NY Governor Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Byrne » Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:32 am

Why the Bush Administration "Watergated" Eliot Spitzer

by F. William Engdahl
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8376

Global Research, March 18, 2008

The spectacular and highly bizarre release of secret FBI wiretap data to the New York Times exposing the tryst of New York state Governor, Eliot Spitzer, the now-infamous "No.9," with a luxury call-girl, had less to do with the Bush Administration’s pursuit of high moral standards for public servants. Spitzer was likely the target of a White House and Wall Street dirty tricks operation to silence one of its most dangerous and vocal critics of their handling the current financial market crisis.

A useful rule of thumb in evaluating spectacular scandals around prominent public figures is to ask what and who might want to eliminate that person. In the case of Governor Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, it is clear that the spectacular "leak" of government FBI wiretap records showing that Spitzer paid a high-cost prostitute $4,300 for what amounted to about an hour’s personal entertainment, was politically motivated. The press has almost solely focused on the salacious aspects of the affair, not least the hefty fee Spitzer apparently paid. Why the scandal breaks now is the more interesting question.

Spitzer became Governor of New York following a high-profile record as a relentless State Attorney General going after financial crimes such as the Enron fraud and corruption by Wall Street investment banks during the 2002 dot.com bubble era. The powerful former head of the large AIG insurance group, Hank Greenburg was among his detractors. He made powerful enemies by all accounts. He was bitterly hated on Wall Street. He had made his political career on being ruthless against financial corruption. Most recently, from his position as Governor of the nation’s second largest state, and home to its financial industry, Spitzer had begun making high profile attacks on the complicity of the Bush Administration in covertly arranging bailout if its Wall Street financial friends at the expense of ordinary homeowners and citizens, paid all with taxpayer funds.

Curiously, Spitzer, who had been elected governor in 2006 defeating a Republican by winning nearly 70 percent of the vote, has been not charged in any crime. However, the day the scandal broke New York Assembly Republicans immediately announced plans to impeach Spitzer or put him on public trial were he to refuse resignation. Spitzer could be asked to testify in any trial involving the Emperors Club prostitution ring. But so far he hasn’t been charged with a crime. Prostitution is illegal in most US states, but clients of prostitutes are almost never charged, nor are their names usually leaked in a case in process. The Spitzer case is in the hands of Washington and not state authorities, underscoring the clear political nature of the Spitzer "Watergate."

The New York Times said Spitzer was an individual identified as Client 9 in court papers filed last week. Client 9 arranged to meet with "Kristen," a prostitute who officially charged $1,000 an hour, on February 13 in a Washington hotel. Whatever transpired, Spitzer paid her $4,300, according to the official documents. The case is clearly political when compared with more egregious recent cases involving Republicans. Republican Mark Foley was exposed propositioning male interns in Congress and Rudolph Giuliani was discovered cheating on his wife, but no or few Republican calls for resignations were heard.

Why the attack now?

Spitzer had become increasingly public in his blaming the Bush Administration for the nation’s current financial and economic disaster. He testified in Washington in mid-February before the US House of Representatives Financial Services subcommittee on the problems in New York-based specialized insurance companies, known as "monoline" insurers. In a national CNBC TV interview the same day, he laid blame for the crisis and its broader economic fallout on the Bush Administration.

Spitzer recalled that several years ago the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency went to court and blocked New York State efforts to investigate the mortgage activities of national banks. Spitzer argued the OCC did not put a stop to questionable loan marketing practices or uphold higher underwriting standards.

"This could have been avoided if the OCC had done its job," Spitzer said in the interview. "The OCC did nothing. The Bush Administration let the housing bubble inflate and now that it's deflating we're dealing with the consequences. The real failure, the genesis, the germ that has spread was the subprime scandal," Spitzer said. Fraudulent marketing and very low "teaser" mortgage rates that later ballooned higher, were practices that should have been stopped, he argued. "When mortgages are being marketed, there is a marketplace obligation to ensure the borrower can afford to pay back the debt," he said.

That TV interview was only one instance of Spitzer laying blame on the Bush Republicans. On February 14, Spitzer published a signed article in the influential Washington Post titled, "Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers."

That article, laying clear blame on the Administration for the development of the sub-prime crisis, appeared the day after his ill-fated tryst with the prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel. Just a coincidence? Spitzer wrote, ""In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act pre-empting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks."

In his article Spitzer charged, "Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which he federal government was turning a blind eye." Bush, said Spitzer right in the headline, was the "Predator Lenders' Partner in Crime." The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet. Spitzer wrote, "When history tells the story of the sub-prime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favourably."

With that article, some Washington insiders believe, Spitzer signed his own political death warrant.
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Trifecta » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:22 am

The OCC Assassinated Spitzer for the sake of a quick buck they also fucked us all.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/291.html
the future is already here—it just got distributed to the wealthy first
User avatar
Trifecta
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 am
Location: mu, the place in between dualism
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:22 pm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/21/ ... kerman.php


After the end of the affair
By Pamela Druckerman
Friday, March 21, 2008

PARIS: As the former governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, and his wife, Silda, rattle around their Fifth Avenue apartment, it's a pretty safe guess that their life as a couple is hell.

They may want to get some marital advice from Spitzer's replacement as New York governor, David A. Paterson, who said Tuesday that his own extramarital affairs ended several years ago and that his marriage was back on track. But the Spitzers are less than two weeks past D-Day. In the parlance of American couples recovering from adultery, "D-Day" is the day you discover your spouse has been cheating on you. And as with the birth of Jesus, time is reset from there.

We Americans treat D-Days like natural disasters. The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy has warned, "The reactions of the betrayed spouse resemble the post-traumatic stress symptoms of the victims of traumatic events."

No comparison seems big enough. "9/11 always reminds me of how it felt - one floor collapsing into another," said a woman in her 40s who lives near Seattle. Another woman, writing in an Internet chat room, compared her husband's affair to the Asian tsunami of 2004, which killed a quarter of a million people. The jargon of people recovering from adultery sounds like wartime code: X.O.W. is the "ex-other woman," O.N.S. is a "one-night stand," and N.P.D. is the often diagnosed "narcissistic personality disorder." A "cake man" is a husband who wants to have his wife and his mistress, too.

Married people the world over are devastated to discover that their partners have been, as the Dutch say, pinching the cat in the dark.

French wives were shocked when I suggested that it was their custom to look the other way. (Even French first ladies don't do this anymore.) Wives from sub-Saharan Africa, a part of the world with the highest levels of male infidelity, told me how they went running down the street after their husbands, begging them to sleep at home.

But American D-Days are even worse because we have such improbably high standards for marriage. If your spouse cheats, you've been living a lie. Americans describing their D-Day experiences say that they weren't just shocked, jealous and profoundly upset, but that their whole view of the world had collapsed. "It robs you of your past," one husband said. "What is real? What is fake?"

We Americans are particularly preoccupied with honesty. We're the only country that peddles the idea that "It's not the sex, it's the lying." (In France, it's not the lying, it's the sex.) America is also the only place I found that has a one-strike rule on fidelity: If someone cheats, the marriage is kaput.

We might not strictly hold ourselves to this script, but we expect our politicians to follow it. That's why people doubted that Bill and Hillary Clinton could have a "real" marriage if she stayed with him after the Lewinsky affair. It's why a reporter felt free to shout, "Silda, are you leaving him?" at the Spitzers last week. And it's why David Paterson took pains to say that he and his wife were still very much in love and that he's now faithful, despite the fact that he had had "a number of women" (and his wife had cheated, too).

Paterson said he and his wife had gone into counseling, another stalwart of America's adultery culture. America's marriage-industrial complex offers tens of thousands of couples therapists, as well as support groups for wounded spouses and sexual addicts, "accountability partners" for straying church members, and countless seminars and healing weekends, many led by "reformed" cheaters and their spouses.

Because lying is the problem, truth-telling has become America's national cure. On the frenetically active SurvivingInfidelity.com, "Erica" says she spent 20 months interrogating her husband about his affair, and then "with the aid of my master calendar and 1000+ emails, the photo albums, Visa receipts and his old expense reports, he and I set out to put all of those two and a half years of infidelity on a timeline."

Not surprisingly, all this makes recovery a long and often unhealthy process.

The fact is that many couples end up staying together. The Patersons did. The Spitzers might, too, if we give them a chance. Whatever Eliot Spitzer's and David Paterson's sins, just surviving infidelity in America may be punishment enough.

Pamela Druckerman is the author of "Lust in Translation: Infidelity From Tokyo to Tennessee."
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:39 pm

"9/11 always reminds me of how it felt - one floor collapsing into another," said a woman in her 40s who lives near Seattle. Another woman, writing in an Internet chat room, compared her husband's affair to the Asian tsunami of 2004, which killed a quarter of a million people
.

:shock:

Every time we're ready to Gandhi, bourgeois society has its little ways of reminding us why it deserves Godzilla.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:52 pm

JackRiddler wrote:
"9/11 always reminds me of how it felt - one floor collapsing into another," said a woman in her 40s who lives near Seattle. Another woman, writing in an Internet chat room, compared her husband's affair to the Asian tsunami of 2004, which killed a quarter of a million people
.

:shock:
......


Good catch.
Looks like a manufactured sneaky reinforcement of 9/11 cover-up using a sex story as viral marketing.

Spook media tricks...nesting.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:58 am

"Good catch.
Looks like a manufactured sneaky reinforcement of 9/11 cover-up using a sex story as viral marketing.

"Spook media tricks...nesting."

***
:roll:
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:00 am

The Assassination of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMo7T9t0Gzk
"but I do know that you should remove my full name from your sig. Dig?" - Unnamed, Super Scary Persun, bbrrrrr....
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Eldritch » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:55 am

JackRiddler wrote:
"9/11 always reminds me of how it felt - one floor collapsing into another," said a woman in her 40s who lives near Seattle. Another woman, writing in an Internet chat room, compared her husband's affair to the Asian tsunami of 2004, which killed a quarter of a million people
.

:shock:

Every time we're ready to Gandhi, bourgeois society has its little ways of reminding us why it deserves Godzilla.


How true.
Eldritch
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:14 am

Every time we're ready to Gandhi, bourgeois society has its little ways of reminding us why it deserves Godzilla.


Except I shouldn't have said deserves. Moral judgement aside, bourgeois society desires Godzilla, yearns out of each twisted little pore and mind for the release that only Godzilla can bring. Freud had a name for this... so did the Greeks, come to think.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Avalon » Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:05 pm

Would that be Hugh Bris, who comes along to cut off every comment that might be on the tip of your tongue?

:wink:
User avatar
Avalon
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:55 pm

JackRiddler wrote:
Every time we're ready to Gandhi, bourgeois society has its little ways of reminding us why it deserves Godzilla.


Except I shouldn't have said deserves. Moral judgement aside, bourgeois society desires Godzilla, yearns out of each twisted little pore and mind for the release that only Godzilla can bring. Freud had a name for this... so did the Greeks, come to think.


Those are home truths, comrade. They raise what is, to this Marxist, the central question wrt both tactics and strategy in every equal-rights movement:

How best to bring about a conscious realization by the bourgeoisie that their ostensible control of enterprise and industry is almost entirely illusory?

The minority for whom it is a reality will never be comrades, and I'm not talking about them.

But for the vast majority it is an illusion, and going Gandhi becomes a matter of self-interest after it's successfully dispelled. By which I mean: Dispelled in way that allows them to have a clear view of reality as progressive not static, so that the viability of going Gandhi en masse in the interest of achieving a better reality is equally clearly in view. Because without the full vision, reality is a pretty goddamn bleak state of affairs, from the bourgeois perspective. And that's a shocking thing for any previously unsuspecting group or class to know. At the moment, the illusion's all they've got, so it helps no one if removing it just results in seeing the most bourgeois minds of our generation destroyed by madness.

That would be pointless and not a pretty sight for anyone. Actually, I guess that's what we're seeing right now.

So where can the thin end of the wedge go and then be jiggered to let in a crack of light?
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:25 pm

.

Belated hiya, Comrade.

Spitzer's back in the news with an editorial in the WaPo today, so here's a kicker.

I figured at the time the combo of $200 bn in Fed pumping and the euphoria of the Spitzer toppling got the market hot enough to delay the inevitable unravelling after Bear Stearns went tits up. In the meantime, the inevitable happened. Or started, anyway. I shouldn't be so happy, but against my better judgement I'm a big fan of the inevitable.

.

How to Ground The Street
The Former 'Enforcer' On the Best Way to Keep Financial Markets in Check.


By Eliot L. Spitzer
Sunday, November 16, 2008; B01


President-elect Barack Obama will soon face the extraordinary task of saving capitalism from its own excesses, much as Franklin D. Roosevelt had to do 76 years ago. Up until this point in the crisis, policymakers have appropriately applied the rules of triage -- Band-Aids and tourniquets, then radical surgery -- to keep the global financial system alive. Capital infusions, bailouts, mega-mergers, government guarantees of unimaginable proportions -- all have been sought and supported by officials and corporate chief executives who had until now opposed any government participation in the marketplace. But put aside for the moment the ideological cartwheel we have seen and look at the big picture: The rules of modern capitalism have been re-written before our eyes.

The new president's team must soon get to the root causes of the mistakes that have brought us to the economic precipice. Yes, we have all derided the explosion of leverage, the failure to regulate derivatives, the flood of subprime lending that was bound to default and the excesses of CEO compensation. But these are all mere manifestations of three deeper structural problems that require greater attention: misconceptions about what a "free market" really is, a continuing breakdown in corporate governance and an antiquated and incoherent federal financial regulatory framework.

First, we must confront head-on the pervasive misunderstanding of what constitutes a "free market." For long stretches of the past 30 years, too many Americans fell prey to the ideology that a free market requires nearly complete deregulation of banks and other financial institutions and a government with a hands-off approach to enforcement. "We can regulate ourselves," the mantra went.

Those of us who raised red flags about this were scoffed at for failing to understand or even believe in "the market." During my tenure as New York state attorney general, my colleagues and I sought to require investment banking analysts to provide their clients with unbiased recommendations, devoid of undisclosed and structural conflicts. But powerful voices with heavily vested interests accused us of meddling in the market.

When my office, along with the Department of Justice, warned that some of American International Group's reinsurance transactions were little more than efforts to create the false impression of extra capital on the company's balance sheet, we were jeered at for attacking one of the nation's great insurance companies, which surely knew how to balance risk and reward.

And when the attorneys general of all 50 states sought to investigate subprime lending, believing that some lending practices might be toxic, we were blocked by a coalition of the major banks and the Bush administration, which invoked a rarely used statute to preempt the states' ability to probe. The administration claimed that it had the situation under control and that our inquiry was unnecessary.

Time and again, whether at the state level, in Congress or at the Securities and Exchange Commission under Bill Donaldson, those who tried to enforce the basic principles that would allow the market to survive were told that the "invisible hand" of the market and self-regulation could handle the task alone.

The reality is that unregulated competition drives corporate behavior and risk-taking to unacceptable levels. This is simply one of the ways in which some market participants try to gain a competitive advantage. As one lawyer for a company charged with malfeasance stated in a meeting in my office (amazingly, this was intended as a winning defense): "You're right about our behavior, but we're not as bad as our competitors."

No major market problem has been resolved through self-regulation, because individual competitive behavior doesn't concern itself with the larger market. Individual actors care only about performing better than the next guy, doing whatever is permitted -- or will go undetected. Look at the major bubbles and market crises. Long-Term Capital Management, Enron, the subprime lending scandals: All are classic demonstrations of the bitter reality that greed, not self-discipline, rules where unfettered behavior is allowed.

Those who truly understand economics, as did Adam Smith, do not preach an absence of government participation. A market doesn't exist in a vacuum. Rather, a market is a product of laws, rules and enforcement. It needs transparency, capital requirements and fidelity to fiduciary duty. The alternative, as we are seeing, is anarchy.

One of the great advantages U.S. capital markets have enjoyed over the decades has been the view -- held worldwide -- that there was an underlying integrity to the representations market participants made, because the regulatory framework in which they were made was believed to provide genuine oversight. But as we all know, the laws requiring such integrity are meaningless without a government dedicated to enforcing them.

Second, our corporate governance system has failed. We need to reexamine each of the links in its chain. Boards of directors, compensation and audit committees, the trio of facilitators (lawyers, investment bankers and auditors) whose job it is to create the impression of legal compliance, and shareholders themselves -- all abdicated their responsibilities.

Institutional shareholders, in particular mutual funds, pension funds and endowments, must reengage in corporate governance. Over the past decade, arguably the sole challenge to corporate mismanagement and poor corporate strategies has come from private-equity firms or activist hedge funds. These firms were among the few shareholders or pools of capital willing to purchase and revamp encrusted corporate machines. So it shouldn't be surprising that the corporate world has taken a skeptical view of them -- especially short-selling hedge funds, which have often been a rare voice raising the alarm.

Boards of directors were also missing in action over the past decade; not only did they not provide answers, they all too often failed even to ask the appropriate questions. And the roles of compensation committees, of course, must be totally rethought. No longer can Garrison Keillor's brilliant observation about our kids -- that they are all above average -- apply to CEOs and propel failed leaders' paychecks through the roof. Today's momentary public oversight and outrage over executive compensation, while long overdue, is no substitute over the long term for firm standards set by compensation committees and boards of directors.

Finally, we need to completely overhaul the federal financial regulatory framework.

Let's leave aside the ideological hesitancy that has long hamstrung regulatory agencies. Today's balkanized regulatory framework for financial services no longer matches in any way the needs of a fully integrated global financial system. The divisions of the past -- commercial banking vs. investment banking vs. insurance vs. hedge funds vs. private equity -- have become distinctions without a difference. But these old boxes and formalities still determine how entities are viewed and regulated. It should surprise nobody that capital found the crevices in the regulatory framework. That is what capital is paid to do. But we failed to respond with a regulatory framework flexible enough to plug the leaks.

We do not need additional fragmented areas of federal regulation to handle hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds or derivatives. We need a unified approach that addresses the underlying issues: what kinds of leverage we wish to tolerate, how to measure risk, how much disclosure various trading products should provide. We cannot survive with the current system: the SEC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Fed, the Office of Thrift Supervision and on and on. We must go from the Rube Goldberg structure we now have to a sleek iPod design that is cleaner, has better operating software and may even look good.

We began to try to craft such a unified model in New York, as did Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in Washington last year. But it is urgent that we finish the job. Having flooded the market with cash and seen the government take a chunk of many of our largest financial institutions, we now need to craft the rules that will apply to all market participants.

Three overarching priorities should guide government actions in the new structure. First, we need better control of systemic risk. The currently splintered federal regulatory authority, the continued presence of off-balance-sheet transactions for financial entities (even post-Enron) and the failure to subject major players to any government oversight means that nobody can really understand the full risk facing the financial system.

Second, investors must be protected with adequate, accurate information. Firms must offer transparency both to individual investors and to government regulators.

And third, as Eric R. Dinallo, the superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, has wisely pointed out, we will have to step back from the current environment in which government has become a guarantor of all major risk. The so-called moral hazard will serve to devalue risk in the market, and this too will have a debilitating long-term effect on capital flows. Only if private actors have to bear the real risks they incur will the market function properly. We are now perilously close to nationalizing risk.

As the rules of modern capitalism are rewritten over the next year, those who benefit from the enormous flow of cash being spread throughout the U.S. economy must be expected to compete within a system of rules that creates a true market -- based on sound, skilled regulation, vigorous corporate governance and transparency.

Although mistakes I made in my private life now prevent me from participating in these issues as I have in the past, I very much hope and expect that President Obama and his new administration will have the strength and wisdom to do again what FDR did.

Eliot L. Spitzer was governor of New York from 2007-08 and state attorney general from 1999-2006.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:07 am

Not for nothing did a former executive of the company describe Kroll as "like a private CIA".

"Of course, there's lots of boring stuff too - corporate profiles, background checks on employees, data recovery," says a rival in the business, "But these are the ones that get the adrenaline going."

In the process, inevitably for a company employing large numbers of former CIA, FBI and Special Forces people, the company has occasionally been accused of misconduct - the bugging scandal in Brazil is just the latest in which Kroll Inc has been embroiled."

"In May last year, Julius Kroll received an offer he could not refuse. Marsh & McLennan, the New York insurance broker which claims to be the world's largest, took over Kroll for an eye-popping $US1.9 billion ($2.46 billion), more than $US100 million of which was pocketed by its founder.

Capitalised at $US6 billion, and with 60,000 employees in more than 100 countries - including Australia - Marsh & McLennan was the colossus of the industry, claiming a 40 per cent share of the global market for insurance broking.

But the company saw insurance as a mature market and wanted to expand into the related risk-management industry. No one could have foreseen when the takeover deal was signed in May last year that the sky was about to fall in.

Last October, New York's crusading district attorney, Eliot Spitzer, filed suit against Marsh & McLennan, accusing the company of having, for years, colluded with big insurance companies to "cheat customers in an elaborate charade of price fixing and bid rigging".

The three insurers he named were the giants American International Group, Zurich America Insurance Company and Ace Ltd. Adding spice to the story was the relationship between them: AIG was headed by the 79-year-old insurance industry legend Maurice "Hank" Greenberg; his son Jeffrey ran Marsh & McLennan, and; another son, Evan, was boss of Ace."


You know, THAT AIG, that the US government just socialized!
So, let me recap. Im saying that Kroll bought the German firm doing data recovery of financial transactions that happened on 9/11. They were confident they could recover the data (and I as a computer expert know that very likely, they would have - they had the disks at this time and knew what shape they were in) that would point to people who knew beforehand what would happen. Kroll is a known CIA/private intelligence operation of the US gov. And then AIG buys Kroll, AIG crashes in the latest economic shuffle, and US gov feels that it must rather socialize the whole firm than let its debtors take control of its assets. I wonder what other skeletons they have in their financial cabinets?

And you do know Spitzer, who, ahem, got caught with his pants around his ankles, and with his dick somewhere it didnt belong?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 95,00.html

I guess he pissed on the wrong shoes...


Quote:
"It is worth remembering what Sibel Edmonds told Jim Hogue: “I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money...”
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml , "Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate"


From this thread:
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... c&start=60
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:15 am

.

Im saying that Kroll bought the German firm doing data recovery of financial transactions that happened on 9/11.


You obviously are saying this, but far as I know it is untrue. Kroll did not buy Convar. Kroll bought Ontrack, the British subsidiary of Convar. Convar remained independent. Whether this purchase of Ontrack was part of a scheme to influence Convar or get access to the 9/11 data is nothing that we know. Convar either succeeded or failed in its data recovery assignments ordered by unspecified private clients and US government agencies, and provided these clients with whatever the results were confidentially. No one compelled Convar or the clients to give up any information about this matter, so they didn't.

Yet another black box in the absence of an investigation with proper powers of subpoena and discovery, and until there is such an investigation and discoslure, all we can do about it is speculate.

.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:32 am

JackRiddler: thanks for correcting! Appreciated...
Neverthless, the data isnt publicly released, and theres been no significant news of the recovery process.


But AIG did buy Kroll. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... /42403.htm

I dont think this changes the intrigue level of these connections too much..?
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests