"Whether justified or not"
How much of a tell is that?
Remember the stipulation Hank Paulson insisted on?
The one that said: He could not be held personally responsible or prosecuted for any of the misactions of the bank bailout, that might come out later.
The Senate agreed to that crap to, without nary a question.
I'm telling you, it's because of that "no child left behind" rule.
And they made sure not to leave Hank behind, now didn't they.
Amusingly, following up on earlier reports that the Clearing House Association (aka the banking oligarchy) will petition the SCOTUS to hide their oh so very secret insolvency which by now everyone knows about, the Fed has decided to amusingly distance itself from the kleptocratic crowd and will not seek court review. In other words, the public's anger when the SCOTUS sides with the bankers will fall squarely upon Lloyd Blankfein et al, and not Ben Bernanke, even though it is the Fed who is the defendant in the Pittman lawsuit. This is just plain ridiculous. And the reason provided by the banks: why more mutual assured destruction of course: "disclosure of the information threatens to harm the borrowing banks by allowing the public to observe their borrowing patterns during the recent financial crisis and draw inferences--whether justified or not--about their current financial conditions." Here is an inference about their current financial conditions: they are all insolvent. Does that matter? No. Because the only holders of bank stocks now are other banks. It is called a ponzi for a reason after all.
More from Dow Jones:
