Washington Post and Time? No good enough for you? I'm surprised because you present nothing in support of your position.
Ethically, recusal was the correct thing for Sessions to do. It is not the AG's job to "represent the White House". Your statement shows a profound and fundamental misunderstanding of the AG's role. The AG may, at times, have to act against the interests of the White House / President if the DOJ finds reason to investigate the President / White House for possible wrongdoing. The President / White House are not immune from investigation, as much as you would like this President / White House to be immune. Some of us still believe in the rule of law. It is too bad that so many Trump cultists don't seem to care about that principle.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/46808453 At 30% the risk was acceptable. However, the Department of Housing and Urban Development pushed it up over 55% with disastrous results. It's what happens when you have folks that "think" they understand financial markets attempting to regulating it.
Sessions' job is to represent justice for all parties. A just process for the White House has not been implemented by the Rosenstein lead DOJ. The rule of law was completely trampled in Sessions' absence. The FISA warrant based on the bogus Steele/Russian dossier paid for by the Democratic Party is the poster child for ignoring the rule of law. It's grossly hypocritical to defend the FISA warrant and claim to believe in the rule of law.
I've given you a list of over ten books to read with footnotes and references. I've also given you a several hundred word summary post. Do your homework instead of attempting to build an argument on internet articles.
Government rules dictated that the MBS's were to be rated by the NRSRO's (Fitch, Moody's, S & P). This is one of the regulations that lead to the financial crisis. The highest quality tranches used for bank reserves had very little exposure to sub prime loans but their value was forced to practically nothing by the mark to market rule. Since Basel 1 and the recourse rule had resulted in bank reserves being held in these securities the banks were damaged.
Fer crissake, at least try to understand. The absence of effective regulation allowed a lot of crap mortgages to be written. Mortgagees and mortgage brokers wrote them because they could sell them for a profit. Bond rating agencies gave the important AAA rating to a lot of bad commercial paper. Home price estimators jacked up home values under pressure from mortgagees. All of this helped fuel a precipitous run up in home prices (also encouraged by low interest rates) that undermined even legitimate mortgages written after prices had increased ("undermined" in the sense the mortgage was for far more than the house was worth after home prices dropped. We had a banking crisis when a weak institution was allowed to go under and nervous banks, already stressed by the bad and getting worse economy, stopped lending to reach other. Bush and his ideologue buddies made a bad situation worse by letting Lehman go down. The mortgagees making bad loans were crooks enabled by Fannie and Freddie. A lot of middle-sized banks never made a lot of garbage loans, btw.
I understand perfectly who tried to stop any effective regulation.......... Watch the video and listen to the Democrats in their own words.
Yeah, the rating agencies were dirty. There's no way a lot of that paper should have received the all-important AAA rating that allowed pension funds and other investors to buy them. Mark-to-market isn't a problem if markets are healthy because they're properly regulated. Yeah, some good commercial paper was discounted because buyers lost confidence in the market. Blame the crooks and lax regulation for that.
Bernie Frank is a idiot, but from 1995-2007 he was an idiot in the House minority who had no power to influence legislation.
I’ve showed you exactly how existing banking regulations lead to the financial crisis and yet you fail to understand. Do your homework.
You're clueless. It's absurd to blame "mark to market" for the 2008 credit crunch. That said, accounting standards are what we're talking about. If Bush and his irresponsible pals had been so concerned about the impact of FASB rules on Lehman, they could have bailed them out.
He never had power beyond a House committee chairmanship. You're trying to excuse Bush for failing to do his job.
Watch the video, it wasn't just him. Effective legislation from the Senate made it out of committee along party lines but not to the floor due to lack of support from the Democrats. A watered down version was eventually passed but it was so ineffective the crash happened anyway, thank you Democrats.
