Short version: Eric Holder got to be testifying before the Senate on a day where the big news was that the NSA was having Verizon pull its phone logs and hand them over to the federal government. Mark Kirk had an opportunity to ask questions.
“If I knew then what I know now, these are not the kind of people that we’d do business with,” he added, “but that’s not how banks work.” Asked again if he knew that criminal figures were the recipients of some of those loans, Alexi Giannoulias (D-IL) said again, “I didn’t know the extent of their activity.”
Yes. This was Alexi Giannoulias’s answer to the question of whether Alexi Giannoulias and his fellow bankers knew about the entire pimp, bookie, and mobster thing before they lent all that money to all those pimps, bookies, and mobsters. He didn’t know the extent of their activity. He said this. Twice.
In case you were wondering: this is not a good answer.
OK, this is a free piece of advice for the Giannoulias campaign: clearly their critical decision path process with regard to accepting assistance needs to be updated. From now on, they need to absolutely make sure that at some point during the process the question By the way: are you associated in any way with organized crime? be asked of potential assistants – and if the answer is Why, yes, I am! then the assistance needs to be gently rebuffed.
So it’s kind of fascinating to hear the state treasurer of Illinois claim he knows nothing, nothing! about the almost twenty-three million dollars that his family bank lent a notorious Blagojevich crony who was under federal investigationat the time.
Through a spokeswoman, Giannoulias says he knew nothing about the $22.75 million loan to Riverside District Development until reporters contacted him.
“Alexi left daily operations of the bank in September of 2005, months before this loan was made,” says Kathleen Strand of his campaign staff. “He had no knowledge of it, and his name is not on any documents related to the loan…
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias says he’s swearing off campaign contributions from lobbyists, but not all lobbyists.
Giannoulias, the state treasurer, promised at the start of his Senate campaign a year ago that he wouldn’t take contributions from corporate lobbyists or political action committees. But that proscription applies only to federal lobbyists and PACs. He has taken money from state-registered lobbyists. He says there’s a difference: Since he’s running for a federal office, a state lobbyist can’t try to influence him if he wins.
Even by the standards of this deficit-ridden state, Illinois’s comptroller, Daniel W. Hynes, faces an ugly balance sheet. Precisely how ugly becomes clear when he beckons you into his office to examine his daily briefing memo.
He picks the papers off his desk and points to a figure in red: $5.01 billion.
“This is what the state owes right now to schools, rehabilitation centers, child care, the state university – and it’s getting worse every single day,” he says in his downtown office.
Mr. Hynes shakes his head. “This is not some esoteric budget issue; we are not paying bills for absolutely essential services,” he says. “That is obscene.”
Not so much for the specific details here – interesting how quickly the Left goes vigilante over cameramen, isn’t it? You’d think that the first thing that they’d do would be to call in security; but nope, give a Democratic campaign guy five-to-one odds in his favor and suddenly he’s a tough guy – but because right now the last thing Giannoulias needs is for any excuse for people like me to mention Giannoulias’ latest lie about his family’s mob bank: Continue reading Giannoulias staffer sells cameraman. Excuse me, ‘seizes.’
On why Alexi Giannoulias (D CAND, IL-SEN) still hasn’t managed to release his income tax statements for 2009:
The Giannoulias camp notes that the candidates finances have become increasingly complex because of the failure of Broadway Bank, owned by his family.
I imagine that they would be. After all: obviously, taking a hit of $20M on bad loans to pimps and bookies would be a loss; but what kind of loss? I’m not a tax attorney, so I’m not up on that kind of arcana.
More accurately, the campaign might admit the futility of trying to squash the opposition’s ability to point out that said family relationship involves bad $20 million loans given to pimps and bookies. Which is what they’re trying to do here, and instead making the story relevant.