Officials Refuse to Provide Details on Secret Previous Bailout

[ensho]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5930875


Fed Made $30 Billion Deal to Manage Assets of the Collapsed Bear Sterns



Top government officials are refusing to provide details on a secretive deal it made to manage billions in assets from an earlier bailout.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has been pressing top officials for months to provide details on a deal the Federal Reserve made for a private firm to manage $30 billion in financial assets from the collapsed investment bank Bear Stearns, as part of an arrangement to facilitate J.P. Morgan Chase's purchase of the bank in March.

The Federal Reserve announced at the time that it had contracted with BlackRock Financial Management Inc. to manage the assets. Since then, it has declined to share any further details on the arrangement with anyone – not reporters, not the public, and not Sen. Grassley.
----------------------

there is a pic

if only they didn't smirk at us as they rob us.

[ensho]

1. can we get the media to report this?? or not

a shout out to CNN's money women. yes, its true, they have a number of women who comment on money.

[Trillo]

2. Why would they keep it secret if there isn't some illegality?

Prove illegality, implicate the Federal Reserve, and perhaps you prove it's a money-laundering operation. Does secrecy = illegality?

The spokesman, Andrew Williams, declined to share any information on the arrangement with BlackRock, saying, "Our general principle is we don't disclose contracts we make with outside contractors."

The nondelegation doctrine comes to mind, how in earlier years delegation of congressional powers was disallowed, but over time the Supreme Court seemed to change it's mind.

In the 1989 case Mistretta v. United States,<6> the Court stated that:

Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority."

How much has the Supreme Court changed it's mind from its earlier rulings on delegation? Can an authority that Congress delegated legally be above present congressional investigation? If so, how can "boundaries of this delegated authority" be enforced?

Perhaps this is why Congress's approval rating is so low.

[OakCliffDem]

3. So they spent a few billion on a bailout that didn't work and now they want to keep it a secret?

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
:sarcasm: