LAWSUIT: OBAMA ROBBED PRIVATE INVESTORS TO FUND OBAMACARE

Private investments seized to save Obamacare

| Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 28, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two lawsuits proceeding through the federal courts threaten to expose and disrupt a scheme the Obama administration concocted in 2012 to confiscate all the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac – the government’s two mortgage giants – with a plan to divert billions of dollars to pay essential Obamacare insurance subsidies that Congress had refused to fund.

On July 9, 2013, Fairholme Funds, Inc., a mutual fund that held preferred stock issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac,” filed suit against the U.S. government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment for their property when the Obama administration, in the so-called “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, confiscated all Fannie and Freddie profits.

In 2008, when the economy went into recession over the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, HERA, to save Fannie and Freddie by a federal bailout that placed the two Government Sponsored Entities, GSEs, into government conservatorship, with the U.S. Treasury recapitalizing Fannie and Freddie by issuing to the GSEs $187.5 billion in senior preferred stock with a 10% dividend designed to repay the U.S. Treasury over time.

But in 2012, when Fannie and Freddie became profitable, as the mortgage market returned with rigorous credit underwriting and a zero-interest rate environment maintained by the Federal Reserve, the Obama administration initiated a “Net Worth Sweep,” designed to confiscate 100% of the profits generated by Fannie and Freddie.

The result was that private shareholders like Fairholme Funds were paid nothing on their Fannie and Freddie stock.

In August 2012, the Obama administration engineered an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements creating a variable dividend that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab all Fannie and Freddie profits, regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.

In 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, ruled the Department of Health and Human Services could not use taxpayer dollars to pay Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress refused to fund.

To solve this problem, the Obama administration defied the District Court by diverting profits confiscated from Fannie and Freddie to pay the Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress had refused to fund.

To block the progress of the Fairholme lawsuit, the Obama administration asserted executive privilege, seeking to withhold some 77,945 documents from the public view, including some 12,251 documents the government wanted completely withheld (even from the federal court).

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit asserted the government’s purpose in seeking to keep the documents secret was to conceal the government’s motives in seizing from private and institutional shareholders their stock dividends in Fannie and Freddie the government wanted to seize.

“The government has asserted the information could be ‘disruptive to markets.’ However, it is difficult to imagine how discussions by officials as far back as eight years ago and emails on matters as mundane as daily press clips could impact today’s markets, which, by definition operate on the very latest information,” wrote constitutional law scholar John Yoo. “Executive privilege is available for presidents to use in highly sensitive matters, and its use is constrained by specific procedures.”

“In the pending litigation on the Net Worth Sweep, the government has applied this privilege in an overly broad and unjustified manner,” Yoo continued. “Either federal officials are trying to cover up something they know is illegal, or we are witnessing an unprecedented and disturbing obsession with secrecy.”

On Oct. 4, 2016, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., gave her first order demanding the release of some of the documents that the government sought to withhold – documents the New York Times reported reached “the highest levels of the Obama administration.”

The New York Times further reported the government initially had argued that in seizing Fannie and Freddie, it had acted to protect taxpayers from future losses because the companies were in “a death spiral” and taxpayers needed protection from future losses.

But documents Judge Sweeney forced to be released made clear the government moved to seize all earnings of Fannie and Freddie just before the two mortgage giants were about to become profitable.

Fairholme and the other plaintiffs in the case had asked Judge Sweeney to review a sample of 56 documents in the case to determine if the government had a legitimate argument to seal the documents.

After her review, Judge Sweeney ruled that the documents should be released because Fairholme had an “overwhelming” need for the documents and no other source of available evidence “would similarly inform their understanding” of the events surrounding the profit sweep.

On Jan. 30, 2017  a three-judge panel for of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit ruled unanimously that 48 of the 56 documents were not privileged, but should be released to the plaintiffs.

In writing their order, the three-judge panel expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs’ argument that the documents the government sought to seal would reveal (if made public) that Fannie and Freddie were not in a threat of a “death spiral” to insolvency when the Net Worth Sweep was ordered by the government in 2012.

Instead, the three-judge panel suggested the respondents should have access to the 48 documents in their attempt to prove the GSEs were reporting substantial profits at the time that were more than sufficient to cover the Treasury’s original 10% dividend guarantee and potentially to pay dividends to the other shareholders as well.

At issue was the plaintiff’s argument the Treasury appropriated the stock held by private investors to generate what the Treasury knew would be a massive return on the investment to the government.

FannieFreddieSecrets.org, a website created to make easily readable the documents Judge Sweeney through a series of rulings starting in October 2016, has revealed public archives and a deposition from Susan McFarland, Fannie’s former chief financial officer, from July 2015.

In her deposition, McFarland refuted projections made by Grant Thornton, the accounting firm the government had hired to do a financial analysis on Fannie and Freddie, speculating that Fannie Mae was going to lose $13 billion in 2012, the year in which the Obama administration decided to start confiscating Fannie and Freddie earnings.

McFarland revealed in the deposition that she had told high-level officials at the Treasury on Aug. 8, 2012, that the company (Fannie Mae) was “now in a sustainable profitability, that we would be able to deliver sustainable profits over time.”  McFarland added that while Fannie was “not there yet,” she as financial officer “could see positive things occurring.”

A letter from then Secretary of the Treasury Jacob L. Lew, addressed to then House Speaker John Boehner dated May 17, 2013, also rejects the government contention the Fannie and Freddy were in “a death spiral” at the time of government confiscation.

In the letter, written at a time when the Treasury was preparing to engage in “extraordinary measures” because Congress had not yet authorized an increase in the statutory debt limit, Lew explained to then-House Speaker Boehner that Treasury had just learned “last week” that it was anticipating a payment of $60 billion from Fannie Mae to be delivered on June 28, 2013.

In another document unsealed by Judge Sweeney, a Grant Thornton, purportedly showing Freddie Mac’s deteriorating financial condition, contained a marginal note handwritten by an unidentified Grant Thornton employee, saying: “3 yrs. of cum. profits, you start to think about releasing the valuation allow. The valuation allow. When probably 2013, 2014.”

In the second case, originally filed as Perry Capital LLC vs. Lew (now, Perry Capital LLC, for and on behalf of Investment Funds for which it acts as investment manager, Appellant v. Steven T. Mncuhin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Et Al., Appellees) the investment manager Perry Capital LLC sued the Treasury Department over the decision made in the “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, and specifically the decision made on August 17, 2012, through which the Obama administration succeeded in engineering an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that resulted in the private and institutional shareholders of Fannie and Freddie being shut off from receiving future dividends on their Fannie and Freddie stock.

On Feb. 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the Obama administration had acted within its authority under HERA.

While this decision was widely viewed as a victory for the government, the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals was very narrow, arguing only that the statutory claims of Perry Capital LLC were barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review.

Instead of dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, the Circuit Court remanded the case to the lower District Court to litigate contract-based claims regarding their rights as shareholders to have received Fannie and Freddie dividends.

Translated into ordinary English, the Circuit Court punted, sending the case back to the District Court where the Perry’s contractual claims regarding the rights of shareholders to receive dividends could be properly litigated at trial.

In what has become a complicated case, legal analysts still maintain that at the District Court level, Perry LLC stands an excellent chance to force the Treasury “to return the money, which it had no right to receive in the first place.”

RISE OF THE LIBERAL ‘TEA PARTY’…

By Paul Kane

Grass-roots movements can be the life and death of political leaders.

It’s a well-worn story now about how John A. Boehner, then House minority leader, joined a rising star in his caucus, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, in April 2009 for one of the first major tea party protests in the California Republican’s home town of Bakersfield.

A little more than six years later, after they surfed that wave into power, the movement consumed both of them. Boehner was driven out of the House speaker’s office and McCarthy’s expected succession fell apart, leaving him stuck at the rank of majority leader.

Democrats are well aware of that history as they try to tap the energy of the roiling liberal activists who have staged rallies and marches in the first three weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency.

What if they can fuse these protesters, many of whom have never been politically active, into the liberal firmament? What if a new tea party is arising, with the energy and enthusiasm to bring out new voters and make a real difference at the polls, starting with the 2018 midterm elections?

The women’s marches that brought millions onto streets across the countrythe day after Trump’s inauguration — spurred organically through social media — opened Democratic leaders’ eyes to the possibilities.

With a 10-day recess beginning next weekend, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has instructed her members to hold a “day of action” in their districts, including town halls focused on saving the Affordable Care Act. The following weekend, Democratic senators and House members will hold protests across the country, hoping to link arms with local activists who have already marched against Trump.

“It was important to us to make sure that we reach out to everyone we could, to visit with them, to keep them engaged, to engage those that maybe aren’t engaged,” Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters at a Democratic retreat in Baltimore that ended Friday. The trick is to keep them aiming their fire at Republicans and Trump, not turning it into a circular firing squad targeting fellow Democrats.

“Now we want people to run for office, to volunteer and to vote,” Luján added.

It’s too early to tell which direction this movement will take, but there are some similarities to the early days of the conservative tea party.

In early 2009, as unemployment approached 10 percent and the home mortgage industry collapsed, the tea party emerged in reaction to the Wall Street bailout. It grew throughout the summer of 2009 as the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pushed toward passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Many of the protesters were newly engaged, politically conservative but not active with their local GOP and often registered as independents. Their initial fury seemed directed exclusively at Democrats, given that they controlled all the levers of power in Washington at the time; the protesters famously provoked raucous showdowns at Democratic town halls over the August 2009 recess.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s first brush with the anti-Trump liberal movement came in a similar fashion to Boehner and McCarthy’s Bakersfield foray in 2009. Originally slated to deliver a brief speech at the women’s march in New York, Schumer instead spent 4 1/2 hours on the streets there, talking to people he had never met. By his estimate, 20 percent of them did not vote in November.

That, however, is where Schumer must surely hope the similarities end.

By the spring and summer of 2010, the tea party rage shifted its direction toward Republican primary politics. One incumbent GOP senator lost his primary, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) defeated the Kentucky establishment favorite, and three other insurgents knocked off other seasoned Republicans in Senate primaries (only to then lose in general elections).

One force that helped the tea party grow was a collection of Washington-based groups with some wealthy donors, notably the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity, who positioned themselves as the self-declared leaders of the movement. For the next few years, they funded challenges to Republican incumbents, sparking a civil war that ran all the way through the 2016 GOP presidential primaries.

Guess Who: New Report Exposes 6 Top Republicans on George Soros Payroll!

By Harry Hibbs

In a report just out, some major Republicans have been caught suckling at the teat of George Soros. The report accessed financial records from the Soros Fund and found that not only was the former Nazi Socialist financing most of the Democrat liberal nut jobs in our government, but that it was also stroking some 13 different Republicans.

A non-profit, non-partisan research group which is based out of Washington D. C. has published a list which looks like a list of Who’s Who in the Republican Party. Of course at the top of the list are some names that you will recognize from recent events. You know the jerks that keep going behind our Presidents back and trying to make him look bad, or are withholding their full support from his programs.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-1-20-38-pm

At the top of the list is our old friend the Vietnam War Hero, Sen. John McCain, who seems intent in stabbing his country in the back just like the good old days. Another of the treasonous group is of course, Marco“which way is the wind blowing” Rubio, followed closely by Paul“no tax relief” Ryan, and John “I should have been the nominee” Kasich.

But the Soros list also includes other names which explain a lot, like everyone’s favorite Bush, Jeb. You can also quickly find John Boehner and the ever compromising Lindsey Graham. The report revealed that while George Soros is busy funding almost all the Democrats, his influence has even penetrated the ranks of the so-called opposition to a very significant extent.

Not surprisingly, all of the names revealed to receive funding fromGeorge Soros  have a record of openly opposing Mr. Trump, not only as a candidate, but as the President. All have at one time or another taken cheap shots at Mr. Trumps plans and his character and have a track record of opposition to the President. And an interesting new addition to the payoff list along with Marco Rubio is Carlos Curbelo also of Florida.

Even as Sen. McCain continues to attempt to back-stab and embarrass the President and his policies on the world stage, we now have proof that it has nothing to do with what he feels is right, but what he feels will get him the most money from George Soros. In fact it has come to light, that McCain has been on the Soros payroll for the last 16 years.

In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s “you know her husband Lurch served in Vietnam” Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations. McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide remuneration to staff and key campaign operatives between elections.

But McCain’s treachery gets much worse. According to TPM, in 2002 the Open Society Institute gave $300,000 in grants to various groups that were defending McCain’s campaign finance law against a deluge of legal challenges, defending McCain from financial ruin. In short, making it obvious that the “good” Senator has been bought and paid for by George Soros. No wonder he spent the election season railing against Trump and defending Soros’s agenda.

Bill Maher: ‘I’ll ‘F*cking Kill Anthony Weiner’ if Clinton Loses

by JEROME HUDSON

Bill Maher live-streamed his #WhinyLittleBitch stand-up comedy special on Facebook on Wednesday, during which he unloaded on Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka, Republican voters and disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.

“I mean, what does it take? A racist, a liar, a tax cheat, a draft-dodger, a deadbeat, a Russian agent, and a rapist. You know we’re a nuclear power, right? These are red flags,” the Real Time host joked to an audience at Los Angeles comedy club Largo.

“You know, I hope that when we look back on this, it’s going to be like… Trump is like Y2K. Right?” he continued.

“We thought it was going to be a disaster, we sh*t our pants, and then it was a bunch of nothing,” Maher said. “But who knows? Even if he loses, his army of whiny little bitches… these people are crazy. They think if Hillary is elected, this is the end of civilization, right? They’re so brainwashed that we’re living in this country of disaster where there’s always a cold knife at your heart and a brown d*ck at your lips.”

No one was safe during Maher’s 45-minute act.

He referred to Trump’s campaign surrogates Dr. Ben Carson, Kellyanne Conway, Rudolph Giulianni, and Mike Pence as “flying monkeys.”

But perhaps Maher’s most cutting commentary was aimed at Weiner, whose alleged sexually explicit online conversation with a 15-year-old girl spurred the FBI’s renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Maher called the disgraced former Congressman “the c*ck that ended the world” and said he would “f*cking kill” him if Hillary Clinton lost the election.

Maher’s live-streamed standup routine competed for viewers with Game 7 of the World Series, but managed to garner more than 1.5 million views on Facebook.

Toward the end of his set, Maher offered up lackluster support for Clinton and compared her email scandal to New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s “Deflategate” scandal.

“Is she completely honest? Well, she’s deflated a few balls in her time,” Maher said of Clinton. “But it’s a minor crime and she’s a great quarterback! She would be a great president, or at least a good one, not a disastrous one.”

Paul Ryan Danger…

screen-shot-2016-10-27-at-6-21-12-pm

BY SCOTT WONG

Republican lawmakers who voted against Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for Speaker aren’t saying whether they’ll vote for him in a new election next year.

Nine House Republicans rejected Ryan in the special election to replace Speaker John Boehner(R-Ohio) one year ago Saturday.

Eight of them will have a chance to vote for Ryan again.Rep. Dave Brat (Va.), one of the eight, said his public criticisms of Ryan have never been personal.

Like he did last year, Brat plans to present all leadership candidates five policy requests on things like trade, immigration and regular order. He’ll support those candidates who pledge to uphold those policies.

“Whoever signs off on those, I’ll vote yes,” Brat said.

Reps. Randy Weber (Texas), Ted Yoho (Fla.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Bill Posey (Fla.) and Curt Clawson (Fla.) are the other Republicans who voted for Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) in last year’s vote.

Aides to Weber, Yoho and Massie said they did not know how their bosses would vote in the next Speaker’s election.

Spokespersons for Gohmert, Jones, Posey and Gosar did not respond to emails seeking comment, though Gosar has been openly critical of Ryan for working with Democrats to pass a stopgap government-funding bill.

“How’d that work out for John Boehner?” Gosar, a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus, told The Hill in September.

Clawson is not running for reelection and will not have a vote.

Ryan is almost certain to face a tougher reelection fight after a tumultuous year in which he has publicly feuded with Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.

Republicans will first hold closed-door leadership elections next month, where only a majority vote within the conference is needed for victory.

The more critical vote will come in January, a public roll call in which lawmakers will shout out the name of their choice for Speaker from the House floor. Ryan will need 218 votes for victory.

With the current 246-seat GOP majority, losing all eight votes isn’t such a big deal.

It would leave Ryan with 238 votes, 20 more than the threshold he needs.

But with Republicans widely expected to lose seats in the Nov. 8 election, Ryan is likely to have much less room for error.

With a 226-seat majority, for example, Ryan would be right at 218 if all eight Republicans vote against him.

Trump may add to Ryan’s problems.

The businessman has repeatedly criticized Ryan’s leadership and was stung after the Speaker said he would not longer defend Trump after a 2005 tape emerged in which the GOP nominee speaks lewdly about groping and kissing women.

Win or lose on Nov. 8, Trump could put pressure on House Republicans to oppose Ryan in a speakership contest.

The presence of Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon is another factor.

As an executive with Breitbart news, Bannon has made it his mission to depose Ryan. He is unlikely to stop causing trouble for the Speaker after the election.

A big question mark is what the House Freedom Caucus decides to do. The conservative group, which is credited for pushing Boehner out last year, endorsed Webster for Speaker last year. But after Ryan beat Webster in the closed-door, internal vote, most of the group’s leaders supported Ryan in the public floor vote.

Freedom leaders now are pressing Ryan to delay the House GOP leadership elections until after the lame-duck session. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and other conservatives say they want to see how Ryan handles a fiscal 2017 spending bill and other items after the election before voting to give him another two years. But there is no indication that Ryan plans to grant their request.

Other Freedom members, like Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), are still furious with Ryan for ditching Trump.

“I have not made up my mind how I’ll vote yet,” DesJarlais said. “It depends on who runs.”

So far, no viable candidate has stepped up to challenge Ryan in the Speaker’s race. Webster, the former Speaker of the Florida state House, indicated he probably wouldn’t run again for the top job on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t think the conference is interested in a principle-based, member-driven Congress,” Webster told The Hill on Wednesday.

Webster is one of a number of other lawmakers whose votes will be closely watched in the Speakership election.

The central Florida lawmaker said he’s focused “100 percent” on his congressional race and hasn’t yet thought of whether he’ll vote to give Ryan another two-year term.

Republican Jim Banks, who’s the favorite to win an open House seat in Indiana, plans to join the Freedom Caucus but said backing Ryan is a no-brainer. The two recently campaigned together in the Hoosier State.
“Yes, I plan to support Paul Ryan,” Banks said. “He is the substantive leader our party and country needs right now.”

McConnell: Conservatives Mislead by Talk Show Hosts

Published on Jun 8, 2016

According to Mitch McConnell, talk radio is to blame for republican voters having “unrealistic expectations”.

screen-shot-2015-07-24-at-3-26-27-pm

nagra bagra

I am loooong ready for McConnell to be gone….KENTUCKY!!!!!
Thomas Taylor

gop bought and paid for by the globalist
Eric Madsen

Again, Conservative radio and TV are to blame for their mistakes. I know Levin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc are sick of being Obama’s and the establishments scape goats. We are all tired of this. I’m I the only one who sees this.
Joe Price

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM