Kucinich Prepared Statement In Today's Bank of America Hearing

Tyler Durden's picture

As a reminder, here is the link to the live webcast.


After reviewing over 400,000 pages of documents and interviewing the key players at Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, we have found evidence of possible securities law violations at Bank of America:

  • Bank of America relied on the November 12 forecast for Fourth Quarter ‘08, created by Merrill Lynch, that, omitted any forecast of how collateralized debt obligations, subprime mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps – would perform in the quarter.
  • The former Merrill CFO admitted to staff that the November 12 forecast was not, in fact, a valid forecast.
  • Bank of America knew at the time that the November 12 forecast was of “questionable validity.”
  • However, Bank of America did not do any actual financial analysis to make up for the Merrill omissions. Instead, Bank of America merely pulled a number out of thin air on November 13, which was recorded on the forecast document as the “gut” feeling of Neil Cotty, Bank of America’s Chief Accounting Officer. Bank
    of America simply created an assumption that Merrill Lynch’ illiquid assets would almost break even for November, thereby spreading October’s bad results over two months.
  • The attorneys at Bank of America and at Wachtell, Lipton did not question the financial information they were given, in spite of the glaring and obvious omission and the explicit reference to a “gut” feeling. They advised Bank of America not to make further disclosures to its shareholders in advance of the merger vote, based on the information in the deficient forecast and a “gut” feeling.

Within only weeks, however, reality crowded out wishful thinking. Merrill Lynch’s exotic investments continued to lose large amounts of money, causing Merrill to lose over $21 billion in just the Fourth Quarter. Bank of America went running to the U.S. Government for a rescue.

Full statement:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tommy's picture

Why, if it is not prosecuted, then it is not illegal.

It's like the NBA, if the ref doesn't blow the whistle, then it is not a foul.

The superstars can take five steps, and the rookies aren't allowed to play defense.  Sounds like too big to fail, with the hedgefunds and gold bugs as scapegoats.

dark pools of soros's picture

Travelling?  we takin' 'bout travelling??

Defense?  we talkin' 'bout defense??

next you wanna start talkin' 'bout PRACTICE

anynonmous's picture

Rep Leutkemeyer to Bair:

Have you been in to Goldman Sachs

Bair: no comment

Goldman Sachs is a Bank is it not

Bair: no ahhh we struggle with that


Anonymous's picture

Tell it to Obama Dennis, any time that lout feels like enforcing the laws he can. Democrats who want the system cleaned up need to destroy this president.

You Cant Handle the Truth's picture

Well, destroy is not the verb I'd use.  Pressure is adequate.

Let's do the math:  assuming the GOP could be relied on to vote as a block (which is by no means a foregone conclusion in this matter), Obama could be impeached in the House with 41 Democratic congresspersons.  That's a huge threshold to overcome, particularly when any effort to impeach could be impeded in committee the same way it was for Bush.

Assuming -- by some miracle -- that Obama was impeached, you would then need 26 non-GOP Senators to actually do anything more than investigate.  Conviction vote by 26 democratic senate-whores?  Not likely.  

And where would that get you, anyways?  Biden as president?  

Look, the system is totally rigged.  Once a candidate is elected to the presidency there is no effective solution to keeping them in check.  And Senators have even longer terms to ignroe their constituents.  We have until 2012 until Obama feels any pressure at all, and then there is no guarantee at all that the Democratic party will provide any realistic primary challenge, or that the GOP will be able to run someone who can avoid looking like a crazy (e.g. Sarah Palin.)

Short of a political crisis brought on by secession, (good luck with that!), the only realistic political path is a constitutional convention.  


Take a look at the requirements.  And consider that Congress can simply ignore the Constitutional requirements and leave it to the Supreme Court, ultimately.

Again, the whole system is fucked.  It always has been.  It's just that the powers that be have the majority of Americans so scared, distracted, and mislead that they can pull off this kind of crap in the wide open and no one -- NO ONE -- can do anything about it.


Psquared's picture

If they were to impeach Biden as well ... then gasp ... Nancy Pelosi would be President. Sometimes, the devil you know ....

Psquared's picture

From Wikipedia article referenced above:

Because no Article V convention has ever been convened, there are many unanswered questions about how such a convention would function in practice. One major question is whether the scope of the convention's subject matter could be limited. The consensus is that Congress probably does not have the power to limit a convention, because the language of Article V leaves no discretion to Congress, merely stating that Congress "shall" call a convention when the proper number of state applications have been received. Comments made at the time the Constitution was adopted indicate that it was understood when the Constitution was drafted that Congress would have no discretion. In The Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton stated that when the proper number of applications had been received, Congress was "obliged" to call a convention and that "nothing is left to the discretion of Congress." . James Madison also affirmed Hamilton's contention that Congress was obligated to call a convention when the requisite number of states requested it. In the North Carolina debates about ratifying the Constitution, James Iredell, who subsequently became one of the founding members of the Supreme Court, stated that when two-thirds of states have applied to Congress for a convention, Congress is "under the necessity of convening one" and that they have "no option."

The way things operate in this country I am not sure I would want a Constitutional Convention. First, they could re-write the entire constitution into something totally different than what we have now. Second, if something were irregular the President could call out the army and influence the delegates. Third, special interest groups would most certainly influence delegates.

This is not 1787 anymore. This is the age of the internet.

God help us.

You Cant Handle the Truth's picture

Actually, any amendment proposed at a constitutional convention would still need ratification by the states as per a normal amendment.  And it doesn't put the whole constitution up for grabs, for that very reason.

THe whole point of the constitutional convention is to bypass Congress.  The problem is that it takes Congress to respond to a call for a constitutional convention.

Anonymous's picture

Is that how the "profits" the bonuses are based on are determined?..ie. "out of thin air"?

Screwball's picture

Just tuned in.  Did I miss it, are they done, or is it the wrong link?  11:20 and I see anything.

carbonmutant's picture

"Glaring omissions and inaccurate financial data" is the Hallmark of this administration.