Hold Lifted on Barofsky Nomination

/47 Comments/in /by

Two updates from the hold placed on the TARP Inspector General’s nomination.

First, POGO reports the hold has been lifted.

Sources tell us that the secret hold blocking Neil Barofsky’s nomination as the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) has been lifted!  Stay tuned for more…

Second, during the Senate Banking hearing on the auto industry, Jon Tester just said that someone "in this body" had a hold on Barofsky’s nomination. Which supports the widely-held suspicions that Jim Bunning was the guy who put the hold on. (Note, he hasn’t shown up yet, either.)

image_print
47 replies
  2. Neil says:

    Its hard to imagine whoever put the hold on had a reason they’d admit to.

    Citizens of India put the fear of Shiva in their politicians. We don’t. What’s it going to take to break the mindset that this is their government to wrangle for their benefit?

    • Petrocelli says:

      Have you seen that latest bit of civil disobedience in India ? People are encouraged to vote “NO” at the polls. If the amount of NO votes outnumber the margin of victory, all candidates are permanently removed and there has to be a re- vote.

      Losing their jobs will put the fear of GOD into politicians …

      • Neil says:

        The founders hated the angry mob as much as they hated the tyranny of the king. Our democracy keeps the angry mob at arms length. It’s probably a good thing.

        Our democracy was also designed to keep the president from acting like a tyrannical emperor. Ha.

        How Democrats believe the answer is to move on, forgive and forget, look forward, build a better America without accountability to the law for criminal acts over the last eight is political and does not protect the Constitution, it devalues it.

  6. BoxTurtle says:

    Whatever the Holder wanted, I wonder if he/she got it? This could have been a reaction to the publicity, in which case we’ll see an attempt to gain “whatever” by other means. Or it could be that “whatever” was obtained.

    If we knew what “whatever” was, we’d know for sure who. It doesn’t make much sense that BushCo would work hard to delay this, even if the fellow was in office today it would be well after 1/20 before he issued anything authorative…and then it’s Obama’s problem.

    Boxturtle (Shiva?!? We put the fear of LETTERMAN into McBush, let’s see ‘em top that)

    • Neil says:

      Good one BoxTurtle – Lettermen put the fear of Lettermen into McBush. Can you name another moment in the campaign when a candidate was actually cornered and asked to comparison their rhetoric about their opponent and their own actions? These moments are far too rare. Would you agree? About Shiva… Shiva’s a god to Hindus… fear of god.

  7. FrankProbst says:

    Which supports the widely-held suspicions that Jim Bunning was the guy who put the hold on. (Note, he hasn’t shown up yet, either.)

    Credit where credit is due: This belief is only “widely-held” because talkingpointsmemo decided to try to smoke out the “holder”, yes? No thanks to the MSM on this one.

    • MadDog says:

      This belief is only “widely-held” because talkingpointsmemo decided to try to smoke out the “holder””, yes?

      Actually, TPM was slow on the uptake. In Marcy’s post “Uncle Toobz? Are You Obstructing Oversight of TARP?” on 11/24/08, here’s my comment:

      And it might be this Repug congresscritter:

      The radical shift in the focus of the $700 billion economic bailout package led one senator Wednesday to question what the young prosecutor tapped to be the program’s inspector general will be investigating.

      “I wonder why taxpayers should pay $50 million to a watchdog who has nothing to watch,” said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky…

      (My Bold)

    • emptywheel says:

      No, actually, around here, that suspicion arose because MadDog pointed out that Bunning was badmouthing oversight and said Barofsky wouldn’t be needed–and did so 4 days before TPM realized there was a hold.

  9. rwcole says:

    Does anyone know what appointments can be “held” and which not? Apparently judicial appointments and embassorships can be held_ what others can be?

    • BoxTurtle says:

      Any appointment can be held. It’s considered rude to do so without good reason, which might explain Testers testiness.

      Boxturtle (Well, SOMEONE had to say it)

      • eCAHNomics says:

        Ford doesn’t need a loan, at least as of today. They’re testifying to preserve the suppliers, which would muck up Ford a lot if they failed. I think the fact that Ford doesn’t have a tin cup out accounts for the prez’s tin ear in his testimony.

        • dosido says:

          oh, thanks for the tune up! Who was it that actually spoke well of the unions a few moments ago? I thought that was refreshing.

          (I listen with my back to the teevee so i don’t always catch who is speaking)

          thanks.

        • eCAHNomics says:

          Interestingly, there’s no wiki on Gettlefinger, otherwise I would have linked. The articles that come up when you google him are a whole mishmash, and I don’t know enough about him to pick out a representative one.

  13. SaltinWound says:

    Holds are fake, right? Reid only pays attention to them when he wants to. I don’t believe there is a Constitutional requirement to honor holds. I’d love to change the way we frame holds to put more pressure on Reid. Or if he is going to insist on honoring them, honor Feingold’s and the holds of progressives as well.

  14. SaltinWound says:

    But we don’t have to frame it the way they do. If holds are not absolute and can even be a convenient dodge, why are we talking about them as if they are real? We help their mystification when we do that.

  15. dosido says:

    Oh you didn’t need to bother with that. But then I was inspired to google it myself and found this little bit on UAW’s own site:

    Gettelfinger is an outspoken advocate for national single-payer health care that would make health care accessible and affordable for every man, woman and child in the United States. In January 2006, he called for a “Marshall Plan” to renew America’s industrial base through incentives to manufacture energy-saving advanced technology vehicles and their key components in the United States. Under Gettelfinger’s leadership, the UAW has continued its fight for fair trade agreements that include provisions for workers’ rights and environmental provisions; and the union has loudly criticized the corporate global chase for the lowest wage which creates a race to the bottom that no workers, in any country, can win.

  16. JimWhite says:

    The saddest point here, to me, is that Barofsky is entirely unlikely to provide meaningful oversight since he is another member of Paulson’s Goldenman Club. For there to have been a hold on such a meaningless nomination is beyond pitiful.

    At least according to his Wiki page, Bunning did have an excellent curve ball back in the day…

  18. foothillsmike says:

    Was the guy from Moodys that just testified involved in the ratings of mortgages? If so why is he not in jail?

  19. dosido says:

    Dodd is all over the auto execs request for TARP funds, if I’m hearing correctly. the plot thickens.

  20. Professor Foland says:

    One odd thing. I remember Bunning be pretty brutal to Paulson during the 9/23 TARP proposal hearing in the Senate Banking Committee. (Does anyone know how I can find a transcript of it?) So was Bunning sandbagging during the questioning?

  21. Mary says:

    33 – yep
    38 – it was playing well in KY to be against anything to do with the financial bailout, so Bunning was playing to the home crowd since McConell couldn’t. As a matter of fact, during the elections here, it was Dem (at least, Chuck Schumer’s pick to play a Dem) candidate Lunsford who was running ad after ad attacking the bailout that Obama was voting for and supporting.

    OT – Mukasey is all on board with the Obamites that there really isn’t any reason for pardons, bc no one is going to do anything, anyway. I’m also wondering how domestic pardons would enter into to foreign investigations and solidify jurisdiction on some claims, with the US having made its “final act” by pardoning?

    In any event, undeterred by being stricken dumb in front of the Federalist Society while advocating for torture, Mukasey opines:

    Mr. Mukasey, whose nomination as attorney general last year was threatened by his refusal to say whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, said the lawyers who authorized the surveillance and interrogation programs had done so in the belief that they were following the law.

    “In those circumstances,” he said, “there is no occasion to consider prosecution, and there is no occasion to consider pardon.”

    “If the word goes out to the contrary,” he said, “then people are going to get the message, which is that if you come up with an answer that is not considered desirable in the future you might face prosecution, and that creates an incentive not to give an honest answer but to give an answer that may be acceptable in the future. It also creates some incentive in people not to ask in the first place.”

    Awww – isn’t that cute? So, I’m guessing the CIA officer who had to be reprimanded for treating the torture sessions as personal entertainment events just thought she was following the law, the CIA officer who had his dead torture victim dumped in an unmarked grave, the disappeared children, the human experimentation with drugs and abuse, all with the WH’s direct knowledge, since at least the fall fo 2002, that it was making massive “mistakes” about the terrorism involvement of those it was rounding up and torturing. The lies to Congress, the lies to even the Sup Ct (Clement’s assertions even while the Arar case was pending) the destruction of evidence, the “classification” of legal analysis, Haynes proceeding in the face of every single top JAG saying he was wrong, and on and on.

    Incredible.

    • JimWhite says:

      Indeed on the Mukasey point. I mentioned on Greenwald’s thread this morning that this statement from Mukasey would be the equivalent of one of us saying in court: “Your honor, my attorney informed me the speed limit in that school zone was 75 mph, not 15 mph, so those deaths are not my fault.” I should have added that Mukasey also would excuse the attorney who rendered the opinion, too. After all, it was produced in good faith and all that.

  22. Mary says:

    41 – “good faith” apparently being the kind that doesn’t necessarily strike you dumb in public while you are praising torturers.

  23. jdmckay says:

    I find it remarkable that Dodd had in hand only non-certifiable wage difs between transplants and GM in Kentucky (+/- 3 p/hr) and nothing else.

    How can they possible even consider in an intelligent manner Corker’s hypothetical, or anything else, w/out hard information on stuff like that.

  24. Mary says:

    Thanks Prof – I have primarily those newagey versions, but in my soul, I figured there was some dumbstrucking somewhere.

    A People of Unclean Lips. That really pretty much says it.

Comments are closed.