LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's JournalU.S. officials weigh protecting all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank
Currently, deposits up to $250,000 per depositor are insured. If the FDIC sells the bank, deposits above that amount may be out of luck. I have seen projections that there are assets that my cover up to 90% of the deposits above $250,000 that process will take time. If the FDIC cannot sell the bank, then there may be a reorganization where all deposits are guaranteed
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1634987497485901824
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/03/12/silicon-valley-bank-deposits/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main#:~:text=Selling%20SVB%20to,U.S.%20banks.
Officials at the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation discussed the idea this weekend, the people said, with only hours to go before financial markets opened in Asia. White House officials have also studied the idea, per two separate people familiar with those discussions
The plan would be among the potential policy responses if the government is unable to find a buyer for the failed bank. The FDIC began an auction process for SVB on Saturday and hoped to identify a winning bidder Sunday afternoon, with final bids due at 2 p.m. ET, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Selling SVB to a healthy institution remains the preferred solution, officials have told members of Congress. Most bank failures are resolved that way and enable depositors to avoid losing any money.
Although the FDIC insures bank deposits up to $250,000, a provision in federal banking law may give them the authority to protect the uninsured deposits as well if they conclude that failing to do so would pose a systemic risk to the broader financial system, the people said. In that event, uninsured deposits could be backstopped by an insurance fund, paid into regularly by U.S. banks.
U.S. officials weigh protecting all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank
Source: Washington Post
Federal authorities are seriously considering safeguarding all uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, weighing an extraordinary intervention to prevent what they fear would be a panic in the U.S. financial system, according to three people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.
Officials at the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation discussed the idea this weekend, the people said, with only hours to go before financial markets opened in Asia. White House officials have also studied the idea, per two separate people familiar with those discussions
The plan would be among the potential policy responses if the government is unable to find a buyer for the failed bank. The FDIC began an auction process for SVB on Saturday and hoped to identify a winning bidder Sunday afternoon, with final bids due at 2 p.m. ET, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Selling SVB to a healthy institution remains the preferred solution, officials have told members of Congress. Most bank failures are resolved that way and enable depositors to avoid losing any money.
Although the FDIC insures bank deposits up to $250,000, a provision in federal banking law may give them the authority to protect the uninsured deposits as well if they conclude that failing to do so would pose a systemic risk to the broader financial system, the people said. In that event, uninsured deposits could be backstopped by an insurance fund, paid into regularly by U.S. banks.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/03/12/silicon-valley-bank-deposits/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1634987497485901824
Busted: Trump attorneys headed to court to explain two-trial deadline scam
This will be fun to watch
https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/1634608724206575616
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-attorneys-2659583715/
According to a report from the Daily Beast's Jose Pagliery, the former president's penchant for dragging out legal proceedings has come back to haunt his attorneys who are battling investigations on multiple fronts.
That, in turn, appears to have led several of his attorneys to try and pull a fast one on two different judges in order to gain more time.
As Pagliery wrote, "Trump’s lawyers have until Wednesday to explain how they tried to play two New York judges off each other by double-booking trials to potentially delay them both," before adding, "Trump already pushed back a potential late 2023 trial over duping investors to Jan. 2024, citing a conflict with the New York Attorney General’s trial over his fake financial statements to banks. But when Trump’s team recently sought to delay that AG trial, they got caught."
The report notes that they might have gotten away with it if a fellow attorney didn't alert "U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield in federal court and Justice Arthur F. Engoron in state court that they may be getting played."
The report adds attorney Roberta Kaplan wrote to the two judges, explaining, "Donald Trump has a history of leveraging his presidential-campaign activities to delay and avoid judicial proceedings. We anticipated that, should the case schedule run into 2024, Mr. Trump will begin to argue that his campaign obligations must take precedence over his participation in this case, including at trial.”
In 2016, TFG warned about unprecedented constitutional crisis-a sitting POTUS under indictment
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1634724702907162624Judge in abortion-pill lawsuit schedules hearing but delays announcing it
This is going to be good news
https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1634754458172178432
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/11/texas-abortion-pill-hearing-kacsmaryk/
The hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the Justice Department, the company that makes the drug and the conservative group that is challenging it to argue their positions before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. After they do, the judge could rule at any time.
Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing during a call with attorneys Friday, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. Kacsmaryk said he would delay putting the hearing on the public docket until late Tuesday to try to minimize disruptions and possible protests, and asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then, the people said.
Public access to federal court proceedings is a key principle of the American judicial system, and Kacsmaryk’s apparent delay in placing the hearing on the docket is highly unusual. The judge and his staff did not respond to emails requesting comment on Saturday evening.....
By waiting to publicize the time of the hearing, Kacsmaryk and his staff could make it difficult for the public, the media and others to travel to the courthouse in Amarillo, Tex. The rural, deeply conservative city has few direct flights except from Dallas or San Antonio and is at least a four-hour drive from any of the state’s major, heavily-Democratic cities. Still, over 150 abortion rights advocates gathered there on a Saturday in mid-February to voice their support for abortion pills.
Judge in abortion-pill lawsuit schedules hearing but delays announcing it
Source: Washington Post
The Texas judge who could undo government approval of a key abortion drug has scheduled the first hearing in the case for Wednesday but took unusual steps to keep it from being publicized, according to people familiar with the plans.
The hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the Justice Department, the company that makes the drug and the conservative group that is challenging it to argue their positions before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. After they do, the judge could rule at any time.
Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing during a call with attorneys Friday, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. Kacsmaryk said he would delay putting the hearing on the public docket until late Tuesday to try to minimize disruptions and possible protests, and asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then, the people said.
Public access to federal court proceedings is a key principle of the American judicial system, and Kacsmaryk’s apparent delay in placing the hearing on the docket is highly unusual. The judge and his staff did not respond to emails requesting comment on Saturday evening......
By waiting to publicize the time of the hearing, Kacsmaryk and his staff could make it difficult for the public, the media and others to travel to the courthouse in Amarillo, Tex. The rural, deeply conservative city has few direct flights except from Dallas or San Antonio and is at least a four-hour drive from any of the state’s major, heavily-Democratic cities. Still, over 150 abortion rights advocates gathered there on a Saturday in mid-February to voice their support for abortion pills.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/11/texas-abortion-pill-hearing-kacsmaryk/
https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1634754458172178432
Conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl tried to trick Black New Yorkers out of voting, judge rules
I love the fact that Wohl was found to violate the KKK Act. TFG is being sued under the KKK Act.
https://twitter.com/BuddhistNoBody/status/1633647754680344580
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jacob-wohl-black-voters-new-york-ruling-b2296968.html
Mr Wohl was accused over his role in an operation in which robocalls were sent to thousands of mainly non-white voters before the 2020 election falsely warning them that their personal information would be added to a public database and used by police departments and credit card companies.....
US District Judge Victor Marrero wrote in his ruling that it was clear Mr Wohl and his associate Jack Burkman wanted to “deny the right to vote specifically to Black voters.”
https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1633613598915174400
White House stops holding back, slams Tucker Carlson by name
I am glad that Biden White House is calling out Tucker
https://twitter.com/stevebenen/status/1633559503244513280
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/white-house-stops-holding-back-slams-tucker-carlson-name-rcna74025
The White House joined in widespread condemnation of Fox News star Tucker Carlson on Wednesday, singling out the prime-time ratings king for his misleading portrayal of the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. In comments shared first with POLITICO, the White House joined Republican Senate leaders and Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger, who a day earlier assailed Carlson’s broadcasts of selected assault footage as being “filled with offensive and misleading conclusions.”
“We agree with the chief of the Capitol Police and the wide range of bipartisan lawmakers who have condemned this false depiction of the unprecedented, violent attack on our Constitution and the rule of law — which cost police officers their lives,” Bates said.
The presidential spokesperson added, “We also agree with what Fox News’s own attorneys and executives have now repeatedly stressed in multiple courts of law: that Tucker Carlson is not credible.”
At face value, this might not seem especially provocative. A Democratic White House taking rhetorical shots at outlet aligned with Republican politics is probably in line with many observers’ expectations.
But these developments aren’t normal at all: The Biden White House does not generally engage in these fights, and Democratic leaders on the Hill do not routinely slam outlets or specific television personalities.
As Fox News deals with cascading controversies, the Democratic Party’s entire approach to the network is changing quickly — on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Opinion Details in a lawsuit against Texas's abortion ban shock the conscience
The facts set forth in this lawsuit are truly shocking
https://twitter.com/VenzMeg/status/1633882253599322112
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/09/abortion-lawsuit-texas-six-week-ban/
Though Texas’s right-wing courts might well reject the suit based on its reading of the Texas constitution, the bracing and enlightening facts set out in the complaint should be mandatory reading for lawmakers who want to strip women of essential health care. Unlike most suits that are brought by advocacy groups, this action has real, live plaintiffs with heart-wrenching personal stories:
Amanda was forced to wait until she was septic to receive abortion care, causing one of her fallopian tubes to become permanently closed. When Lauren M. learned one of her twins was not viable, she was forced to travel out of state for the abortion she needed to save her and her other baby’s life, who is due in several weeks. Lauren H. received a devastating fetal diagnosis two weeks after Roe was overturned, and in the chaos that followed, she was forced to travel to Seattle for an abortion. Pregnant again now, Lauren H. fears that Texas is not safe for her or her family. Anna was forced to fly across multiple states after her water broke, risking that she would go into labor or septic shock on the journey. Ashley had to travel out of state to for an abortion to save the life of one of her twins, and afterward, fearful of documenting Ashley’s abortion, her Texas physician instead described her condition as “vanishing twin syndrome.”
Lest anyone think these are oddball cases, the complaint reminds us that such cases are occurring routinely around the country in states that have banned or severely limited abortion access. The complaint points out that in case after case, the story is essentially the same: Necessary health care is denied; doctors are prevented from treating patients according to long-standing standards of care; and “pervasive fear and uncertainty throughout the medical community regarding the scope of the life and health exceptions have put patients’ lives and physicians’ liberty at grave risk.”,,,,,
Vice President Harris reacted to the suit in a written statement: “The lawsuit includes devastating, first-hand accounts of women’s lives almost lost after they were denied the health care they needed, because of extreme efforts by Republican officials to control women’s bodies.” She added, “Many extremist ‘so-called’ leaders espouse ‘freedom for all,’ while directly attacking the freedom to make one’s own health care decisions.”
Her assessment is spot on — and a reminder that abortion bans are not “pro-life” but barbaric and dangerous.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 145,567