SocraticGadfly: Obama had $500K reasons to be nice to JP Morgan head Jamie Dimon (updated)

November 23, 2016

Obama had $500K reasons to be nice to
JP Morgan head Jamie Dimon (updated)

"I did not have financial relations with Jamie Dimon."
In a blog post yesterday, I asked, "How much can President Obama fellate Jamie Dimon?" (the JPMorgan CEO who appears almost willfully clueless about his bank's losses on derivatives trades).

Turns out Obama the person, not Obama the presidential candidate, has at least $500,000 reasons to "show his gratitude" to Dimon and JPMorgan.

Just what is a "JP Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management Checking Account," anyway? And, does it buy you a London Whale hunting license?

That's not a total joke. Yes, it's a checking account, but, beyond the dollar amount, it's not like one you or I have.

First of all, with more than $500K, it's not fully covered by FDIC insurance. So, does he have extra insurance on the account? And, via whom?

Second, most people don't regularly write checks for $50K, say, let alone with an extra zero. So, this money isn't just sitting there to earn 0.3% quantitative easing interest like my checking account does. This money is being invested, somewhere, somehow.

But, in what? And what does Obama know about it? He has to know something, as this isn't a blind trust. And, given that Democratic National Procurer Vernon Jordan paraded Obama in front of Wall Streeters in 2003, he's no financial babe in the woods.

(Update, Nov. 23, 2016: It is NOT, contra Glenn Kessler's claim that Obama, while not using a blind trust, had all his money in Treasury bills or mutual funds. Obama's filing statement lists three different Vanguard 500 funds, which would be the mutual funds, plus Treasury bills and Treasury notes. A quick Net search — DuckDuckGoing around the Net, not Googling — revealed no more of what that checking account is. But, Kessler's wrong.

I also found this ... interesting that Kessler made such a claim while doing a fact check story about whether President-elect Donald Trump is correct or not in saying "The president can't have a conflict of interest." Per the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which Kessler cites, I'd actually give Trump one Pinocchio, which Kessler did not, because Trump probably thinks "Two Corinthians" is in the Constitution, for as little as he is likely to have actually read it.

The clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8)says:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolumnet, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
It was specifically meant for executive officials, believed to be more liability to bribery potential than members of Congress. (Which, as we know, isn't quite true.) It's why presidents go through fig leafs of donating items to their post-presidential libraries and museums.

The Nixonian overtone of the Trump statement is worth that ding by itself. Besides, as Kessler's newspaper competition at the New York Times notes, Trump's foreign investments, many with government-nationalized foreign companies certainly does bring the clause into play.

And, for misstating Obama's investments, and the seriousness of the bankster connection on that one, Kessler needs to give himself two Pinocchios.)

Beyond that, as the story said, he's got bigger amounts invested in T-notes and T-bills, for safe investments. This is money that, theoretically, can be played around with a bit more.

Dear Leader promises that the skewed whale harpooning would be "investigated." I'm sure. Probably about as closely as J. Edgar Hoover investigated Lee Harvey Oswald after realizing all the FBI screw-ups. (Note: For illustrative purposes only; I don't believe in conspiracy theories.) And, maybe about as loosely as Dimon's next contribution to the Obama 2012 professional checking account, or as soon as the "JP Morgan for Obama" Super PAC gets started.

That said, will the Congressional GOP suddenly discover new love for Dodd-Frank, if it is an angle on appointing an independent prosecutor, or holding House hearings, about a "JP Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management Checking Account"?

Unfortunately, it doesn't help when the recent JP Morgan meeting is filled with fluffers of Dimon, as MoJo Dowd notes.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Why should a "successor" bank benefit financially by the mortgage fraud (unclean hands/felony) committed by another bank?