« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
SEC Chair To Lawmaker: Madoff Hearing "Cannot Have Been Satisfactory For You"
Remember that weird moment during yesterday's Madoff hearings, when the SEC's top lawyer, Andy Vollmer, declined to answer questions, and kinda sorta implied he was asserting executive privilege, before backing off that claim when pressed by lawmakers? The moment that provoked Rep. Gary Ackerman's blunt assessment: "We thought the enemy was Mr. Madoff. I think it's you"?
One staffer described the Vollmer moment to TPMmuckraker as a "bombshell" within the agency's headquarters.
And it looks like the SEC is a little embarrassed about it -- and about the general evasiveness of other agency brass in their testimony yesterday.
Check out this letter, which the SEC's new chair, Mary Schapiro, sent to the committee last night.
Schapiro tells lawmakers that the hearing "cannot have been satisfactory for you." She admits that there needs to be a full accounting of what went wrong, and offers to meet with the lawmakers, at their earliest convenience, to "determine a course forward that will meet all of our interests."
As for the Vollmer issue itself, an agency spokesman confirmed that he wasn't claiming the privilege, but couldn't offer any further explanation, saying he'd get back to us.
Josh
Zachary
Seems stupid a public agency attorney would claim executive privilege in any case. Guess this goes to the competence of the agency though.
February 5, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do not let this newsitem roll off your list before it is brought to the attention of many sites. This is a HUGE deal. I would go so far as to suggest that it could jeopardize the entire financial market system and Obama's presidency. He has run on TRANSPARENCY! His SEC just showed up and refused to testify to Congress. What happened to oversight? Is he going to allow this behaviour to continue? Does he even know that they quasi--kinda tried to declare executive privilege in his name? How bad could what they're hiding be? REAL BAD. Something that would scare people out of the market and indicate that the Madoff situation will not be a one time event; that the SEC is corrupt; that the market is not safe for investors? Obama needs to make a statement that his SEC will respond to the Congress or he is no different than Bush.
February 5, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHA! Silly! You almost got me with that one :-)
I was going to flame the snot out of you when I realized you were just being snarky!
Good one!
February 5, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change you can believe in. Who thought things would be different when the new administration chose clones of the old administration to fill the empty chairs.
Obama is smart, he can learn from new information. Unfortunately, it will take him a while to learn that the people he has surrounded himself with are incapable of implementing reform. Let's hope that revelation doesn't hit him too late.
February 6, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, is this the same Mary Schapiro who was head of FINRA (NASD) and under whose leadership let Elliot Spitzer take the lead on the Wall Street confilcts of interest issues (the research settlement) and totally missed on Madoff too? Glad she got to walk away from FINRA with a multi-million dollar severence package. . .And people bitch about "Wall Street CEOs"?
February 5, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please follow up on the results of this hearing. I listened to the whole thing with sickness in my heart. Is it not possible when this sort of thing happens for the committee in question to call in someone from DOJ, or their own attorney, to refute on the spot the position being taken?
February 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may not be that simple. SEC investigations are often conducted with promises of confidentiality and nondisclosure.
I doubt the feeder brokers would have participated in the invetigation unless they were given such promises.
The people who received or invested for Madoff also would not likely cooperate unless given asurances. They may be forced to give their profit from Madoff investments back because it came from the Ponzi scheme.
With all this confidential information floating around it may becomes hard to say anything.
February 5, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry that is not acceptable in this situation. The prime whistleblower testified in the open yesterday, calling the SEC inept--calling for them to be removed. The SEC MUST respond.
February 5, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something that no one wants to talk about or so it seems. Could it be the Bush Administration has something to do with this case. Friends of friends. Someone seems to have told the SEC to back off on their previous investigations. Is Israel involved?
February 5, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEC investigations are conducted with the promises of confidentiality and nondisclosure, unless you are Linda Thomson
http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2008/10/22/wash-post-senate-investigating-possible-improper-communications-by-sec-officials/
Why is she (and all the other high-level do nothings) still there
February 5, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too easy:
Who was told to look for what (in re 2006)? Easy. Has Congress asked this yet?
February 6, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink