Elizabeth Warren: Government Hasn’t Sufficiently Probed Foreclosure Abuses (VIDEO)
July 15, 2011 No Comment
WASHINGTON — A top Obama administration official on Thursday questioned the scope of the state and federal investigations into alleged mortgage abuses and “illegal” foreclosures perpetrated by the nation’s largest mortgage companies, marking the first time a senior White House official publicly broke ranks with the administration over the issue and raising fresh questions about the wisdom of the government’s rush to settle with the firms. Elizabeth Warren, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, told a congressional panel that government agencies may not have sufficiently investigated claims that borrowers’ homes were illegally seized by banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial. “I think there’s a real question about whether there’s been adequate investigation,” said Warren, the temporary custodian of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, a new federal agency charged with protecting borrowers from abusive lenders. Her statement came in response to questions from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor who asked Warren why her agency needed to oversee such abuses when the U.S. Department of Justice is already probing such matters. Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, has long questioned whether the state and federal probes have been comprehensive, according to people familiar with her views. The investigations were launched last year amid news reports that the lenders were at times improperly repossessing borrowers’ homes and breaking state laws and federal rules in the process. But she had not publicly shared that view, which is widelyspread among individuals with direct knowledge of the probes, until the Thursday appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. She’s the first senior administration official to publicly question the thoroughness of the investigations led by the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department, Federal Trade Commission, all 50 state attorneys general and more than 30 state bank regulators. The nation’s five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007 by taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers’ home loans, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by Warren’s agency. That estimate suggests large banks have reaped tremendous benefits from under-serving distressed homeowners, a complaint frequent enough among borrowers that federal regulators have acknowledged the industry has fundamental shortcomings, including a penchant to abuse borrowers, and is in need of reform. Warren’s claim lends further credence to the view that the various government agencies are being reckless by negotiating an agreement with the five banks — the largest mortgage servicers in the country — that would settle accusations they abused homeowners and broke various laws in exchange for penalties and mortgage relief for struggling borrowers that could reach up to $30 billion. State and federal prosecutors are pressing to complete a proposed settlement with the five companies even though they’ve only initiated a limited investigation that hasn’t examined the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing, The Huffington Post reported Monday, citing interviews with more than two dozen officials and others familiar with the state and federal probes. Representatives of Justice, HUD and Treasury all declined to comment. Some officials, as well as others with experience sitting across the negotiating table with major banks, say the government is making a critical mistake that jeopardizes the public interest by seeking a deal before amassing a credible threat of successful prosecution by way of a comprehensive probe: In essence, they say, the government would give servicers a blanket pass for widespread alleged acts of fraud and extract too little in return, all while operating from a relative position of weakness. Though those working towards a quick settlement say the eventual agreement with the banks will only cover mortgage servicing deficiencies that harmed borrowers and foreclosure abuses like so-called “robo-signing,” many fear that the fines will be extracted in return for a broad release from mortgage-related liability. The banks are willing to pay higher fines in return for a comprehensive release from such claims, people involved in the talks said. “It’s got to be done right. We’re not going to do it and be subject to double and triple jeopardy,” said Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, about a proposed settlement agreement with state attorneys general during a conference call Thursday with analysts. “We’d rather litigate it.” Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, is probing whether mortgages bundled into securities were done in accordance with state laws, people familiar with the probe said. He’s also pursuing a variety of investigations to determine whether Wall Street firms cheated investors when selling them these securities, sources said. Schneiderman doesn’t want a proposed settlement agreement to interfere with his ongoing investigations, people familiar with his views said. People involved in the talks said they’re aware of his probes and would not construct a settlement agreement that would constrain his investigations. The government’s desire to settle rather than conduct comprehensive probes is due to a variety of factors, people with direct knowledge of the ongoing talks said. For one, the state legal officers are hindered by federal laws that restrict their ability to investigate national banks. Of the five companies being targeted, all but Ally are national banks. These institutions are overseen by federal bank regulators, particularly the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The two bank watchdogs issued their own reports earlier this year, castigating the companies’ faulty mortgage practices, but have said they can’t share specifics for individual firms, supervisory reports or any underlying documentation that formed the basis of their findings, citing federal rules prohibiting their disclosure. The federal bank regulators’ review examined just 2,800 loan files, or 0.1 percent of the nearly 2.9 million homes that received a foreclosure filing last year, according to calculations made using data from the OCC and RealtyTrac, a data provider. Only about 200 loans each were examined at banking behemoths JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citi and Wells, Julie L. Williams, the No. 2 official at the OCC and the agency’s chief counsel, told a House panel last week. Those four firms collectively service $5.7 trillion in home loans, or more than half of all outstanding residential mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Some regulators have criticized their review. With near-exclusive oversight authority, the Fed and OCC have access to the most sensitive bank documents, but they said they were prevented from sharing them. Meanwhile, the state officials, who are charged with protecting their constituents, could push for expanded investigative powers, but they would likely face a hard slog in court. A 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case, Cuomo v. Clearing House, restricts state attorneys general from subpoenaing documents from national banks until they’ve filed lawsuits. The process of requesting documents prior to such action, known as pre-trial discovery, typically yields valuable information that can strengthen a prosecutor’s case. But thanks to that Supreme Court’s decision and another from 2007 — Watters v. Wachovia, which determined that state officials lack the authority to regulate subsidiaries of national banks, based on a policy known as preemption — the state prosecutors as a group are reluctant to pick a fight in court with the banks. It’s unclear whether they’d succeed. Also, their request for documentation would probably draw opposition from the OCC, people involved in the talks said. The OCC has intervened in several lawsuits launched by state officials in recent years on behalf of the banks it oversees. Other factors include the state of the housing market and the states’ financial resources. A thorough probe would likely take more than a year. Meanwhile, the housing market remains depressed as foreclosures continue to pile up, borrowers are falling behind at elevated rates and the so-called “shadow inventory” of distressed homes being kept off the market grows. If the state and federal officials wish to use the settlement talks as a vehicle to prevent foreclosures by using levies on banks to reduce monthly mortgage payments for troubled borrowers, time is slipping, people familiar with the matter said. Home prices are sliding and won’t begin to improve until next year, forecasts show. In addition, state officials are hobbled by their budgets. States had a cumulative budget deficit of nearly $84 billion in the 2011 fiscal year, according to an April report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. That gap is expected to swell to $86 billion for the 2012 fiscal year. Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general, recently announced that her office would be forced to curtail its housing-related probes due to budget cutbacks. Despite those headwinds, government officials are poised to extract as much as $30 billion from the five mortgage companies for their alleged abuses. Warren’s admission, which came in response to questions asking why her agency initially advised state and federal officials on mortgage issues, was overshadowed by an otherwise partisan and combative congressional hearing during which Republicans attacked the consumer advocate and longtime Harvard Law professor for trying to protect consumers from unscrupulous lenders. Separately, Democrats and Republicans on the committee agreed to request documents from major mortgage firms regarding improper foreclosures of borrowers in the military. The requests weren’t subpoenas, though. WATCH: * * * * * Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 1-917-267-2335.
