Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Fired FED Regulator Releases 47 Hours of Meeting Recordings with Goldman Sachs

posted by n1 on Saturday September 27 2014, @09:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-law-for-dirty-davey dept.

mtrycz writes:

BloombergView, ThisAmericanLife and ProPublica (prequel) are running a story on a FED employee, Carmen Segarra, tasked with regulating GoldmanSachs. Segarra attended regular meetings with GoldmanSachs representatives and her fellow regulators. The meetings would often include things like:

For instance, in one meeting a Goldman employee expressed the view that "once clients are wealthy enough certain consumer laws don't apply to them." After that meeting, Segarra turned to a fellow Fed regulator and said how surprised she was by that statement -- to which the regulator replied, "You didn't hear that."

Segarra decided to tape the meetings.

After a confrontation with her boss about not faking a report about the fact that Goldman didn't have a conflict of interest policy, Segarra got fired. She has released 47 hours of the recordings she's made over time. BloombergView concludes:

You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks. Now you know.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Fired FED Regulator Releases 47 Hours of Meeting Recordings with Goldman Sachs | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 49 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 27 2014, @10:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 27 2014, @10:30PM (#98996)

    > If she is in a single party consent state, I imagine the recordings would be alright (IANAL).

    Presumably the recordings were made in Manhattan and New York is a one-party consent state. [dmlp.org]

    But, I would be completely unsurprised to learn that she had some sort of confidentiality agreement as a condition of her job because that's how wallstreet rolls. Even if they don't come after her for that, they are going to fuck her life up any way they can. Whistleblowers always get screwed. Anyone who says a whistleblower did it for fame or money just has never done even a single google search on whistleblowing consequences.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Saturday September 27 2014, @11:49PM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Saturday September 27 2014, @11:49PM (#99014)

    Any confidentiality agreement that states you have to keep crimes confidential is null and void.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @12:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @12:15AM (#99019)

      > Any confidentiality agreement that states you have to keep crimes confidential is null and void.

      That's true for disclosing to the police, but not for talking to the public.
      Also not every single minute of those 47 hours documents a crime.
      Plus it ain't a crime until a judge rules that it is.