iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Geithner Subpoena: House Committee Wants AIG Emails, Phone Logs

DANIEL WAGNER   01/14/10 11:56 PM ET   AP

Geithner Subpoena
Geithner subpoena seeks AIG emails, phone logs.

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed he will testify before a House committee probing his role in deals that sent billions of bailout dollars to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other big banks.

Geithner said he will appear at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs this month to address a rising chorus of questions about the $182 billion bailout of American International Group Inc.

Hours earlier, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee said his panel will investigate bailout decisions Geithner signed off on when he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The New York Fed quietly funneled billions to banks to satisfy financial commitments AIG had with them. The deals might have cost taxpayers billions more than necessary because Geithner declined to demand concessions from the banks, an earlier watchdog report said.

Treasury and the Federal Reserve refused to say which banks benefited from the "backdoor bailouts" or how much money they got until after it was disclosed in news reports. Banks including Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale benefited from the deals.

AIG had been negotiating the values of banks' contracts before the government took it over in September 2008, according to published reports. Geithner considered reducing the payments for two days before paying the banks off in full.

The oversight committee is investigating why the banks were paid in full and why officials including Geithner refused to name them.

Separately Thursday, House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., sought to shift attention to the roles of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke – two Bush appointees who also were pivotal in the AIG decisions.

Paulson and Bernanke "outranked" Geithner, Frank said in a statement. Frank was heeding Republican calls to investigate the AIG matter.

The oversight committee's top Republican said Thursday that its investigation "is not and has never been about Tim Geithner."

California Rep. Darrell Issa called for Geithner to testify after obtaining e-mails in which New York Fed lawyers told AIG to keep bailout details secret. Geithner recused himself from AIG matters before the e-mails were written but ran the New York Fed during the "backdoor bailouts."

Issa said Thursday he is concerned about the Fed's secrecy in light of a proposal to expand its role overseeing the financial system.

Oversight committee Chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., said Thursday that Geithner will appear at a hearing on Jan. 27. He invited testimony from three other key players: Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general who prepared the report; New York Fed general counsel Thomas Baxter; and Elias Habayeb, the former chief financial officer of the AIG division that sold the financial contracts to banks.

Towns subpoenaed the New York Fed for Geithner's e-mails and phone logs related to AIG. Issa requested the subpoena after the Fed blocked Barofsky's office from turning over documents he used to prepare an audit criticizing Geithner.

The probe will give a fuller picture of the largest bailout of the financial crisis. The government's rescue of AIG sparked public outrage and contributed to calls for financial reform.

The New York Fed managed the AIG bailout, spending billions on bonds that AIG had insured. The bonds were losing value, and AIG was on the hook for far more than it could afford without a government rescue.

Officials managing the bailout believed that letting AIG fail would spread financial panic. The New York Fed decided to cancel the contracts by buying the bonds from banks at face value.

Geithner signed off on the decision not to demand concessions, even though there were no other buyers and the bonds were likely worth far less than the New York Fed paid.

The Senate is negotiating a compromise on a proposed overhaul of financial regulation. Lawmakers disagree about proposals to expand the Fed's powers and to establish a system for temporarily bailing out large financial firms while they are dissolved.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams did not respond requests for comment.

In an interview broadcast on CNBC Thursday, Geithner said he was "very confident" in his decision to pay the banks in full rather than forcing concessions.

"We had no choice at the time other than to do this" because there were "no effective legal means" to do otherwise, Geithner said. He confirmed earlier reports that he had agreed to testify before the oversight panel.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed he will testify before a House committee probing his role in deals that sent billions of bailout dollars to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. an...
WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed he will testify before a House committee probing his role in deals that sent billions of bailout dollars to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. an...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 93
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
05:35 AM on 01/22/2010
THE VERY SHADY CROOK TURBO TIMMY SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL !!!!!!
03:17 PM on 01/15/2010
"Issa requested the subpoena after the Fed blocked Barofsky's office from turning over documents he used to prepare an audit criticizing Geithner".--Another good reason to get rid of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke
12:54 PM on 01/16/2010
They did not block Barofsky from reading the emails and from using them in his audit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joebhed
Greenback Revolutionist
03:47 PM on 01/17/2010
The question that rises to discussion for most of us is why the Fed, with its claims of enhanced transparency, would want to prevent Brofsky from the disclosure of any information regarding the use of taxpayer monies to the Congress of the US, and to the people.
Audit the Fed.
It's a beginning.
11:47 AM on 01/15/2010
hat tip to http://iamned-website.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paisano
I am invisible and trying to stop time!
01:48 PM on 01/14/2010
As much as I'd like to see this entire exposed... Precedent has been set by the Bush administration that subponeas mean nothing! I would not show up nor would I give them any documents...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProfessorDuh
01:28 PM on 01/14/2010
Shredding, shredding, shredding.
12:27 PM on 01/14/2010
The November audit said the bank payoffs might have cost taxpayers billions more than necessary because Geithner did not demand concessions from AIG's business partners. ..."

This is most definitely not what the SIGTARP audit said. The above is total BS.

The notion that the counter parties would have accepted concessions is simply stupid. They never would have accepted concessions. Prior to the NY Fed intervention, not one agreed to a red cent of concessions. After the intervention, one bank agree to a 2% haircut, but only if all the other banks would agree to the same haircut. The French banks were instructed by their government not to accept a haircut unless AIG was in bankruptcy, which it was not. That effectively nullified in full the single bank's contingent willingness, which means there was no willingness whatsoever.

To think Geithner had some leverage in this is idiotic. But that would never stop Geithner critics from thinking it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joebhed
Greenback Revolutionist
03:56 PM on 01/17/2010
So, I guess you were there then, right?
You know that not one of the parties had or would have accepted anything less than 100 cents on the dollar for their worthless holdings.
And, if Geithner had no power, then who did?
And what were his potential taxpayer gains.
And, who was representing the US taxpayers in this discussion?
And, why didn't WE have any clout?
Since WE were bailing the whole thing out.

The solution is to put bankers back to banking and have the function of money-creation brought back to the government of the United States, debt-free at issue.
The Money System Common
www.economicstability.org
11:30 AM on 01/14/2010
There is no economic recovery with 10% unemployment and lack of affordable education & healthcare.
hat tip to http://iamned-website.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JPE33180
Liberal to the max.
11:17 AM on 01/14/2010
Good bye and good luck Timmy-boy - Why you weren't dumped when you tried to float the Turbo-Tax excuse is beyond me.
10:45 AM on 01/14/2010
Transparency !
12:52 PM on 01/14/2010
good luck.

BTW, what happened to Obama's campaign promise of putting the health care debates on C-SPAN, rather than behind closed doors?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:35 AM on 01/14/2010
The people do not prosper when they are betrayed, but the betrayers do not prosper when they betray the people. Somehow, and in some way the pendulum continues to swing; it does not stop. History has shown this consistently through the ages.

Only a certified fool would behave the way that the banksters and bribed politicians have behaved.
Does mankind ever learn?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaxEterna
10:33 AM on 01/14/2010
TG ought to do us all a favor and GO AWAY NOW! Followed by the swift departure of the like of Summers, Emanuel, et al until the tent is cleaned out, aired out, and re-stocked with credible people like Elizabeth Warren who seems to be the only person down there in DC who GETS IT.
10:33 AM on 01/14/2010
So useless and time consuming. My pitchfork is sharpened and ready.
11:14 AM on 01/14/2010
May I borrow your sharpener?
11:32 AM on 01/14/2010
Oh no, please, let me sharpen your fork.
10:27 AM on 01/14/2010
Is this country a deomcracy or an illusion of democracy?
Who is in charge?
Is it possible that Obama went into this well meaning and has learned that the federal government of the United States of America is powerless to impose it's will on these people? or
Is it possible that the government has the power to make the necessary changes but the administration has been fooled into believing it doesn't or doesn't have the courage to take the risks necessary to impose their will, or
They are convinced that the system as it is now is the way it should be? or
They are willing participants in the corruption?

It it is the first item there will need to be more forceful action taken by the population.
The last three items increasingly look like the same one, and if that is the case, we are going to need a better administration.
12:53 PM on 01/14/2010
neither. Our founding fathers set up the country to be a republic.
02:46 PM on 01/14/2010
A little google search brings up the following definition of "republic".

"Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.[5] In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy[6], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[8]"

A republic is a type of democracy. My initial comment is accurate and your response is inaccurate.
10:08 AM on 01/14/2010
MAN, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND !!! OUR POLITICIANS KNOW WHAT CAUSED THIS MESS AND ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT! THEY ACT AS IF IT'S JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL!

THIS SHOULD BE SIMPLE... STOP ALLOWING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO PACKAGE CRAP SECURITIES AND REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE THEM !

GET OFF OF YOUR FAT A$$ AND PASS SOME LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF AMERICA NOT JUST THOSE FAT CATS ON WALL STREET!
10:34 AM on 01/14/2010
O'Hoover got the invitation to the club. End of story.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Chubbster
Partisanship is a mental illness
10:06 AM on 01/14/2010
There is a pending bill to create a Financial Services Oversight Council. This agency could bail out any company in America that is declared a systemic risk, without review under the Administrative Procedure Act and without access to information under FOIA and other laws. The chair would be Tim Geithner, the guy who couldn't get his personal taxes straight but nevertheless was confirmed as Treasury Secretary, a nomination appalling for its arrogance and stupidity."

This is about Geithner's incomprehensible theory of what constitutes "systemic risk."

One might have thought that the problem was with derivatives, since AIG's counterparties were supposedly so important to the system that Geithner had to protect them from loss. However, as the WSJ notes, Geithner told the inspector general for TARP that "the financial condition of the counterparties was not a relevant factor" in why he had AIG buy them out. He has since indicated that the problem was with AIG's traditional insurance business, not the derivatives.

The evidence builds that AIG's "systemic risk" wasn't a mathematical answer to a rigorous and thoughtful review of data, but rather a seat-of-the-pants judgment by regulators in a panic. If that is the case, someone should ask Mr. Geithner why the American people should give him even more authority to make more such judgments from his hip pocket—with little public scrutiny.

Giving the likes of Tim Geithner the power to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars to unknown recipients is crazy.