Continue reading …NHS hospital wins right to challenge closure of children’s heart surgery unit
July 15, 2011 No Comment
Royal Brompton says plans to reduce the number of hospitals carrying out children’s heart surgery are ‘fundamentally flawed’ The Royal Brompton hospital in London has won permission for a judicial review of what it argues are “fundamentally flawed” NHS plans that threaten to close its children’s heart surgery unit. The hospital stands to lose its unit under proposals to reduce the numbers of hospitals carrying out children’s heart surgery from 11 to six or seven. Experts agree that children will be safer if heart surgery is concentrated in fewer, larger units where surgeons are more experienced. But the proposals put forward by the “Safe and Sustainable” NHS review, run by a joint committee representing all primary care trusts, have outraged the Royal Brompton, which is one of three hospitals in London undertaking this very specialised surgery and the only one earmarked for closure in the capital. Their services would be merged into those of Great Ormond Street and the Evelina children’s hospital. The Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust has now been granted permission to proceed to a full judicial review later this year by Mr Justice Burnett at the high court. It argues that the process leading to the public consultation (which has just ended) on a number of different closure options was fundamentally flawed. “This is extremely good news, first and foremost for patients,” said Bob Bell, chief executive of the trust. “We have always supported the principle that all babies and children who undergo heart surgery deserve the best possible care, but decisions about the future of such vital services have to be made on the basis of sound, objective evidence and the decision-making process must, of course, be entirely transparent. These conditions were not met by those responsible for this review.” However, the trust did not succeed in getting the reorganisation stopped in its tracks. Mr Justice Burnett said it “is desirable for the joint committee to continue its work of improving paediatric cardiac surgery for the nation”. It was with “some hesitation” that he agreed that the Brompton had an arguable case, he said. The Brompton claims that the decision to reduce London centres from three to two was not based on any evidence, but was an attempt to ensure London shared “the pain of closure” with other units around the country. The trust also argues that it was not represented on the decision-making body, while the other two London centres were. It says its results are very good and that closure of the heart unit would have a damaging impact on its other services, including adult heart surgery. Hospital reorganisation plans are invariably hard fought and the Brompton is not the only centre to campaign against the proposed closure of its children’s heart surgery unit, but it is the only one to take legal action. Others have sent in mass petitions and MPs from Leeds succeeded in obtaining a debate on the floor of the House of Commons. There have been 70,000 responses to the public consultation exercise, including 20,000 text messages. Jeremy Glyde, programme director for Safe and Sustainable, said: “The rationale for change is supported by medical experts, professional associations and leading national heart charities. Pooling expertise will help the NHS make further improvements to patient outcomes and deliver a truly excellent service.” An independent panel would now look into the Brompton’s claim that other services would be damaged if the children’s heart unit closed, Glyde said. NHS Public sector cuts Health Public services policy Public finance Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
PM paid for former News of the World editor to stay over, two months after he quit as media chief amid phone-hacking scandal David Cameron hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers in March, two months after the former News of the World editor resigned as Downing Street director of communications, No 10 has said. In a sign of his determination to stand by the man he described as a “friend”, the prime minister paid out of his own pocket to welcome Coulson for an overnight stay at Chequers. Downing Street disclosed Coulson’s visit to Chequers as it published details of all of Cameron’s contacts with media proprietors and executives since he became Tory leader in 2005. The prime minister had told MPs on Wednesday that he would publish details of the contacts since he became prime minister but he later decided that this should cover all contacts since he became Tory leader. Labour attacked Cameron’s decision to invite Coulson to Chequers two months after his resignation in January, saying it showed an “extraordinary lack of judgment”. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said: “This is yet more evidence of an extraordinary lack of judgment by David Cameron. He hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers after, in the prime minister’s own words, Mr Coulson’s second chance hadn’t worked out. David Cameron may think that this is a good day to bury bad news but he now has an increasing number of serious questions to answer.” The prime minister has come under fire for what Ed Miliband described as a catastrophic misjudgment in taking Coulson into No 10 after the election. Cameron said at a press conference in Downing Street last Friday that he had met his “friend” Coulson since his resignation but not recently or frequently. In the past week he has started to distance himself from Coulson after facing intense criticisms for ignoring warnings from Nick Clegg and Lord Ashdown about the political dangers of bringing Coulson into No 10 after the general election. On Wednesday, Cameron told MPs: “I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone hacking and was not involved in criminality. He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a select committee of this house and under oath to a court of law. If it turns out he lied, it will not just be that he should not have been in government; it will be that he should be prosecuted. But I do believe that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.” This marked a change in tone from his press conference last Friday in Downing Street. Asked then whether he had been in touch with Coulson, Cameron said: “Yes, I have spoken to him. I have seen him, not recently and not frequently. But when you work with someone for four years, as I did, and you work closely, you do build a friendship, and I became friends with him. I think he did his job for me and the Conservative party and then the country – I think he did it in a very effective way. So, yes, he became a friend and is a friend.” When the phone-hacking affair erupted again earlier this month, Downing Street said that the prime minister stood by a statement he made when Coulson resigned as the No 10 director of communications on 21 January. This said that he had resigned simply because the allegations about phone hacking were making it impossible for him to concentrate on his job. The details of the prime minister’s contacts with media executives will show that he had lunch with James Murdoch on occasions which have previously not been reported. They also show, as the Guardian revealed in January, that he visited Rebekah Brooks at her Oxfordshire home over the Christmas period. A Downing Street source said: “We are releasing details of all of the meetings the prime minister has ever had with media executives. This goes right back to the beginning. David took the view that he should release details of meetings with everyone – every lunch and every dinner. This really is an example of transparency.” Lewis said: “I have been asking David Cameron to come clean about his dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks last Christmas for five months. Confirmation that David Cameron attended this dinner two days after Vince Cable was stripped of his responsibility for the BSkyB deal and in the middle of a quasi-judicial process raises further questions about the prime minister’s judgment. People will want to know whether BSkyB was discussed and what messages were then relayed to Jeremy Hunt.” The list published by Downing Street shows: • The prime minister had a second social engagement with Rebekah Brooks over the Christmas period in addition to a dinner in January at her Oxfordshire home attended by James Murdoch. This was disclosed by the Guardian in January. Downing Street has repeatedly refused to answer questions from the Guardian about this second event for the past few months. • James Murdoch and his wife, Kathryn, lunched at Chequers in November 2010. • Brooks visited Chequers twice, in June 2010 and August 2010. • Colin Myler, former editor of News of the World, met Cameron in July 2010. • Editors and proprietors of other news groups, including Guardian News and Media, met the prime minister. Andy Coulson David Cameron Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World News International News Corporation Media business Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …PM paid for former News of the World editor to stay over, two months after he quit as media chief amid phone-hacking scandal David Cameron hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers in March, two months after the former News of the World editor resigned as Downing Street director of communications, No 10 has said. In a sign of his determination to stand by the man he described as a “friend”, the prime minister paid out of his own pocket to welcome Coulson for an overnight stay at Chequers. Downing Street disclosed Coulson’s visit to Chequers as it published details of all of Cameron’s contacts with media proprietors and executives since he became Tory leader in 2005. The prime minister had told MPs on Wednesday that he would publish details of the contacts since he became prime minister but he later decided that this should cover all contacts since he became Tory leader. Labour attacked Cameron’s decision to invite Coulson to Chequers two months after his resignation in January, saying it showed an “extraordinary lack of judgment”. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said: “This is yet more evidence of an extraordinary lack of judgment by David Cameron. He hosted Andy Coulson at Chequers after, in the prime minister’s own words, Mr Coulson’s second chance hadn’t worked out. David Cameron may think that this is a good day to bury bad news but he now has an increasing number of serious questions to answer.” The prime minister has come under fire for what Ed Miliband described as a catastrophic misjudgment in taking Coulson into No 10 after the election. Cameron said at a press conference in Downing Street last Friday that he had met his “friend” Coulson since his resignation but not recently or frequently. In the past week he has started to distance himself from Coulson after facing intense criticisms for ignoring warnings from Nick Clegg and Lord Ashdown about the political dangers of bringing Coulson into No 10 after the general election. On Wednesday, Cameron told MPs: “I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone hacking and was not involved in criminality. He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a select committee of this house and under oath to a court of law. If it turns out he lied, it will not just be that he should not have been in government; it will be that he should be prosecuted. But I do believe that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.” This marked a change in tone from his press conference last Friday in Downing Street. Asked then whether he had been in touch with Coulson, Cameron said: “Yes, I have spoken to him. I have seen him, not recently and not frequently. But when you work with someone for four years, as I did, and you work closely, you do build a friendship, and I became friends with him. I think he did his job for me and the Conservative party and then the country – I think he did it in a very effective way. So, yes, he became a friend and is a friend.” When the phone-hacking affair erupted again earlier this month, Downing Street said that the prime minister stood by a statement he made when Coulson resigned as the No 10 director of communications on 21 January. This said that he had resigned simply because the allegations about phone hacking were making it impossible for him to concentrate on his job. The details of the prime minister’s contacts with media executives will show that he had lunch with James Murdoch on occasions which have previously not been reported. They also show, as the Guardian revealed in January, that he visited Rebekah Brooks at her Oxfordshire home over the Christmas period. A Downing Street source said: “We are releasing details of all of the meetings the prime minister has ever had with media executives. This goes right back to the beginning. David took the view that he should release details of meetings with everyone – every lunch and every dinner. This really is an example of transparency.” Lewis said: “I have been asking David Cameron to come clean about his dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks last Christmas for five months. Confirmation that David Cameron attended this dinner two days after Vince Cable was stripped of his responsibility for the BSkyB deal and in the middle of a quasi-judicial process raises further questions about the prime minister’s judgment. People will want to know whether BSkyB was discussed and what messages were then relayed to Jeremy Hunt.” The list published by Downing Street shows: • The prime minister had a second social engagement with Rebekah Brooks over the Christmas period in addition to a dinner in January at her Oxfordshire home attended by James Murdoch. This was disclosed by the Guardian in January. Downing Street has repeatedly refused to answer questions from the Guardian about this second event for the past few months. • James Murdoch and his wife, Kathryn, lunched at Chequers in November 2010. • Brooks visited Chequers twice, in June 2010 and August 2010. • Colin Myler, former editor of News of the World, met Cameron in July 2010. • Editors and proprietors of other news groups, including Guardian News and Media, met the prime minister. Andy Coulson David Cameron Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World News International News Corporation Media business Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper Chides Republicans For Rudeness And Partisan Attacks On Elizabeth Warren
July 15, 2011 No CommentI only got to see a few minutes of the Elizabeth Warren [net worth unknown] testimony at the House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing yesterday morning, but apparently Republicans did their usual routine and treated her like a partisan punching bag . Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) [Ed. note: Worth between $3M and $10M ] finally had enough and spoke out: COOPER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don’t have a question for the witness I do have a comment and primarily aimed at the junior members of the committee on both sides of the isle. I think all of us realize that this Congress is viewed as dysfunctional. And I would submit this Committee is also viewed as dysfunctional, and this alleged hearing is one of the reasons why. It too easily degenerates into a partisan food fight, and it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, just a few years ago in Congress, it was not this way. So I would urge the junior members of the committee to resist the partisan talking points that enable people on both sides of the aisle to walk in here, read a question, make a partisan hit, look like we’re smart and then leave. That’s not good governance regardless of which party’s in charge. I didn’t vote for Dodd-Frank. It had many good features; it had some less good features. But I do not want to be part of a committee, at least at the subcommittee level, that treated Miss Warren with more rudeness and disrespect than I have ever seen a committee witness treated. That is not the American way. Now, some of us come here and we get so used to the food fight that we want it to continue. And you’ll probably score brownie points if you make your partisan hit. You might even get on a better committee. Well, congratulations. You will not have solved a problem. I would suggest to the Chairman and the ranking member that often times a seminar format is much more instructive, is much more educational than the sort of partisan charade we seem to continue to engage in with hearings like this . I would urge members to read Ms Warren’s, one of her books. I’ve only read the Two Income Trap, it’s outstanding. Your constituents back home should read this book. Your bankers back home should read this book. Then there’d be a lot less hatred, a lot less discord, a lot less anger because this lady’s trying to do the right thing. And we all recognize that consumers often times get the short end of the stick. I’ve tried to refinance my home mortgage several times to take advantage of today’s record low interest rates and the paperwork is a blizzard. I went to a very good law school and it’s almost impossible for lawyers to understand this stuff. Ms Warren has pointed out that the existing regulatory agencies have taken over a decade to try to simplify a couple of the forms and they have failed. What has this committee done to simplify some of the forms? Nothing. So, isn’t it time for a new approach? Isn’t it time for fresh thinking to give the consumers a break? And let us also acknowledge that Congress is sometimes captured by vested interests. Sometimes that happens. And we need to resist that. So, I would urge the members of the committee, particularly the junior members who are not so entrenched in bad habits, consider a new and fresher approaches to solve some of these problems so that we can protect consumers and also give legitimate industries a fair shake, because all bankers aren’t bad people. But I’m afraid that we’re falling into a rut here that is going to be to the detriment not only of this committee and this Congress but of the nation. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can be civil to each other. We can be informed. We can resist the partisan talking points. But I’m not seeing that sort of behavior, at least so far. So, let’s try to do better and let’s try to be civil to witnesses like Ms Warren. Let’s try to focus on the substance, because I’ve actually heard very little substance here today. And there are better ways to solve our problems and I hope that this committee will be part of those. So, I thank the Chairman .
Continue reading …Only 2% of Network Reports on Debt Ceiling Battle Mention Public Opposition to Increase
July 15, 2011 No CommentThe 2010 elections, which changed the balance of power in the House, were driven by popular opposition to government spending, debt and the threat of tax increases. Yet even with the federal debt limit already breached and only days left to prevent a national default, the media continue to ignore the public's wishes. The theme of network reports on the debt ceiling battle is that some agreement MUST be reached so that the limit can be increased, but many Americans disagree with raising the debt limit and are more concerned about government spending. But that has barely been mentioned in stories. Polls taken by Gallup, CBS and AP have all registered significant worry about federal debt and opposition to an increase in the debt ceiling. But ABC, CBS and NBC coverage of the debt limit battle being waged on Capitol Hill has not reflected that fact. Out of 45 reports on the broadcast network's evening news programs between June 16 and July 12, only one mentioned a poll that showed public opposition to raising the debt ceiling. That's a mere 2 percent of reports. An additional two stories had some reference to what the public might think, but without polling data. Those two other stories included a politician and journalist's respective opinions about public sentiment. In one, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that that the public opposes tax increases but supports a balanced budget. In the other, Bob Schieffer claimed he knew what public opinion was without giving any poll to back it up. He declared, “I doubt that many people would argue with the president when he says it can only get worse if Congress does not find a way to raise the debt ceiling.” The network's willingness to ignore public opinion on the issue is shocking given the poll numbers. Gallup found that nearly twice as much opposition to an increase than support for one. In that July 7-10 poll, 42 percent of Americans indicated that they want their representative to vote against raising the debt ceiling, compared to only 22 percent who want them to vote for such a bill. A June AP/GFK poll taken between June 16 and 20 also showed more public opposition to raising the debt ceiling than support for increasing it. Gallup also found widespread fear of runaway spending. When asked “Which concerns you more – [the government would not raise the debt ceiling and a major economic crisis would result (or) the government would raise the debt ceiling but without plans for major cuts in future spending]?” A 51 percent majority said their greater concern would be raising the debt ceiling without plans to cut spending, compared to 32 percent worried about an economic crisis caused by not raising the limit. Obama's Social Security Threat As the debt limit debate has grown more heated plenty of unfair rhetoric has been tossed around, but President Obama's threat on July 12 that he ” cannot guarantee ” August Social Security payments “if we haven't resolved this issue” should have been soundly debunked by network reporters. After all, they had earlier cited experts who said that there was enough money “in the coffers” to pay for Social Security payments. There wouldn't be enough money for everything, but Social Security, disability and veterans' payments could be paid out according to numbers from MarketWatch and the Bipartisan Policy Center. Sadly on the networks, it did not incite outrage or much criticism. CBS “Evening News” aired the conversation between Scott Pelley and the president, which included Obama's refusal to guarantee those payments. But Pelley did not offer any criticism, contradiction or debunking of the social security threat during the broadcast. The next morning, only one of the broadcast morning shows was skeptical of Obama's statement. “The Early Show” on CBS replayed the Pelley interview and warned that ” it's about to get personal for many Americans. ” ABC's George Stephanopoulos uncritically summarized the president's remarks. Only NBC's “Today” thought Obama might be using it as a “scare tactic.” Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner did the math in his Beltway Confidential column July 12. Using numbers from MarketWatch and the Bipartisan Policy Center, Tapscott proved that there will be plenty of money in federal coffers to make August Social Security payments. He wrote that the government takes in $200 billion each month. Subtract $29 billion for interest on the national debt, $49.2 billion for Social Security, $50 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, $2.9 billion each for active duty military pay and veterans programs and you are left with $39 billion each month. “This is demagoguery of the worst sort because Obama has to know what he is saying is false. When you and I say something we know to be false, it's called a 'lie,'” Tapscott declared. Before Obama made the claim that Social Security payments might be at risk if a debt ceiling deal isn't reached, the networks knew that the third rail program wasn't at risk. Just two nights earlier on the July 10 CBS “Evening News,” Whit Johnson reported numbers from the Bipartisan Policy Center. “It says in the month of August the Treasury has to make $306 billion in payments, but it will take in only $172 billion. Under one scenario, that's enough to pay interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, defense contractors and unemployment benefits. But there would be no money left for active duty military, federal workers and a slew of other programs,” Johnson said. Economist Mark Zandi was also interviewed by “Evening News” on June 28. He told Anthony Mason that the government would be forced to prioritize if the debt ceiling wasn't increased. “On August 2nd, the government won't have to cut Social Security payments or Medicare. But if it drags on for a couple or three, four weeks then yes, I think they'll have no choice but to cut almost everything that the government does, including Social Security and Medicare,” Zandi said. Obama's statement also exposed the government's misleading claims about the viability of Social Security. A blogger for Forbes.com reacted saying, “Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now , or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.” That blogger, Merrill Matthews, continued saying, “Here's why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.” Faith in the Social Security ” trust fund ” however, is misplaced. For years there has been a pervasive myth spread by politicians and journalists who described Social Security as a “trust fund.” Matthews went on to expose the fallacy of the trust fund in his column, as many others have done before. The reality of course is that the government has been spending that money and replacing it with Treasury bonds (IOUs) for years. In 2010, the Business & Media Institute reported that as Social Security turned 75 years old, it was also running a $41 billion deficit (ahead of estimates). Back then Cato's Michael Cannon criticized media outlets (specifically The New York Times) for claiming the program can still “pay full benefits until 2037″ and current attention to the red ink does not “endanger benefits, because any shortfall can be covered by the trust fund.” Cannon reacted: “No. It. Can't. Because there are no funds in the Social Security 'trust fund'.” He characterized the entire idea as “an institutionalized, ritualized lie.” One that BMI found news outlets continued to promote.
Continue reading …
The author will be joining us for a live webchat on Friday 15 July between 1 and 2pm. Post your questions now This week’s live webchat by very popular request is with Sarah Waters, whose second world war novel The Night Watch was televised only this week . She sprang straight to the top in 1998 with her Victorian romp Tipping the Velvet , and wrote two more gems of sapphic Victoriana – Affinity and Fingersmith – before turning her gaze forward a century for the quietly impressive The Night Watch , which was shortlisted for the Man Booker prize in 2006. Her most recent novel was The Little Stranger , a haunted house story set against the postwar decline of the aristocracy and the birth of the welfare state. She will be online to chat on Friday 15 July between 1pm and 2pm . Feel free to start posting your questions now, so Sarah can have a full hour to answer, and log back in on Friday to join in the conversation. nattybumpo asks: Do you think that there can be too much sex in a novel and does the amount of sex in a book influence Lit Agents and Publishers? P.S. Congratulations on Fingersmith. It’s a once in a generation novel…. truly excellent! Sarahwatersreplies: Glad you enjoyed Fingersmith! Sex in fiction: I think that most agents and editors would agree with me that there should be as much or as little sex as is right for each individual story. Sex is a part of life, a rather visceral and compelling one, so any author telling a story of grown-up lives and relationships is probably going to want to depict it. But if a sex scene has been shoved in a novel just for the sake of effect then, yes, of course it can feel a bit gratuitous. I can’t off the top of my head think of a novel that does that, however. But I can think of lots of novels – Hollinghurst’s The Swimming Pool Library, Michel Houellebecq’s Atomised, for example – where the many vivid sex scenes feel absolutely right and necessary. henrytube asks: As an unpublished author, how worried were you about submitting a novel so full of sex (in the second half at least)? Were you at all concerned that you wouldn’t be taken seriously enough because of that? Did any publishers who rejected it suggest you try submitting to pornography-orientated houses? Were you confident that the literary quality would outshine the – ahem – let’s face it, in parts, quite unusual sex scenes? Were you ever told you were betting too much on the pornographic element? Or did you simply feel you were writing a story that should sell on its overall merits, regardless of the pornography? Although many adult stories contain romances, and more than a few feature sex, you must have been aware that Tipping the Velvet has a lot more than the average. sarahwatersreplies I wasn’t worried about it at all. I sent the rudest bit out as one of my three sample chapters, and none of the rejection letters mentioned the sex. (One thought the book was too long; another suggested that historical fiction might be going out of fashion – oh dear…) I have to say, I’ve never thought of Tipping as being pornographic, for the reasons outlined in my answer above: the sex is there because it’s part of Nancy’s story. She’s exploring her sexual identity and at the same time becoming a grown up, discovering what deeply serious fun grown-up sex can be. I wanted to write about the sex with the same relish and attention to detail that I wrote about eating oysters or going to a music hall. I don’t think the sex scenes are ‘unusual’, by the way. I don’t even think, now, that they’re especially rude. Shatillion asks: Do you ever write short fiction between the big novels and if so can we read it? If no, would you ever try? Oh, and I’m a massive admirer of all of your work. sarahwatersreplies: Glad you’ve enjoyed the books! But no, I never write short fiction. Apart from ghost stories, I rarely read it, either – it’s just too, well, short. I honestly wouldn’t know where to start. It’s like being a marathon runner or a sprinter – you need different writing muscles. (Though yes, I know, some writers can do both, damn their eyes!) Tarantella asks: I was screen-glued to the TV dramatisation of ‘The Night Watch’ – but it should have been twice the length, at least. Who made the call here and did you agree (or have any say)? This relevant to the BBC allegedly dropping/shrinking their investment in drama – what a dumb move… sarahwatersreplies: Glad you were glued. The adaptation has some wonderful performances in it, and it’s got a great look, and a great sombre mood; but yes, some extra time would have been lovely. Not at all my call: the BBC originally planned to do it as two ninety-minute episodes, then changed their minds. Very frustrating. And, to pick up a later question here: Anna MM was mesmerising as always but, no, she wasn’t my butch Kay. (Though there is a nice moment when she takes off her mannish-looking wristwatch before getting into bed.) She lost her lovely little butch friend Mickey, too. I think it’s just that mainstream tv and film don’t really ‘get’ butchness. Joannewalker asks: Help,Am plagued by the ambiguous ending to The Little Stranger! Was the Doctor actually the ghost/disturbance all along? sarahwatersreplies: Sorry! I get asked this a lot. Here’s a link to an article I wrote for the Guardian Book Club, which might help (a bit): www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/07/bookclub-sarah-waters-little-stranger?intcmp=239. translated asks: Dear Sarah, I’ve done a bit of googling and found that your books are published by Virago (uk) and Riverhead Trade (us). Hope that’s correct. Lots of well-known authors are published by Harper Collins or Fourth Estate, both owned by Murdoch. Do you think this kind of thing matters? Are you glad Murdoch doesn’t profit from the sale of your books? sarahwatersreplies: I do indeed think this kind of thing matters and, yes, I am glad. But I’m saying that as an established author: when you start off as a writer you feel so powerless and grateful – I would probably have sold Tipping the Velvet to Vlad the Impaler if he had offered me a publishing deal. And I can’t be too pious: I’m sure I’ve supported Murdoch’s empire in a thousand thoughtless ways. (I used to be an enthusiastic subscriber to Sky tv, for example.) But actually making money for him – that’s a grim thought. Liano asks: Hello! Would you ever consider writing a book that is based in Pembrokeshire where you (and I) are from? sarahwatersreplies: Ah, lovely Pembrokeshire. It was a fabulous place to grow up, and I still have very strong links with it – all my family are there. But I’ve never lived there as an adult, so I’ve lost touch with what makes it tick. I’d have to go back and spend some proper time there in order to write about it – maybe I will, one day. One thing I’ve always had a hankering to write about is all the UFOs that were supposedly spotted there in the ’70s – the so-called ‘Broad Haven Triangle’ – just writing those words makes me excited! I never got to see a UFO myself, and have been disappointed ever since. Fawley asks: When is your next book coming out. I can’t wait to read another one of your books as you are my favourite author. sarahwatersreplies: OK, the next book… I’m right in the middle of it at the moment, so it’s very much in my head. It’s set in London in the 1920s, and is full of lesbian passion and angst – great fun, especially after The Little Stranger (which, though I loved it, was a rather ‘flat’ book to write – mainly I think because of the slightly affect-less narrative voice). One thing that’s unusual about this new book for me is that I honestly don’t know whether it’s going to have an upbeat ending or an utterly tragic one. I’m normally a bit of a control freak as far as plotting is concerned, but I’m enjoying going with the flow with this one… Libertarianlou asks: One of my favourite things about your books is that your characters are rarely all good or all bad. Even seemingly villainous characters have moments of sympathetic behaviour or humanity. However Richard in Fingersmith is extremely horrible and I do feel like punching him at times. Do you pass moral judgments on your characters or do you just portray them in such a way as to accurately reflect human nature? What do you think of writers like Jane Austen whose narrative voice tells you plainly what to think of the characters by making jokes about them etc? How do you pace out your plots? They are always so perfectly timed and structured, it is almost mathematical. Have you ever read Carol (originally the Price of Salt) by Patricia Highsmith, as her style reminds me slightly of yours. Just curious. I think Affinity is possibly one of your best novels. Why do you think it received so much less attention than the others? Some people denounce Tipping the Velvet as “just erotica” or “just lesbian porn.” To me I think it IS largely a piece of great erotic fiction and I don’t see the problem with it being so. What do you think about that; do you think fiction always has to serve a broader point or is it ok to just be erotic sometimes? I realise TTV does have more to it than just sex but at the time I feel that is the best bit! Do you worry about being seen a predominantly a lesbian author thus detracting from some of the social comment in books about non-gender non-sexuality topics like poverty, property, etc? (I don’t think it’s an issue and think you tie these things together well anyway but I’d be interested to know what you think.) Is ownership of property meant to be a key theme to Fingersmith or is that me imagining it? Which character do you love the most, Sue or Maud? I change my mind everytime I read it. Is Mrs Sucksby inspired by any real historical figure? I have read that such situations were not uncommon in Victorian times. What do you think of the Harry Potter books? Can I buy you dinner please? sarahwatersreplies: Blimey – lots of questions here! To answer just a few: Yes, I love The Price of Salt. I’m a big Highsmith fan. If there’s one book I wish I’d written, it’s The Talented Mr Ripley. Affinity has its fans and detractors (as comments here reveal), but it’s probably the quietest of my novels – maybe that’s why it’s slightly slipped under a few radars? Also, I think the timing of its publication didn’t help it: it came out pre-2002, which was the year that my career began to take off, with Fingersmith and Tipping getting lots of attention because of shortlists and tv. Maybe if it had come out after Fingersmith rather than before it would have made a bit more of a splash? I dunno. No, I don’t tend to pass explicit judgements on my characters; in fact I do that less now than ever – I’m getting increasingly interested in emotional untidiness and moral mess, in the muddiness of even apparently positive currents, like love. But Richard/Gentleman was great fun to write, precisely because he was such an out-and-out blackguard! He gets some of the book’s best lines. (‘The fashionable couple on their wedding night’: that still makes me laugh…) Mrs Sucksby isn’t inspired by any actual historical figure – but yes, indeed, there were lots of real Victorian baby-farmers, some of them notorious for mistreating or even murdering the infants in their care. (One was Margaret Waters – eek! She was hanged in London in 1870.) The baby farmer cases reveal so much about nineteenth-century poverty, and about the desperate situations of women and unwanted children, they really deserve a serious novel, rather than the pantomime treatment they get in Fingersmith… Harry Potter – I only read the first one. Like many things in modern life – facebook, twitter, blogging, Lady Gaga – the whole Potter business has rather passed me by. I’m not proud of it. Dinner: why, that would be lovely, thank y– Yikes! Here comes my girlfriend! Gotta go! sharleenj asks: I consider The Little Stranger to be a lovely example of a psychological ghost story. Would you call it that? When you were writing Stranger, how much (if at all) were you influenced by Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House? sarahwatersreplies: I love the Haunting of Hill House (and the rather terrifying ’60s film based on it). It’s got one of the great opening paragraphs of all time (‘…whatever walked there, walked alone’). And it was certainly an influence on The Little Stranger, to the extent that I kept it in mind while I was writing – along with things like ‘The Fall of the House of Usher’ and ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ – as a paradigmatic haunted house story. ‘A psychological ghost story’ – hmm, depends what you mean. Is it all in the characters’ heads? No, I don’t think so. Does the haunting come out of their heads, or out of the heads of one of them? Yes, that’s more like it. I was less interested in ghosts whilst researching the book than in poltergeists and ‘phantasms of the living’: spectres as repressed energies, or as manifestations of psychic distress… slatternly asks: I’m also interested to know if there’s a time period you’d love to tackle but haven’t got around to yet, and if you’ve ever considered setting one of your novels in the present/the future? sarahwatersreplies: I’ve never been drawn back further than the Victorians, and I can’t imagine writing a novel set in the future – not at all, I just haven’t got the right kind of brain for it. But I would be really interested to see what would happen to my writing if I took on a contemporary setting… Maybe a contemporary ghost story? That does appeal. Not just yet, however. I think I’ve got another historical lined up for when I’ve finished the one I’m working on now. (To answer another question on this thread: I usually do have a dim sense of the book after next. The only time I didn’t was after Fingersmith – very unnerving for a while.) catshmoyne asks: If you had the ability to travel back in time and plant one of your novels in a bookshop in the historical period it is set in, which one would you choose and how do you think readers would react to it? sarahwatersreplies: What an interesting idea… I think it would have to be Fingersmith: it’s the one that would sit most comfortably alongside the sort of novels that inspired it, things like The Woman in White and Uncle Silas and Lady Audley’s Secret. But it would be under-the-counter stuff by Victorian standards, alas… And, of course, to 1860s readers all my historical and cultural details would be wildly off target – as if we were to read a novel set in 2011 that featured people saying ‘Top hole, me old china! I’ll just turn off this wizard Bay City Rollers gramophone disc and eat some spangles’ – or something… Michaelmack asks: Hello SarahI hope that you are well and that your brain is not too bamboozled by Granuaid readers! Affinity is one of my faves among your novels. It scared the bejaysus out of me. I remember being frightened to go upstairs to bed alone. That said I admire all your novels tremendously. So thank you for many hours of reading pleasure.I, like you, am a great admirer of the work of Elizabeth Taylor. Currently I am rereading A View Of The Harbour. What I would like to know is how much of an influence do you think Taylor is on your work? I sense her in The Night Watch and The Little Stranger in the way characters are seemingly emotionally restrained, in public anyway, in that typically British (of its time) way. Cheerio! sarahwatersreplies: Glad you’ve enjoyed the books! I take your night terrors as a great compliment. Yes, I love Elizabeth Taylor. My favourite is her first, At Mrs Lippincote’s. Oh, but they’re all good, even the less-good ones, if you know what I mean. She’s such a subtle and precise writer – often seen as a bit middlebrow and cosy, I fear, but really her books are quite bleak and sometimes devastating. She respects all her characters – I like that about her. She has a great grasp of subtle social and emotional currents. I don’t know if she’s been an influence on me, exactly (I wish she had been!) – but she was certainly a writer I read a lot of when I was writing The Night Watch, not just for period detail and idiom, but for her handling of the third-person narrative – she seems to move effortlessly between perspectives, and I really struggled to get the hang of that. And yes, that restraint, with it all going on under the surface… ’40s films were great for that, too. Casablanca, Brief Encounter… roseyposey asks: Have loved all your books but The Night Watch in particular. I kept thinking of the Well of Loneliness while reading it – also a favourite. I’d love to know your thoughts on it, and whether The Night Watch sits as almost a companion piece to it? (Also – thanks for talking part in this, have had a rotten day so far at work but my lunchtime has been great thanks to reading this thread!) sarahwatersreplies: At least it’s Friday… The Well of Loneliness: I haven’t read it for years, and must re-read it now that I’m working on the ’20s – but yes, of course, its shadow stretches a long way, and it’s hard to write a butch lesbian character without invoking the spirit of Stephen Gordon. Actually, Hall’s short story ‘Miss Ogilvy Finds Herself’ was probably more of a reference-point for The Night Watch. And the really rather fab The Unlit Lamp is proving very inspiring for my new novel. legerdemain What are you reading at the moment for research, and for pleasure? sarahwatersreplies: For pleasure – well, one thing I’m doing is working my way through the novels of Muriel Spark, in chronological order. Such a treat! I’m about halfway through. I’m being struck by what an oddly gothic writer she was – not in the obvious (ie my) way of creaky doors etc, but in the sense that there’s a mildly hallucinatory quality to her books – secrets, unhealthy relationships etc… I also just read Tim Pears’s Landed – a mavellous book, I can’t praise it too highly – I read it twice and it made me cry both times. For research – I’m reading lots of Virginia Woolf, which is fabulous. Novels, diaries and letters – every observation so brutally perfect – she’s got a mind like a skewer! But I’m also reading middlebrow fiction from the ’10s and ’20s – authors who were fantastically popular in their day but very unfashionable now, like Warwick Deeping, and Robert Hichens (who’s unexpectedly rather wonderful, with lots of ‘women on the edge of a nervous breakdown’-type female characters). ronsonol asks: Flaubert famously read and took notes on hundreds of sources to prepare the historical background of l’Education Sentimental and included practically none of this material in the finished novel. I found the Little Stranger to be a similarly successful exercise in conveying the texture of a period without giving a history lesson. Can you say a few words about your research for this book and whether you felt the same anguish as GF over how to stop the quiet personal lives of your characters being swamped by the facts you had to manoeouvre them around? Did the supernatural element help in balancing out the weight of the history? sarahwatersreplies: I do a lot of research for my novels, but I’ll always get to a point where my characters and their stories take on a weight and a substance that makes me want to leave the research behind for a bit; and after that, when I do more research, its much more focussed – the story drives the research, rather than the other way around. There are always wonderful nuggets that you wish you could use, and can’t. If you try and shoehorn them in it never works, they stand out because they haven’t emerged organically. And yes, in The Little Stranger the supernatural element did help, because in lots of ways the world of Hundreds Hall was quite detached from its period – it became a sort of generic ‘haunted house’, obeying rules of genre rather than of history – if that makes sense. Capell123 asks: I think it’s fair to say that, in the crudest possible sense, ‘not a lot happens’ until a good part of the way into The Little Stranger, and yet I was still unable to put it down despite my accursed modern attention span. Do you think that as your skill as a writer has increased, you feel more able to bend some of the perceived rules of modern fiction, ie ‘open with a bang and don’t risk losing your reader?’ Fingersmith, for example, got to its true intrigue a lot quicker. sarahwatersreplies: I was worried with both The Little Stranger and The Night Watch that there wouldn’t be enough to keep a reader interested until the ‘pay-offs’ arrived – ie the spooky stuff in one, and the wartime drama in the other. But I wanted both to have slow-burner starts: in TLS I felt we really needed to get to know the characters before anything odd started happening to them, and in TNW the point of the first part is that the characters are all ‘stuck’, all jaded and static. I didn’t feel like I was bending any rules – the books just had to be that way, in order for them to tell the stories I wanted to tell. Sorry – not very articulate! I actually find beginnings hard; I think I’m much better at endings. I look at Muriel Spark and she’s so nimble and economical; my narratives lumber along, full of phrases like ‘and then’ and ‘that morning’ and ‘on the Friday of that week…’ At the same time, I do like a leisurely pace, both as a writer and a reader. I like to feel I’m entering a whole narrative world, full of physical and emotional detail. Sarah Waters Fiction guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Politicians have renewed efforts against raising efficiency standards days after losing their effort to repeal the law It’s not yet lights out: Republicans have revived their effort to crush energy-saving lightbulbs, with a vote in the House of Representatives as early as Friday. Just days after losing their effort to repeal a law promoting more efficient lighting , Republicans – who claim the new standards are an assault on personal freedom – have revived their effort. The latest offering, put forward by the Texas Republican Michael Burgess, would seek to tack an amendment onto a broader bill cutting funds for environmental protection. Like the original, the bill to hinder the take-up of energy-saving bulbs would stop the federal government from enacting the provisions of a 2007 law raising efficiency standards of incandescent bulbs by 25%, starting from 2012. But it would not block city or state governments from promoting energy-saving lighting. Republicans – including presidential contender Michele Bachmann – have championed the cause of old-fashioned 100-watt bulbs as a fight for personal freedom and the legacy of Thomas Edison, who invented it. But a first attempt to get rid of the usurper – energy-saving LED and CFLs – was defeated in the House of Representatives on Tuesday night. The bill fell short of the two-thirds majority needed under rules invoked by the Republicans for speedy passage. However, it did get a majority, and Joe Barton, who has been leading the charge of the Republican light brigade, vowed then he would be back. “We can put it on an appropriations bill,” he told the US politics website Politico . “We can back it under a rule. I can try and go to some of the Democrats who didn’t vote for it and figure out a way to get them to consider voting for it in a different format.” Burgess told Politico he believed his bill had a better chance tacked onto a bigger spending measure. At the time, the 2007 law on lightbulbs and other energy measures was backed by prominent house Republicans and signed into law by George Bush. Tea Party conservatives, however, now cast it as a sign of government overreach by Barack Obama. But not all Republicans are on board. Politico reported this week that the House Republicans demand for cuts on environmental spending risked alienating the hunters who are a core constituency. Meanwhile, a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection called the focus on light bulbs an embarrassment to the party. The House’s defeat this week of bizarre legislation to turn back the clock on lighting efficiency was a victory for the economy, the environment, and common sense, Republicans for Environmental Protection said. “We regret that Congress was forced to waste its time voting on a foolish bill that was premised entirely on false claims and ignorance,” David Jenkins, an REP official, said in a statement. “Members of Congress and talk radio entertainers who knowingly peddled this falsehood and misled consumers are a national embarrassment and ought to be ashamed of themselves.” Energy efficiency Energy United States Republicans US politics Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Just Like High School: Tennessee Lawmaker Carves Initials Into State House Desk
July 14, 2011 No Comment
Remember that time that you got really bored in class and carved your initials into the desk? Well, it turns out that’s not such a good idea if you are a member of the government. And if the desk is in the state House chamber. On Monday, Republican Rep. Julia Hurley, 29, of Tennessee confirmed to
Continue reading …
Prosecutors in perjury trial of baseball pitcher violate order barring certain information from being given to jury A Washington judge has declared a mistrial in the perjury trial of baseball pitcher Roger Clemens after prosecutors violated an order that barred certain information from being given to the jury. Judge Reggie Walton was furious at prosecutor Steven Durham for introducing evidence that appeared to bolster the credibility of a future witness, Clemens’s former New York Yankees team-mate Andy Pettitte, and referred to Pettitte’s wife, Laura. “A first-year law student would know that you can’t bolster the credibility of one witness with clearly inadmissible evidence,” Walton said to Durham. “I don’t see how I un-ring the bell.” The mistrial was a major setback for the US government, which spent a year preparing the case. Four days were spent selecting a jury. Clemens, one of only four pitchers to strike out more than 4,000 batters, is facing charges that he lied to the House of Representatives committee on oversight and government reform when he denied taking steroids and human growth hormones between 1998 and 2001. The one-time Hall of Fame contender has denied taking drugs or lying to Congress. Walton said the parties would now have to discuss whether retrying Clemens, 48, would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, which protects an individual from being tried twice for the same offences. A hearing on the double-jeopardy issue will be on 2 Sept – but no new possible trial date was set. In admonishing the prosecutor, Walton said Durham had violated his order during his opening statement as well. The judge also said that defence lawyers should have raised objections immediately when the information was played. The video showed Democratic representative Elijah Cummings making references during the 2008 hearing about Pettitte, who admitted to using steroids, and conversations Pettitte said he had with his wife about Clemens talking about using human growth hormones. Clemens has said that Pettitte, once a close friend, had misremembered and misheard the conversation which had been relayed to his wife Laura. Walton had previously excluded any initial references to Laura Pettitte. Clemens pitched for four teams during his 24-year career in baseball, including the Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Toronto Blue Jays and Houston Astros.He won the Cy Young Award, which each year honours the best pitcher in each league, seven times. US sport United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …