In her 2000 U.S. Senate race, Clinton vacuumed in more than $1.1 million from the securities and investment industry, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That made her the third- largest recipient of Wall Street money of any member of Congress or congressional candidate running in that entire election cycle, which concluded 10 months before 9/11.So that's a fun parlor trick to amaze your friends with and all. But, it should also be noted, Hillary didn't just lie about her financial relationship with the banksters. She also lied about her own policy proposal.
In both debates and numerous interviews, Clinton uses as part of her rejection of breaking up the big banks, as well as proof that her plan for financial regulation is more superior and comprehension, versions of this quote:There's plenty more for you to read there but I didn't want to pull a ginormous quote from the post. The point is Clinton is pretending she's taking a "more comprehensive approach" than just breaking up the banking trusts because, well, Hillary doesn't want to break up the banking trusts. And the reason for that is Hillary Clinton is a goddamned terrible monster who has made a lot of money from big banking trusts over the years.
Look at what happened in ’08, AIG a big insurance company, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank helped to bring our economy down. So I wanna look at the whole problem. And that’s why my proposal is much more comprehensive than anything else that’s been put forth.This is the kind of thing smart people say when they want to dupe the ignorant by sounding informed. But upon any reasonable inspection, the statement becomes completely absurd.
Let us first be so intemperate as to point out that, in the eyes of the federal government, AIG was a bank. They bought a small savings & loan in Wilton, Connecticut, explicitly so they could choose the Office of Thrift Supervision as their regulator. OTS’ oversight was so laughable that they were the only federal agency eliminated by Dodd-Frank.
Guess what? Lehman had a thrift too, Aurora Bank, which was ALSO regulated by OTS!
I should also note that AIG couldn’t be regulated as an insurance holding company at the federal level because Gramm-Leach-Bliley expressly prohibited it. That facilitated AIG shopping around for the worst possible regulator, one that wouldn’t delve deeply into its credit default swap and securities-lending activities.
(The Volcker rule actually forced AIG to sell this thrift, incidentally, and they do have increased regulatory oversight at the federal level through being labeled a nonbank SIFI, which unlike some other firms they don’t appear to be so concerned about.)
So even on Clinton’s terms, she’s dissembling. But the real problem here is that just stating that AIG and Lehman weren’t banks tells you absolutely nothing about the role of money center banks in the crisis.
But, sure, "9/11 9/11 9/11" should shut down that line of inquiry. 2016 is going to be awesome.