousted?  Or was he leaving anyways?

Wells Fargo has a policy where he would have had to mandatory retire 2 years from now when he turns 65, this is basically falling on the sword.

 

Edit: The mandatory retirement policy is only for high level executives, not the rank and file.

Edited by Buckna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buckna said:

Wells Fargo has a policy where he would have had to mandatory retire 2 years from now when he turns 65, this is basically falling on the sword.

His showing in front of the senate was more like having that $word forcibly shoved through his ribs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MaxThreshold said:

Warren had him ousted?  Or was he leaving anyways?

He was already leaving basically, didn't have much time left with the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

His showing in front of the senate was more like having that $word forcibly shoved through his ribs.

It's pretty obvious he underestimated and was unprepared for the fire storm the scandal would create and now he is paying the price. I still stand by my earlier statement that the vitriol most of the politicians spat at him in those hearings was nothing more than BS sound-bites and free publicity beating up on the big evil corporation for their re-election campaigns. Warren is pretty consistent in being anti-big bank so there is that, but most of the rest of those jokers were there for the photo-op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaxThreshold said:
1 hour ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf is out

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ceo-wells-fargo-210140635.html

Well ####### done Senator Warren!

Warren had him ousted?  Or was he leaving anyways?

He's been flirting with retirement the last 5 years or so since he'd have to retire at 65 anyway....probably not what some want to hear, but it's the truth.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People here are gonna be REALLY pissed when they realize the guy replacing Stumpf is BY FAR one of the biggest "good ole boys" WF could have appointed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Commish said:

People here are gonna be REALLY pissed when they realize the guy replacing Stumpf is BY FAR one of the biggest "good ole boys" WF could have appointed.  

Yet no one should be surprised.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a good friend that is a bank manager at a WF.  Been with them for 5+ year managing a retail branch.  Before that he managed a branch of Suntrust, and before that he was a retail banker (in college and then out of college).  He said that the bonus structure was different at WF than ST, and that the aggressive sales goals came from corporate.  A new bonus structure was just rolled out (pushed from Jan 1 to immediate) that bonuses aren't based on sales numbers at all.

He said that bankers or managers weren't instructed to commit fraud by anyone, and if he knew about a fraudulent account being opened, then he'd have the banker fired.  I know he did so on at least one occasion in the last five years, because he was upset at having to lose a quality banker with experience.  He also said that his bonus (which was only like 2-3% of his take home, as opposed to bankers where it was 10-15% of their take home) was based on sales numbers (new accounts, etc.) as well as service levels (based on customer surveys / feedback).  He said he very rarely hit his sales goals (like once every 2-3 years), but nearly always hit his service goals.  I remember him struggling with trying to figure out how to motivate his staff to sell more products since he couldn't hit his sales numbers.  I guess some other people figured out a way... although it was illegal.

Anyway, based on his comments, it's likely that a) WF set up a system that rewarded sales numbers more than necessary (high pressure on bankers), b) didn't do an adequate job of investigating fraud cases (and you KNOW there had to have been 1000s of complaints if 2m accounts were opened without permission), and c) didn't act fast enough to change their tactics (which bred the culture) after the fraud was uncovered.  There's no reason that the same bonus structure was in place up until this month.  That's some head in the sand #### right there.

Anyway, he's a good dude, a great poker player and I'm glad he didn't get caught up in any of that ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith Olbermann @KeithOlbermann 16m16 minutes ago

Or any voters, clearly. Or for that matter, a psychiatrist

Quote

Ted NesiVerified account @TedNesi 25m25 minutes ago

Curt Schilling on 2018 US Senate bid vs E Warren:

"I've made my decision. I'm going to run. But - but - I haven't talked to Shonda, my wife"

 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is such a fraud

 

 

Elizabeth Warren prime recipient of questionable law firm donations

Thornton Law Firm, a progressive Massachusetts-based firm that donates heavily to Democrat campaigns, including that of Elizabeth Warren, seems to have bit of a problem with its (now former) “bonus” scheme.  Many of Thornton’s “bonuses” to its partners were in the exact same amount of said partners’ “personal” donations to political campaigns . . . often paid within ten days of their making said political donations.

Explaining that Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) flew to Boston to join other political candidates hoping to cash in at Thornton Law Firm, The Boston Globe reports:

But a striking thing happened the day Tester visited in 2010. Partner David C. Strouss received a payment from the firm labeled as a “bonus” that exactly equaled his $2,400 contribution to Tester’s campaign, the maximum allowed. A few days later, partner Garrett Bradley — until recently the House assistant majority leader on Beacon Hill — got a bonus, too, exactly matching his $2,400 gift to Tester.

 

This pattern of payments — contributions offset by bonus payments — was commonplace at Thornton, according to a review of law firm records by the Spotlight Team and the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based nonprofit that tracks campaign finance data.

From 2010 through 2014, Strouss and Bradley, along with founding partner Michael Thornton and his wife, donated nearly $1.6 million to Democratic Party fund-raising committees and a parade of politicians — from Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada to Hawaii gubernatorial candidate David Ige to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Over the same span, the lawyers received $1.4 million listed as “bonuses” in Thornton Law Firm records; more than 280 of the contributions precisely matched bonuses that were paid within 10 days.

Thornton Law Firm insists that its donation reimbursement program complies with applicable state and federal campaign finance laws.

The Boston Globe continues:

Thornton, through a spokesman, said its donation reimbursement program was reviewed by outside lawyers and complied with applicable laws. Campaign finance experts said that without reviewing the firm’s records, they cannot say the payback system breaks the law, but that it raises numerous red flags.

That’s because reimbursing people for their political donations is generally illegal, several experts said. When political donors are repaid for their donations, it can conceal the real source of contributions, and enable the unnamed source of the funds to exceed state and federal contribution limits. And in some states — Massachusetts among them — political donations to state candidates from corporations and partnerships such as Thornton Law Firm are flatly illegal.

Reimbursing donors is “among the most serious campaign violations, in the view of both the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice,” said Daniel Petalas, an attorney who served as acting general counsel of the FEC until September.

“Using straw donors to make contributions is illegal,” said Larry Noble, general counsel of the Washington-based Campaign Legal Center and a former general counsel of the FEC. “People can go and have gone to prison for this.”

Thornton’s attorney on the matter, told the Globe that “bonus” was an inaccurate term because the monies really come from the partners’ equity in the firm.

The Boston Globe continues:

Thornton officials declined to comment, instead hiring a former federal prosecutor to respond to the Globe’s questions.

The ex-prosecutor, Brian Kelly, said the bonuses should not have been called bonuses at all because they were paid from the lawyers’ own money. He said an accountant deducted the payments from their equity, or ownership, in the firm. When lawyers leave Thornton Law and cash in their equity, he said, their financial settlement with Thornton would be reduced by the amount of the bonuses.

Kelly provided a written statement from Michael Thornton saying that “an error made internally” led to the payments being called bonuses. Thornton said he changed the way they were labeled in 2015, several years into the program, when he discovered the mistake.

“It’s obviously not a crime to make lots of donations to politicians, and they certainly did that,” said Kelly. “But their donation program was vetted by prior counsel and an outside accountant, and the firm made every effort to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Thornton’s “donation program” has helped a long list of politicians from Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer to Harry Reid and Joe Biden (emphasis added):

By donating as individuals, lawyers for the firm were able to collectively give far more to individual candidates in a single year than the firm could have donated directly under federal law.

Over a 10-day period in 2013, for example, Thornton partners gave $52,000 to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, a subcommittee chairman on the Senate Judiciary Committee — 20 times as much as the $2,600 that the partnership itself could have donated. (Corporate contributions are illegal under federal law, but partnership contributions are not.)

. . . . From 2010 through 2014, Strouss and Bradley, along with founding partner Michael Thornton and his wife, donated nearly $1.6 million to Democratic Party fund-raising committees and a parade of politicians — from Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada to Hawaii gubernatorial candidate David Ige to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Over the same span, the lawyers received $1.4 million listed as “bonuses” in Thornton Law Firm records; more than 280 of the contributions precisely matched bonuses that were paid within 10 days.

. . . . In 2012, the lawyers gave Warren $42,200, 16 times as much as the firm could have given her directly.

Thornton’s lawyers were especially generous to Vice President Joe Biden, one of Washington’s strongest advocates for trial lawyers, contributing more than $78,000 to his campaigns from 2003 to 2008.

During President Obama and Biden’s reelection campaign in 2012, Michael Thornton hosted a fund-raiser for the Obama Victory Fund at his house in Cambridge, where Biden was the guest of honor. Some of the biggest donors — some Thornton partners gave $20,000 — were escorted into a private room and offered the chance to be photographed with Biden, said someone who was there. Thornton records show the lawyers were reimbursed for those donations.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/29/prominent-democratic-law-firm-pays-questionable-bonuses-partners-for-campaign-contributions/GpD5tRQZR7pRe8hwAvQw8N/story.html

According to the Globe, Thornton Law has contributed to only one Republican:  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Just one Republican senator has collected contributions from Thornton’s lawyers. Lindsey Graham, an idiosyncratic South Carolinian and former trial lawyer, received $62,800 over the last decade. Graham helped peel away enough GOP support in the Senate to ensure the trust fund bill’s death on Valentine’s Day 2006, according to former Senate aides.

The Globe interviewed former employees at Thornton Law and reviewed bonus checks; they report how the “bonus” system started and that the checks clearly indicate the bonus is reimbursement for a particular candidate.

Once Michael Thornton’s willingness to raise large amounts of money became known among lawyers and politicians, the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ Washington-based lobbying group, increasingly turned to the firm’s lawyers for help, even for little-known candidates running in states far from Boston.

“At first it happened every three or four months, and then it was sometimes three or four times each month,” even though the threat of asbestos litigation reform had faded, said the former employee who requested anonymity.

As the number of fund-raisers started piling up, partners began to grouse. Even though Thornton called the contributions “voluntary,” partners felt pressured to give, according to the former employee. After all, Michael Thornton was the firm’s lead partner, with enormous sway over what the other partners were paid.

So, according to three former employees, Thornton Law Firm adopted the donation reimbursement system.

Bonus checks that were reviewed by the Globe made clear that the payments were for political donations, with notations giving the name of the politician the partner had donated to.

The Globe and the Center for Responsive Politics reviewed records covering payments to three senior partners — Thornton, Bradley, and Strouss — who are among the top shareholders in the firm. Then the Globe and the center matched the bonuses against federal, state, and local campaign records.

The Globe outlines the FEC requirements for partnerships like Thornton to reimburse partners for political donations . . . and notes that’s not what the firm did.

If those donations were determined to have actually been made by the firm — because the lawyers were reimbursed — they would be illegal, since political contributions from corporations or partnerships are prohibited in Massachusetts.

There’s no indication that any of the politicians who received Thornton donations knew anything about the law firm’s questionable reimbursement system.

The FEC does allow partners in a law firm to donate to political campaigns, but only if the funds clearly come from the partner’s own money. According to FEC rules, a partnership can contribute on behalf of its partners, but then must promptly deduct the amount of the donation from the next profit-sharing payments to the partners, called “partnership distributions.”

That’s not what Thornton did.

. . . . [R]eimbursing partners out of their equity in the firm — as Kelly said Thornton did — is likely illegal, said Brett Kappel, a Washington lawyer who specializes in campaign finance.

“If they were legitimate contributions, they should have been deducted from their partnership distributions,” Kappel said.

The Globe also offers a possible explanation for the senior partner’s surprising resignation from the state House of Representatives.

Bradley, the senior partner, abruptly resigned his position as assistant majority leader in the state House of Representatives on June 27 after the Globe had begun asking questions about his firm’s business practices.

His decision stunned colleagues, coming so late in the election cycle that there was no time to take his name off the November ballot.

Bradley explained at the time that Michael Thornton was retiring and that he, Bradley, was being promoted to managing partner of his law firm. As a result, he wanted to focus on his legal work. Thornton is now chairman of the firm.

“I wouldn’t have the time to do this [legislative] job the way it should be done” because of the promotion, Bradley explained to the State House News Service. “It’s bittersweet for me.”

Interestingly, Thornton stopped its campaign reimbursement/bonus program after the Globe began asking questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funniest part of this whole fiasco is that she helped get rid of a relatively good guy (by comparison) who is going to be replaced by one of the guys exactly like the ones she doesn't want running these large organizations.  Pure genius!

Edited by The Commish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She really is good. You can tell how much she actually researches the subject matter they bring up in these congressional hearings/meetings. 

Tom Price having to answer for his own actions and lack-there-of. 

Video: http://crooksandliars.com/2017/01/hhs-nominee-tom-price-faces-senators

Quote

Warren: "Did you buy the stock and introduce a bill that would be helpful to the company you just bought stock in?," she asked.

 

Price stonewalled: "The stock was bought by a broker who was making those decisions. I wasn't making those decisions."

"You said you weren't making those decisions. Let me just make sure that I understand. they are listed under your name. These are your stock trades."

"They are made on my behalf.

"Was it purchased through an index fund?"

"I don't believe so."

"A mutual fund?"

"It's a broker-directed account."

"Through a blind trust? Let's just be clear. This is not just a stockbroker, someone you pay to handle the paperwork. This is someone who buys stock at your direction. This is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them to buy and sell."

"Not true."

"So when you found out --"

"That's not true, Senator."

"You decide not to tell, wink, nod, nod, and we're supposed to believe that."

After some more back and forth, Warren continued her march.

"Then I want to understand when you found out your broker had made this trade without your knowledge, did you reprimand her?"

"What I did was comply --"

"Did you sell the stock?:

Price hemmed and hawed about how he disclosed everything while Warren and Alexander bickered over time. Finally, she resumed.

"Your periodic transaction notes you were notified of this trade on April 4th, 2016. did you take an additional actions after that date to advance your plan to help the company that you now own stock in?," Warren asked.

Here she was getting to the fact that after purchasing the stock, he introduced legislation to help the company.

Price snapped back, "I'm offended by the insinuation, Senator." (*had to get personal, couldnt stick to the facts)

Warren was ready. "You may be offended, but here's what you did. After you were personally notified of this trade, which you said you didn't know about in advance..you sent a letter to CMS calling to cease all future and planned mandatory initiatives under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid innovation and so there was no misunderstanding about who you were trying to help, you specifically mentioned hip and knee replacement."

Earlier in the day, Senator Patty Murray elicited answers from Price which clearly point toward some major insider trading on his part. Even though the media is downplaying it, it's a huge problem for Price. This particular exchange concerned a private placement purchase of a company by the name of Innate Immunotherapeutics. Private placements are investment offerings to private investors and usually require a minimum investment. Think of them as venture capital pooling where companies raise funds before going public.

Meanwhile Trump is filling the swap to over capacity.

Edited by BigSteelThrill
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole Wells Fargo things has a lot of tentacles.  They found out Prudential Securities was doing unscrupulous actions in their relationship with Wells Fargo as well, and there are at least hundreds of people who've had their lives ruined because of bad credit because of the accounts opened without their knowledge.  Wells also handles Fidelity cash accounts.

RUN, DON'T WALK away from Wells Fargo.  Plenty of other places you can put your money. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's a cold calculating #### who didn't have the nerve to back Sanders when she should have. She's a phony , just another pol out for herself 

 

Op-Ed: Why Elizabeth Warren is no longer the darling of the left

Jordan Chariton January 17, 2017

Regardless of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi's titles—and to the comical dismay of corporate, establishment Democrats—Bernie Sanders has become the defacto leader of the Democratic Party.

Sunday in Warren, Michigan put an exclamation point on the sentence, as Sanders, alongside Schumer, brought out 8,000 people on a bitterly cold winter day to fight against Obamacare repeal.

Even the establishment media is waking up—granted a year too late.

"That's the future of the Democratic Party," Joe Scarborough, echoing Mika Brzezinski's sentiment, said on Morning Joe Monday. "He sounds just as relevant today as he did a year ago."

So, as the mainstream media opportunistically tries to Feel The Bern after ignoring Sanders when it mattered (both CNN and MSNBC recently held primetime town halls with him), you know who's become less relevant?

Senator Elizabeth Warren . 

The one-time progressive rock star—who activists tried to summon to run in 2016 with hopes of bringing down Hillary Clinton—has already made moves that many inside the Beltway believe are a precursor to a run in 2020.

But, much to the shock of genius corporate journalists who continue to live in their alternate, elitist bubble and obsess over Donald Trump's tweets rather than the endless struggles of working people, the progressive movement has soured on one if its past heroes.

A majority of progressive voters and activists I spoke to during my campaign reporting were disgusted with Warren's cowardice during the Democratic Primary, where she dodged on endorsing the most progressive candidate to run since FDR.

The firebrand, anti-Wall Street Senator was wildly popular in her home-state of Massachusetts, but she decided not to endorse Sanders before the Super Tuesday primary. Sanders lost Massachusetts by less than two points, causing progressives to believe the state—and momentum—would have gone to Sanders had Warren endorsed and campaigned with him across the state.

Larger than her Massachusetts mistake, Warren's choice to passionately campaign for Clinton—the antithesis of all she proclaimed to stand against during her meteoric rise isn't a fact progressive Sanders aficionados will simply forgive and forget.

Furthermore, Warren—along with the corporate media—was inexplicably MIA during the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline, saying nothing as thousands of unarmed, peaceful Native Americans and environmental activists were illegally arrested and shot at with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, freezing water, and grenades by de facto oil police in North Dakota.

Like her decision to conveniently endorse Clinton when Sanders was mathematically eliminated, Warren finally chose to speak out against DAPL on the same day the Army Corps of Engineers denied a crucial permit for the pipeline's completion. 

This kind of calculated, Johnny-Come-Lately progressivism doesn't cut it for the millions of progressives looking to rally behind a leader as the road to 2020 narrows.

So, the time for choosing is upon Warren. She must decide: what do I truly stand for? Right now, there's a large swath of the progressive movement that's no longer sure.

She must choose between being a strong progressive who largely ignores political calculations in favor of fighting for workers and minorities, or continue serving as a one-trick pony that steals the show by yelling at bankers during congressional hearings, but isn't trusted by the movement to do much more.

Warren must decide if she is going to stand out as a progressive leader on issues that go beyond Wall Street and the rigged economy—such as ensuring clean water and safety for the people instead of unfettered profits for the oil companies.

If Warren chooses the progressive path, she'll still need to explain her dubious choices during the 2016 election and beyond. 

But if Sanders decides against running in four years, Warren—in a political climate with a jarring scarcity of true progressive leaders—could have a chance to climb back up the progressive ranks and possibly serve as the movement's best chance to finally take the White House. 

The clock is ticking.

Commentary by Jordan Chariton, a political reporter for The Young Turks, reporting on the presidential campaign trail. He can be seen on TYT Politics. Before TYT, Jordan was a reporter for TheWrap and TVNewser. Follow him on Twitter @JordanChariton.

For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.


More From CNBC 

Top News and Analysis

Latest News Video

Personal Finance

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing my best :cstu: 

Liz Warren Sums Up How Classless Democratic Party Has Become by Refusing to Shake Hand of Trump Nominee

Liz Warren, U.S. Senator and multimillionaire warrior for income inequality, summed up in one awkward moment why the Democratic Party's streak of intolerant behavior doesn't look to be going away anytime soon.

At the Senate confirmation hearing for Trump's Dept. of Ed. nominee Betsy DeVos, Liz Warren went on a tear:

Warren lit into DeVos over her “lack of experience,” perhaps not getting that Americans don't necessarily want a bureaucrat from inside the Beltway.

Ironically, the same woman who ostensibly defrauded the education system herself for lying about her Native American ancestry was on her high horse the entire hearing.

Warren has even been blasting away at DeVos for her school choice views, while once being an advocate of vouchers. The Boston Herald reported:

Top Trump critic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who’s expected to grill Education Secretary nominee Betsy DeVos tomorrow — once advocated school choice much like the woman she is likely to grandstand against.

Warren recently slammed DeVos’ lack of education experience as well as her support for school vouchers that would allow public school students to attend private schools in a likely preview of tomorrow’s nomination hearing.

Warren's classless move of refusing to shake DeVos's hand was captured on camera and drew applause from her fans:

While others came to DeVos's defense:

It's hard to predict how the Democrats are going to top these kinds of antics, which come as at least 50 Democrats are protesting the Inauguration of President Donald Trump for him being supposedly “illegitimate.”

Actually, what's “illegitimate” are classless displays from politicians, which come at a time when the country needs grace from its leaders and at least a tributary show of national unity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren rocks.  No doubt about it.

And Im a bigger Bernie supporter then Warren, but her POTUS decision doesn't move the bar at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigSteelThrill said:

Warren rocks.  No doubt about it.

And Im a bigger Bernie supporter then Warren, but her POTUS decision doesn't move the bar at all.

She screwed Bernie in MA. If she backed him in MA there he takes the state and things between  Hills & Sanders could have been much different.  

 Far from a liberal but I see Bernies appeal . Warren , not so much , she is so disingenuous . Polar opposites 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0