Jamie Gorelick, Mistress of Disaster

It’s not often that one person plays key roles in two -- count ‘em, two -- trillion-dollar disasters. Welcome, my friends, to the world of well-connected Democrat operative Jamie Gorelick...

Read the rest here.

MISTRESS OF DISASTER JAMIE GORELICK: Trust Me, I'm an Expert and Eric Holder's Attack on the AP is Perfectly Fine

Don't know about you, but whenever I need advice I always turn to a woman integral to not one -- but two -- separate trillion-dollar calamities for the United States of America. I refer, of course, to the Democrat hack Jamie "The Mistress of Disaster" Gorelick who helped blind the intelligence and law enforcement communities prior to the 9/11 attacks and then, despite no background in finance, got a cushy position with Fannie Mae where she helped trigger the subprime mortgage meltdown.

Yes, Gorelick's just the one I'd turn to for counsel. Certainly the unhinged editors at The New York Times believe she's credible, which is why she appeared in print there defending the lawless behavior of Eric Holder's DOJ in the matter of its shotgun attack on the Associated Press.

Following the disclosure that the Justice Department obtained telephone records of Associated Press journalists, the AP and other news organizations have criticized the action as unwarranted interference with the ability of journalists to report on government operations.

As former Justice Department officials, we are worried that the criticism of the decision to subpoena telephone toll records of AP journalists in an important leak investigation sends the wrong message to officials who are responsible for our national security.

...the prosecutors were right to investigate this leak vigorously... But after eight months of intensive effort, it appears that they still could not identify the leaker.

It was only then — after pursuing “all reasonable alternative investigative steps,” as required by the department’s regulations — that investigators proposed obtaining logs of calls made and received for about 20 phone lines that the leaker might have used in conversations with AP journalists. They limited the request to the two months when the leak most likely occurred, and did not propose more intrusive steps.

...They were right to pursue the investigation with “alternative investigative steps” for eight months first. Ultimately, they were right to take it to the next stage when they still needed more to make a case against the leaker. If the Justice Department had not done so, it would have defaulted on its obligation to protect the American people.

As is always the case with the ludicrous Gorelick, she gets her analysis completely backwards. Both Democrats and Republicans have slammed Holder for his "unconstitutional" behavior:

...the DOJ failed to notify the AP of the subpoena issued for phone records before obtaining those documents... “The Code of Federal Regulations states that a news media organization [is] supposed to be notified of the subpoena, and they apparently were not notified of the subpoena. Therefore, that’s a big question that needs to be resolved because it looks like an effort by the government to sidestep a requirement,” [House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob] Goodlatte said.

He pointed out that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey believes the subpoena of “20 reporters over a two-month period of time … was too broad.”

“There is no judge — it’s a subpoena, not a warrant — that’s why it’s a big deal,” Goodlatte said before promising that his committee is “going to pursue this for sure.” ... In an interesting twist, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has ripped the Obama administration for the DOJ probe... “I have trouble defending what the Justice Department did. I don’t know who did it or why it was done, but it’s inexcusable. It’s an issue I feel very strongly about.”

And notice that Dame Disaster carefully ignored the other ongoing DOJ scandals that have made a mockery of the department under Perjurer General Eric Holder: the James Rosen wiretap debacle, Fast and Furious, the New Black Panther insanity, and many more. And, worse still, the very notion that Holder is investigating himself for some of these crimes.

That Gorelick would defend the indefensible is utterly bizarre, but not unexpected coming from the Countess of Catastrophe.

NBER: Yep, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and Janet Reno Were Directly Responsible for the 2008 Mortgage Meltdown

Any careful and honest analysis puts the blame for the 2008 financial crisis on Bill Clinton and his sycophants who implemented the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) just put the final nail in the coffin.

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession... But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often... The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie... It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to "assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA)." The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.
But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that's what they did.

"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

She described "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3% down" and "flexible underwriting." ... From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features.

...Obama officials, who are cracking the CRA whip anew against banks, insist the law played no role in the mortgage meltdown... While the 1977 law was passed 30 years before the crisis, it underwent a major overhaul just 10 years earlier. Starting in 1995, banks were measured on their use of innovative and flexible" lending standards, which included reduced down payments and credit requirements.

Banks that didn't meet Clinton's tough new numerical lending targets were denied merger plans, among other penalties. CRA shakedown groups like Acorn held hostage the merger plans of banks like Citibank and Washington Mutual until they pledged more loans to credit-poor minorities... WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger has blamed the CRA for his bank's overexposure to risky loans. He said he wanted to tighten lending requirements, but "such measures would have presented other issues such as the company's CRA rating and its commitment to serving its (low-income and minority) customers and communities."

President Obama, in his younger days, was an attorney for Acorn and party to a lawsuit against Citibank. He, too, had a direct hand in triggering the mortgage meltdown.

Hilarious Jamie Gorelick Quote o' the Day

What's funnier than Bill Clinton talking about the virtues of chastity? That would be Jamie Gorelick extolling the high ethical standards required by members of the bar.

An American Bar Association group plans to meet this week to mull a question stirring up debate around the legal community: can someone who is not a lawyer own part of a law firm?

For 21 years, the answer has been no — except in the District of Columbia, the only jurisdiction in the United States that allows law firms to share fees and profits with non-lawyers...

...“Traditionally, law firms have been owned and controlled solely by lawyers, and they’re bound by a certain regulatory structure,” said Jamie Gorelick, a partner at WilmerHale who co-chairs the Commission on Ethics 20/20. “The concern is that a non-lawyer would not be similarly bound and doesn’t have the same ethical rules as lawyers.”

The same ethical rules as lawyers?

The... same... ethic --- HAHAHHAHAH AH AH AHA HAH AHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HA HA HAHAHAHAHHA AHHWHWAHAHHA AHWH AHW AHW HA HAHA HA HA HA AH AH AHHAHAW HA H HA AHHA (*choke*) AHHAWHAHA (*gurgle*) AHWHAHA (*wheeze*) ---

Must. Catch. Breath.

In 2004, observers were "astonished" to discover that a key member of the 9/11 Commission had a fatal conflict-of-interest. Jamie Gorelick had served as a Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997.

It was later revealed that Gorelick had established a pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented the foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating.

Her 1995 memo, entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations", stated explicitly that they would "go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

The result: shortly before 9/11, Gorelick's wall "specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui", the so-called "20th hijacker."

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a memo to headquarters which included the sentence, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective..."

The 2004 disclosure that Gorelick's service as a 9/11 Commissioner was the archetypical conflict-of-interest should have triggered a cacophony of complaints and demands for a new investigation. Instead, the mainstream media turned deaf and dumb and the controversy faded into the background.

Gorelick's "wall" wrapped a blindfold around America just when it needed its vision to stop the attacks that killed thousands and which sucked a half a trillion dollars out of the economy.

Where did Gorelick turn up next?

Though she had no training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served in the role from 1997 to 2003. During that six-year period, she earned over $26 million.

During Gorelick's tenure, FNMA suffered a $10 billion accounting scandal, an ominous harbinger of the firm's looming troubles. One of the falsified transactions helped FNMA hit earnings targets for 1998, which triggered bonuses for top executives including nearly $800,000 to Gorelick.

Put simply "Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting."

In 2002 Business Week interviewed Gorelick concerning the health of FNMA. She responded, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

Less than a year later regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses."

Gorelick's highly unethical involvement with the 9/11 Commission, her malevolent entanglement with Fannie Mae, her ill-fated defense of Duke College [Ed: intentional Dukie antagonism] against its Lacrosse Team, etc. etc. long ago earned her the nickname "The Mistress of Disaster."

Anyone quoting Gorelick in an article about "ethics" deserves a heaping helping of ridicule. But this is The Washington Post we're talking about, after all.

And, if there were any justice to be found in the District whatsoever, Jamie Gorelick would be serving a 25-to-Life with a 5'9", 350 lb. cellmate -- and soon to be soulmate -- named Tina.

Time to short Amazon: Mistress of Disaster Jamie Gorelick Joins $AMZN Board of Directors

Oh, my: what could possibly go wrong with this?

Amazon board adds Jamie Gorelick, former Fannie Mae and DOJ official

Amazon.com just added a new board member: Jamie S. Gorelick, a veteran of the U.S. government and no stranger to controversy. The company announced the appointment in an SEC filing a short time ago. Gorelick, a litigator at the law firm WilmerHale, was a long-running U.S. Deputy Attorney General who... blah, blah, blah...

Gorelick is best-known for her leading roles in two epic, trillion-dollar catastrophes, which earned her the nomme de guerre "The Mistress of Disaster".

• In 2004, observers were "astonished" to discover that a key member of the 9/11 Commission had a fatal conflict-of-interest. Jamie Gorelick had served as a Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997. It was later revealed that Gorelick had established a pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented the foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating. Gorelick's wall "specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui", the so-called "20th hijacker."

• Where did she turn up after that delightful stint in Justice? Though she had no training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served in the role from 1997 to 2003. During that six-year period, she earned over $26 million. During Gorelick's tenure, FNMA suffered a $10 billion accounting scandal, an ominous harbinger of the firm's looming troubles. FNMA's 2008 collapse, of course, helped touch off the mortgage meltdown.

It's not often that one person plays key roles in two -- count 'em, two -- trillion-dollar disasters. Welcome, my friends, to the world of well-connected Democrat Jamie Gorelick.

You've been warned.

Great News: Jamie 'Mistress of Disaster' Gorelick joins Defense Policy Board

What could possibly go wrong?

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and retired Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright are among five new members of the Defense Policy Board, a panel advising top Pentagon officials on matters of defense policy.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also named Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general and member of the 9/11 Commission, former U.S. congresswoman Jane Harman and retired Adm. Gary Roughead, former chief of naval operations.

After all, what's a couple of trillion-dollar disasters between friends?

It just keeps getting better and better: 'Mistress of Disaster' Jamie Gorelick On President Obama's Short List for FBI Director

Word around the Beltway has it that longtime Democrat operative Jamie Gorelick is one of the favorites for the FBI director role under President Obama. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, for starters, it's not often that the same person plays key roles in two -- count 'em, two -- trillion-dollar disasters.

In 2004, observers were "astonished" to discover that a key member of the 9/11 Commission had a fatal conflict-of-interest. Jamie Gorelick had served as a Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997.

It was later revealed that Gorelick had established a pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented the foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating.

Her 1995 memo, entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations", stated explicitly that they would "go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

The result: shortly before 9/11, Gorelick's wall "specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui", the so-called "20th hijacker."

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a memo to headquarters which included the sentence, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective..."

The 2004 disclosure that Gorelick's service as a 9/11 Commissioner was the archetypical conflict-of-interest should have triggered a cacophony of complaints and demands for a new investigation. Instead, the mainstream media turned deaf and dumb and the controversy faded into the background.

Gorelick's "wall" wrapped a blindfold around America just when it needed its vision to stop the attacks that killed thousands and which sucked a half a trillion dollars out of the economy.

Where did Gorelick turn up next?

Though she had no training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served in the role from 1997 to 2003. During that six-year period, she earned over $26 million.

During Gorelick's tenure, FNMA suffered a $10 billion accounting scandal, an ominous harbinger of the firm's looming troubles. One of the falsified transactions helped FNMA hit earnings targets for 1998, which triggered bonuses for top executives including nearly $800,000 to Gorelick.

Put simply "Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting."

In 2002 Business Week interviewed Gorelick concerning the health of FNMA. She responded, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

Less than a year later regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses."

Today, of course, FNMA is on taxpayer-funded life support, currently trading at 27 cents a share. Its implosion devastated investors around the world. And because it was thought to have been "managed safely" (Gorelick's words), many top-flight financial services companies held its stock.

In 2008 it was revealed that top insurer AIG was toppled, in part, because it held $600 million in Fannie and Freddie. Roughly $4 billion in those stocks were held by insurers before the implosion, according to rating agency A.M. Best.

Put simply, FNMA's collapse helped touch off the entire financial crisis.

It's not often that one person plays such a key role in two unmitigated disasters.

Democrat Jamie Gorelick is just such a person; that is why she has earned her nom de guerre "The Mistress of Disaster".

What do you call someone with a Midas Touch, only instead of gold everything they touch turns to s***? That's what Gorelick's got.

Oh, and did I mention that Gorelick was also involved with subprime mortgage securitization?

I'm guessing we could link her family to a few other catastrophes if we did the legwork. Where were her parents when the Hindenberg exploded, for instance?


Update: "AFTER HER 9/11 AND HOUSING DEBACLE BACKGROUND who better for FBI Director than Jamie Gorelick?"


Linked by: Michelle Malkin, Ace o' Spades and Legal Insurrection. Thanks!

If you weren't already shorting BP, I'd suggest you start *

Check this out:

What rocket scientist came up with this outstanding plan: "Say, let hire the Mistress of Disaster"?

I truly fear for the future of British Petroleum.


Linked by: Ace of Spades. Thanks!

* I am not a financial advisor, nor do I play one on TV.

One Chart to Rule Them All

Before you click to enbiggen the chart (below), please consider this Los Angeles Times article by Ronald Brownstein, which appeared in print on page A-5 of the May 31st, 1999 morning edition.

"It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range. [Ed: brilliant.]

...But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer... Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.

The breathless mainstream media and the race-obsessed Democrat Party hyped the kind of no-documentation, loosely underwritten loan that formed the core of the housing crisis.

In July of 2009, according to The New York Times, Andrew Cuomo's Department of Housing and Urban Development mandated that half of all loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to have originated with low- and moderate-income borrowers. In 1998, 44% of all Fannie loans had already met those criteria.

Consider the chart in that context.

On the way: more central planning, more social engineering, more Democrat-inspired disasters, but this time with your health care, not just your home.

Experts shocked as Jamie Gorelick executes another massive fail

Let me get this straight: your company wants to prevent an out-of-control federal government from nationalizing your sector of the economy. So you hire a key lobbyist to represent your case. And -- of the thousands of connected lobbyists in DC -- you hire "the Mistress of Disaster"? FireDogLake explains:

When President Obama signed the Student Lending and Fiscal Responsibility Act today, it dealt an enormous blow to Wall Street banks...

Sallie Mae spent $3 million on lobbyists last year, and got none of what they wanted.  Zero, zip, nada (largely because lobbyists like Tony Podesta and Jamie Gorelick screwed up...).

Long before this debacle, Gorelick earned her nomme de guerre by playing key roles in two massive disasters.

In 2004, observers were "astonished" to discover that a key member of the 9/11 Commission had a fatal conflict-of-interest. Jamie Gorelick had served as a Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997.

It was later revealed that Gorelick had established a pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented the foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating.

Her 1995 memo, entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations", stated explicitly that they would "go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

The result: shortly before 9/11, Gorelick's wall "specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui", the so-called "20th hijacker."

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a memo to headquarters which included the sentence, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective..."

The 2004 disclosure that Gorelick's service as a 9/11 Commissioner was the archetypical conflict-of-interest should have triggered a cacophony of complaints and demands for a new investigation. Instead, the mainstream media turned deaf and dumb and the controversy faded into the background.

Gorelick's "wall" wrapped a blindfold around America just when it needed its vision to stop the attacks that killed thousands and which sucked a half a trillion dollars out of the economy.

Where did Gorelick turn up next?

Though she had no training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served in the role from 1997 to 2003. During that six-year period, she earned over $26 million.

During Gorelick's tenure, FNMA suffered a $10 billion accounting scandal, an ominous harbinger of the firm's looming troubles. One of the falsified transactions helped FNMA hit earnings targets for 1998, which triggered bonuses for top executives including nearly $800,000 to Gorelick.

Put simply "Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting."

In 2002 Business Week interviewed Gorelick concerning the health of FNMA. She responded, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

Less than a year later regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses."

Today, of course, FNMA is on taxpayer-funded life support, hundreds of billions in the red. And because it was thought to have been "managed safely" (Gorelick's words), many top-flight financial services companies held its stock. That's how Fannie helped take out AIG, Lehman Brothers, and other financial institutions that had assumed the GSE was a sound investment. Put simply, mismanagement at Fannie played an indisputable role in the mortgage meltdown.

Now, given this history, you really have to wonder about Sallie Mae. What the hell were they smoking in the board room that day when someone blurted out, "Get me Gorelick on the phone, stat!"?


Update: Jamie Gorelick helping to rewrite the privacy laws.