YES!!!!!!!!!

Former Congressman Alan Grayson has filed to run for Senate against Marco Rubio in 2022.

Needless to say, the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment) is almost certain to go after him hammer and tongs, because that's what happened last time, when they threw their weight behind a big bag of nothing, and former Republican, Patrick Murphy.

You cannot beat something with nothing, but Chuck Schumer now, and Harry Reid then, want to run a nothing, because they are nicer to big dollar donors.

I Really Hope That They Stream This Online

We now know that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is concerned about the primary later this month, because has just agreed to debate Tim Canova:

U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Thursday she would debate her primary challenger Tim Canova.

"I have always said that when we got to August that I would focus on the question of whether or not I was going to debate my opponent," she said in a brief telephone interview. "I am going to debate my opponent."

Canova's campaign treated the development like a victory. "It's good news for the residents of South Florida," Canova said. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz has never had to account for her record. She's never engaged in a debate as long as she's been a member of Congress. And it's well past time to have that accounting."

If you are comfortably in the lead, you pretend as if your opponent does not exist.

She is agreeing to debate because she expects the primary to be close.

I'll post updates about when and where the debates will be, but in the meantime, throw some money at Matthew Saroff's Act Blue Page which is currently set up to split contributions between Tim Canova and Alan Grayson, who is running for Florida Senate against former Republican, serial fabulist, and Wall Street BFF Patrick Murphy.

I Have an Endorsement for the Florida Senate Race

Rather unsurprisingly, it is Alan Grayson, who formally announced his entry into the Democratic primary:

The 2016 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in Florida just got interesting.

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the liberal firebrand whose unpredictability enthralls progressives and worries moderates, announced Thursday that he will run against the more centrist U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy for the Senate seat that would be vacated by current Sen. Marco Rubio, a candidate for the presidency.

“People understand what I stand for,” Grayson said on the WKMG television station in Orlando on Thursday. “They know I am a champion for justice, equality and peace and I do my best to help people in need.”

He plans to campaign on giving seniors a Social Security raise, expanding the services covered by Medicare, reducing student loans and expanding access to healthcare.

“I don’t think Obamacare has gone far enough,” he told the Miami Herald after his announcement.

The race pits polar opposites against each other.

Grayson, 57, from Orlando, is known for his raucous style. In 2009, he described a proposed GOP healthcare plan as “if you do get sick, die quickly” and once compared former Vice President Dick Cheney to a vampire.

The Democratic Party establishment is supporting Patrick Murphy who, "Was a Republican until he ran for Congress in 2012," who voted for the Keystone Pipeline, the House kangaroo hearings on Benghazi, corrupt for profit colleges, donated to Mitt Rmoney in 2007, and is a member of the corporatist "New Democrat" caucus.

Hmmm.....The DSCC, which is effectively run by Chuck "Wall Street's Bitch" Schumer, is supporting a Wall Street loving faux Dem.

What a surprise.

Needless to say, Alan Grayson is now on Matthew Saroff's Act Blue Page.

Alan Grayson Was Right! They Want You To 'Die Quickly'*

Michael R. "Andromeda" Strain. a resident "scholar" for the American Enterprise Institute, penned an OP/ED, and the moral pygmy that is Washington Post editorial editor Fred Hiatt, published a work titled, "End Obamacare, and people could die. That’s okay."

He wants the death penalty for poverty.

What's more, he tacitly admits that Obamacare saves lives.

 Seriously, the Washington Post has the 2^nd worst opinion pages in the nation.

^*This is not my bon mot, it is courtesy of Crooks and Liars.

Alan Grayson Calls Out the So Called "Classified Briefing" Given to Congress

Alan Grayson writes an oblique, but blistering editorial in the New York Times:

The documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.”

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

………

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm.

My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that way.

And then he follows this up with in interview with the Washington Post where he also says that he has been given no meaningful information, and adds to this the fact that he feels that Obama and his administration are not competent in managing their relationship with Congress:

When has the White House ever — ever — been able to turn around a vote? It hasn’t happened in the entire Obama administration; much less happened when the constituent mail is running 100-1 against. When nobody is paying attention, anything is possible. The president can offer you favors or employ moral suasion or enlist lobbies. But the public is watching and is extremely angry about the president’s position. In that kind of environment, the president doesn’t even have the tools.

BTW, the White House Chief of Staff has admitted as much, saying that this is not a court of law, but that it, "passes the common sense test."

The White House asserted Sunday that a "common-sense test" dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama's top aide says the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

"This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way," White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said during his five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"The common-sense test says he is responsible for this. He should be held to account," McDonough said of the Syrian leader who for two years has resisted calls from inside and outside his country to step down.

So Obama's Chief of Staff just said that Obama's Secretary of State was exaggerating the case.

Roll tape.



Title Corrected, note bit in italics.

Every Time Something New Comes Out, the NSA Spying Scandal Gets Worse

First, we have Glenn Greenwald saying that the administration lied, and that Congress was never given sufficient information to evaluate surveillance programs:

Members of Congress have been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA court which authorizes its activities, documents provided by two House members demonstrate.

From the beginning of the NSA controversy, the agency's defenders have insisted that Congress is aware of the disclosed programs and exercises robust supervision over them. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate," President Obama said the day after the first story on NSA bulk collection of phone records was published in this space. "And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up."

But members of Congress, including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them. On MSNBC on Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct) was asked by host Chris Hayes: "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" The Senator's reply:

The revelations about the magnitude, the scope and scale of these surveillances, the metadata and the invasive actions surveillance of social media Web sites were indeed revelations to me."

So, once again, we see that the Obama administration makes bald faced lies about it's data collection of American citizens.

But it is not merely that members of Congress are unaware of the very existence of these programs, let alone their capabilities. Beyond that, members who seek out basic information - including about NSA programs they are required to vote on and FISA court (FISC) rulings on the legality of those programs - find that they are unable to obtain it.

At the bottom of the article, he notes that Alan Grayson was threatened with sanctions by the House Intelligence Committee for reprinting slides that the Guardian had put up on the web.

And by the way, that whole bit about them not spying on us? They are lying about that too, and not only are they lying to the American public, they are lying to judges and defense counsels as well:

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.

"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."

THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION

The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.

Today, much of the SOD's work is classified, and officials asked that its precise location in Virginia not be revealed. The documents reviewed by Reuters are marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," a government categorization that is meant to keep them confidential.

"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."

………

A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.

"It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.

Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using "parallel construction" may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.

………

One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.

"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." The prosecutor never filed charges in the case because he lost confidence in the investigation, he said.

So, "It's only metadata," it's a lie. "We don't knowingly use the NSA to spy on Americans," it's a lie.

You see a pattern?

I Have an Endorsement for President in 2016

The Honorable Martin O'Malley, governor of the state of Maryland:

He said President Barack Obama’s re-election was a “pretty strong signal” to Republicans that voters want them to drop what he described as “obstructionist” positions on issues such as immigration.

On the fiscal cliff, he said, “I am hopeful that [Republicans] see that writing on the wall and will want to do [a deal] sooner rather than later in order to shed their sort of Tea Party obstructionist stench.”

(emphasis mine)

I shook his hand, and exchanged about a dozen words with him at Hanukkah House (It's a Baltimore thing) in 2003, and I thought that he was going to be President one day.

The fact that he's bringing it, I can't imagine another Democrat with national profile using the word, "Stench" to describe his opponents.

We need more of this.

In fact, I want him to choose Alan Grayson as his running mate. (Not gonna happen)

Election Results that Make Me Smile………

Alan Grayson, who brought the pain to the Congressional Republicans, is headed back to the House, and on the Senate side, Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, who arguably is the primary representative of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party in the Senate.

Not Enough Bullets…

Here are two bullet points for the presentation

• While he was Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson Tipped off Wall Street to the bailout of Fannie Mae, which allowed them to profit from this decision:

On the morning of July 21, before the Eton Park meeting, Paulson had spoken to New York Times reporters and editors, according to his Treasury Department schedule. A Times article the next day said the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency were inspecting Fannie and Freddie’s books and cited Paulson as saying he expected their examination would give a signal of confidence to the markets.

A Different Message

At the Eton Park meeting, he sent a different message, according to a fund manager who attended. Over sandwiches and pasta salad, he delivered that information to a group of men capable of profiting from any disclosure.

Around the conference room table were a dozen or so hedge- fund managers and other Wall Street executives -- at least five of them alumni of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), of which Paulson was chief executive officer and chairman from 1999 to 2006. In addition to Eton Park founder Eric Mindich, they included such boldface names as Lone Pine Capital LLC founder Stephen Mandel, Dinakar Singh of TPG-Axon Capital Management LP and Daniel Och of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC.

After a perfunctory discussion of the market turmoil, the fund manager says, the discussion turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Paulson said he had erred by not punishing Bear Stearns shareholders more severely. The secretary, then 62, went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” -- a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets.

Stock Wipeout

Paulson explained that under this scenario, the common stock of the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, would be effectively wiped out. So too would the various classes of preferred stock, he said.

The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information -- to his mind, leaving little doubt that the Treasury Department would carry out the plan. The managers attending the meeting were thus given a choice opportunity to trade on that information.

I think that the next two paragraphs, while appearing to exonerate those involved, actually reveal the criminality:

There’s no evidence that they did so after the meeting; tracking firm-specific short stock sales isn’t possible using public documents.

And law professors say that Paulson himself broke no law by disclosing what amounted to inside information.

I understand where the reporter is coming from: He knows what could be done with information, and what probably was done with the information, but his legal department said that he could not connect the dots.

This is Wall Street and the "Vampire Squid" we are talking about.  Of course they would use this information to profit.  It's what they do.

As to the morality of Hank Paulson, I will refer you to the fact that he does not use email, and "People who meticulously avoid email should not be trusted, because it is simply too calculating, as if they know they are regularly committing crimes."

And this guy was the f%$#ing Secretary of the F%$#ing Treasury of the United States of America

• And as to bullet point 2, we discover, courtesy of Senator Bernie Sanders, that the Federal Reserve bailed out the banks to the tune of 16 trillion dollars (H/t DC at the Stellar Parthenon BBS):

The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the left), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

Seriously, if we don't start prosecuting these folks, this is never going to end, and by these folks, I mean Hank Paulson, and any member of the Federal Reserve who did anything beyond jaywalking.

We need to start throwing asses in jail, serious time in serious prisons, because if we don't, they are just going to keep looting.

Shoot Me. I'm Thinking that Ron Paul is Right

The Federal Reserve's Consumer Advisory Council just released a report saying that there have been no wrongful foreclosures by banks:

A months-long investigation into abusive mortgage practices by the Federal Reserve found no wrongful foreclosures, members of the Fed's Consumer Advisory Council said Thursday.

During a public meeting attended by Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and other regulators, consumer advocates on the panel criticized federal bank regulators for narrowly defining what constitutes a "wrongful foreclosure." At least one member of the panel voiced concerns that the public would not take the Fed's findings of improper practices seriously, since the wide-ranging review did not find a single homeowner who was wrongfully foreclosed upon.

The Fed's findings seem to support claims from the banking industry, which has admitted to sloppy practices but has maintained that the homeowners whose homes have been repossessed were substantially behind on their payments. The Fed's report has not been released to the public.

This is crap.  Even if you argue that fraudulent statements to the court are not "wrongful foreclosure", you have to note that banks have foreclosed on people who had mortgages with other people, and foreclosed on people who paid cash for their homes.

Well, with regard to the Federal Reserve, I used to take the middle ground, Alan Grayson's position for audits and more transparency, while eschewing Ron Paul's suggestion that we close down the Federal Reserve.

I thought that Paul was loony, and that it was a loony suggestion.

Now I'm beginning to think that the Federal Reserve is so thoroughly captured by the banks, and so thoroughly corrupt, that closing it down might be the only sane option.

Eric Arthur Blair* is Spinning in His Grave

Barack "The Worst Constitutional Law Professor Ever" Obama and Eric "Place" Holder have drawn up new guidelines on Miranda warnings when terrorism is involved, and they are declaring them secret:

The Obama administration has issued new guidance on use of the Miranda warning in interrogations of terrorism suspects, potentially chipping away at the rule that bars the government from using information in court if it was gathered before a suspect was informed of his right to remain silent and to an attorney.

But the Department of Justice is refusing to publicly release the guidance, with a spokesman describing it in an interview as an "internal document." So we don't know the administration's exact interpretation of Miranda, even though it may have significantly reshaped the way terrorism interrogations are conducted.

You have the right to remain silent, only, we won't tell you if and when that applies.

The Bush/Cheney constitutional Alice in Wonderland games are now made legitimate, bipartisan and routine by the Obama administration.

Alan Grayson for President in 2012.

^*George Orwell.

Alan Grayson for President in 2012

If you don't believe it now, just wait until Obama tries to sell gutting Social Security and Medicare in his State of the Union speech.

I could be wrong, and if I am, I will issue a correction, but I think that it is clear that embracing right wing talking points is more important to Barack Obama than is good policy, and driving the "first stake through the heart of Social Security" is clearly seen as a big plum by Obama and most of his administration.

We will know one way or the other in 5½ days.

Crap.

So the lost the house, ironically largely because of the actions of the Senate and a former Senator (Obama). Lots of good things made it through the House only to die in the Senate with an assist from the complete apathy of the White House.

If the Dems retake the House in 2012, and Obama is reelected, the lesson here is that taking the initiative without movement from the White House and the Senate, you will get gigged again, and again.

It looks like Murkowski won in Alaska, as "Write Ins" got a plurality, only they haven't started counting the write-ins yet. That only happens after a full tally, and if the total number of write ins are enough to win under Alaska law.

As to the bad news:

• Alan Grayson lost his bid for reelection. It's a pity, we need Democrats with guts.
• Rand Paul will be battling Tom Coburn for craziest muthaf%$#er in the Senate.
• Heath Shuler won. Normally, I wouldn't root for the other guy, even if they are the rankest of Blue Dogs, which Shuler is, but as a Washington Redskins fan, I have a bit of residual hostility about his expensive washout in the NFL.
• It appears that Republicans are will not be relegated a minor party status in Colorado for the next 4 years, because Dan Maes barely cleared the 10% hurdle.

The good news:

• The Blue Dogs and New Dems appeared to take the brunt of the losses.
  
• This is more than simple churlishness on my part. While the economy is clearly the proximate cause of this debacle, the perception that both parties are in the thrall of the banks, a perception which is entirely true for the Blue Dogs/New Dems who worked tirelessly to castrate financial reform and foreclosure relief. It is appropriate that those Democrats who sold the party, and the country, down the road for fat-cat campaign donations bear the brunt of voter wrath.
• Harry Reid defeats Sharron Angle. Now that he's won, could we please elect someone else as Democratic leader? He is hapless and hopeless, and he is the luckiest person tonite for having to run against nut-job Angle, or perhaps 2^nd luckiest after Chris Coons, who ran against Christine O'Donnell.
• The Senate margin is large enough that Joe Lieberman won't be able viably threaten the Democrats with crossing the aisle.
  

A random thought on the loss of Alexi Giannoulias: Choosing someone as the nominee, even though they spent years running a bank that was then on the edge of failure, (It has since failed) just because they are basketball buddies with Barack Obama, is a really stupid thing.

As a final note, that whole idea of using Google searches to estimate final votes? It does not appear to be validated by the results.

For a quick view of the races, I would suggest going to the Talking Points Memo Election Center.

I still have not gotten results on the Tapeworm Initiative.

They Write Letters

Alan Grayson has written to the FBI requesting a criminal investigation of fraud by the bankers in their foreclosure proceedings.

He is correct when he says that, " It is time for handcuffs. Fraud does not become legal just because a big bank does it. … This is absurd. This is deliberate, systemic fraud, and it is a crime."

Full letter after the break:

Your Bank Foreclosure Fraud Update

Alan Grayson connects the dots

The lede here has to be that the Ohio Attorney General has sued GMAC mortgage:

This is big news. I just got off a conference call with Richard Cordray, the Attorney General for the state of Ohio. He has filed a lawsuit in Lucas County (Toledo) Common Pleas Court against GMAC Mortgage and their parent company Ally Financial, in a suit which names Jeffrey Stephan, the infamous “robo-signer” who signed off on up to 10,000 foreclosures a month across the country with affidavits, without verifying the information in the foreclosure documents. The lawsuit alleges fraud on the part of GMAC, along with violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, in filing false affidavits to mislead the courts in what they describe as “hundreds” of Ohio foreclosure cases. And, the Attorney General is treating every single false affidavit filed in an Ohio court as a separate violation, with a fine of up to $25,000, plus additional restitution for the homeowner of an unspecified amount.

This is a major lawsuit, and as Cordray told reporters, “We’re at the beginning of this, not the middle or end, and we’ll see where it leads us.” For context, approximately 450,000 foreclosures have been filed in Ohio since 2005, and potentially all of them used this robo-signing process. At the outer edge of this, if every one of those foreclosure processes is seen as a single case of fraud, the fines for the entire lending industry would add up to $11.25 BILLION dollars, just in the state of Ohio, not including the extra restitution for homeowners.

Cordray is also requesting information from the other major lenders, and has moved for an injunction against GMC, so it looks like this snowball once he gets to discovery.

Additionally, we have more calls for investigations and a moratorium, with both Nancy Pelosi,the Republican Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper raising concerns. (talk about the odd couple)

Congress has weighed in, sort of, with an unexpected vote in the Senate a week ago approving an electronic notary law which, at least according to Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, increases the possibility of fraud by creating a credit card style race to the bottom in terms of legal standards.

This growing furor may explain one of the peculiarities of the property meltdown, why banks seem to favor foreclosures over short sales even when the former generate more money.

I was unaware of the fact, but the standards for titles are much lower in the event of a foreclosure sale:

If you know anyone in real estate, you have bumped into countless frustrated agents who were attempting to complete shortsales for their selller clients only to have the whole thing fall apart at the last moment and then they later see the same property go into foreclosure for LESS than what the pre-approved shortsale buyer had offered just weeks earlier. Why, why, why, they moan. Why would a bank or mortgage servicer take less than what they could have had?

Well, now I wonder if one potential answer doesn’t have something to do with the types of deeds that get conveyed in a foreclosure and the tie to title insurance. In foreclosures in many states the buyer obtains a specialized deed – a special warranty deed, or a bargain and sale deed which make fewer guarantees for the buyer than the general warranty deed which is transferred in a normal sale(which I believe a short sale still falls under)

………

Is it possible that the foreclosers realized it was in their best interest to abort short sales in favor of foreclosures in order to pass the more limited deeds conveyed in a foreclosure? Did that decision come back to haunt them once the entire foreclosure process itself became highly suspect and publicized? (There is already a large title insurer who is denying title insurance on some foreclosures.)

Of course, the real elephant in the room is that anyone who has gotten a mortgage in the past decade^* is just as likely to have problems with their title.

Foreclosures do not create title problems, foreclosures merely reveal those problems.

This is going to be uglier than David Boehner in a thong.

^*Full disclosure, like me.

More of This

Alan Grayson accurately calls his opponent Taliban Dan Webster.

This is what Alan Grayson does best: He explains the moral dimensions of Republican beliefs and Republican policy.

As opposed to drinking tea with the pinky extended, and talking about how stupid or lame the voters or your base is, he takes it to them.

If you don't call out evil and insanity this time around, it becomes normal behavior the next time around.

This is why triangulation is a failure, it serves only to embolden your opponent to move further away from sanity when you extend the boundaries of what is socially acceptable discourse.

It's why I love^* Alan Grayson.

He understands the moral dimension to policy, and he aggressively communicates these dimensions.

Needless to say, the Beltway Kool Kidz club is having the vapors about his ads.

^*In a 110% purely heterosexual kind of way, of course, as the General would say.

OK, Time to Freak Out

A few days ago, Yves Smith noted that Wells Fargo has started to spring a last minute contract clause on its foreclosure sales that basically says if the property does not have a clear title, it's your tough sh%$:

Yves here. Some readers may take this all to be unduly alarmist. But confirmation that this problem is real and potentially serious comes via a new “gotcha” practice by Wells Fargo on foreclosure sales. Wells is sufficiently concerned about the risks of selling properties out of foreclosure that it is springing an addendum on buyers, shortly before closing, which effectively shifts all risk for any title deficiency on to the buyer.

Now why is this a big deal? Go reread the boldfaced sentence above. ["Technically, the foreclosing bank has no recorded title rights to foreclose in the first place"] If a bank like Wells does not have the right to foreclose, it cannot have clean title to the property. So the bank could conceivably be selling something it does not own.

Let’s say you buy a vase from a store. You open the box when you get home and find out the box is empty. You’d clearly be within your rights to get your money back.

With the Wells Fargo addendum, even if the bank has sold you the equivalent of an empty box, you have no recourse to Wells. Zero. Zip. Nada.

So the banks realize that they are selling properties at auction that they do not own or hold the note on.

They want to clear their balance sheets, and they are now more than willing to engage in outright fraud to do so.

Well, it looks like it's not just Wells Fargo who is freaking out about this, because GMAC has just suspended its foreclosures in 23 states based on similar concerns that the documentation was forged, though they claim that it will be resolved, "within the next few weeks".

There are also rumors of a criminal investigation, while GMAC has denied any moratorium.

It appears that much of this has to do with the foreclosure mills law firms, largely based in Florida, most notably Watson, Shapiro & Fishman, and David J. Stern. (MoJo has a good tour of their business practices here)

Note also that Congressman Alan Grayson has written a letter too the Florida Supreme Court asking for an immediate suspension of foreclosures, because these firm are doing the paperwork on about 80% of the foreclosures in the state and have already been cited by a judge for blatant fraud.

There are a couple of issues here, the first is that in the mortgage mixmaster, title for a lot of properties may have been lost, and the second is that the law firms doing the paperwork are simply defrauding homeowners and the courts.

Grayson's letter is after the break:

Monty Python's Lying Circus

I love Alan Grayson.<sup>*



*</sup>In a 110% purely heterosexual kind of way, of course, as the General would say.

Your Gibbs Update

Click for full size

---

Have I mentioned that I Love Alan Grayson?^*

So, little Bobbie Gibbs has doubled down on his tantrum, refusing to offer anything beyond that he was "frustrated", and then he went on to basically say that the liberal party base are nothing but a bunch of helpless co%$ suckers who have no where else to go, so they will show up to vote like the pathetic losers that you think that they are:

A day after the controversy over Gibbs' remarks was seemingly been put to rest by a quick walk-back from the press secretary, Wednesday's briefing seems likely to reignite the debate over the White House's relationship with liberals. But if there was nervousness over base voters not heading to the polls, Gibbs didn't show it:

"I don't think [liberal voters won't show up]," he said, "because I think what's at stake in November is too important to do that."

The translation here is, "Neener-neener you dweebs! What are you going to do, vote for Ralph Nader."

That's really going to invigorate the base.

First, what The Rude Pundit said:

Finally, f%$# you, Mr. Press Secretariat, because you should be wooing the f%$# out of us. You should be trying to get in our underwear and hand job us with a smile on your face instead of treating us like a convenient punching bag because you don't want to offend the precious "real America" or whatever bullsh%$ phrase politicians want to use to isolate and alienate us. Why? Because we're the ones that made sure you are the Press Secretary.

(%$# mine)

And then we have Alan Grayson saying that he should be fired, and notes that he is frequently referred to as "Bozo the spokesman."

If there is a lesson of the past 40 years in Politics, it is that dissing your base is a way to lose elections.

If this is how the Obama administration thinks it should win elections, I have no clue how the beat McCain in 2008.

^*In a 110% purely heterosexual kind of way, of course, as the General would say.

Jon Stewart Makes a Very Good Point

See profiling comment at 4:20

As always.

Actually, he makes a number of them, with the big one being, "What are we going to do in this country when we get attacked by someone who's not one of the Home Alone burgers?"

But there is the little point that he makes that I find far more trenchant.

He runs an ad put out by a Teabagger candidate running against Alan Grayson, Dan Fanelli, talking about profiling terrorists, and brings out two men, one swarthy and bearded, and one white and old, which asks "Where's Waldo" which one is the terrorist?

This leads the doyenne of late night news to ask the question himself, "Which one? Doctor Kevorkian on the left, or the cast member from The Jersey Shore on the right?"

Stewart's answer is that the terrorist who flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas looked an awful lot like Congressman wannabe Fanelli.