[youtube url = "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7q_deTFFRg&feature=youtu.be"]
One problem. Cortez Masto herself admitted that she wasn’t involved in negotiating the mortgage settlement that she’s now bragging about:
- Cortez Masto claimed she tried to get involved in yearlong settlement negotiations but “was not allowed to participate.” Q: “You were not part of the year-long [settlement] negotiation. Madame Attorney General, no state has been hit harder by the foreclosure crisis. There may have been no state that has had more bad behavior by some of the actors in this than Nevada. And, yet, you’re not in the middle of the negotiations. Explain to people watching how that can not be?” Masto: “Not for a lack of trying. There’s a multi-state process that occurs. And, in this case, there were some lead states that made the decisions who would be part of this executive committee and who would not. I had asked to be a part of it, and was not allowed to participate.” (KRNV, Catherine Cortez Masto Interview, February 22, 2012, 17:30 Remaining Mark)
- Cortez Masto revealed she did not help negotiate the settlement, which was “already baked by the time we got it.” Masto: “Let me just say, I didn’t help broker this [settlement]. The only thing I brokered was the Bank of America piece of it. The other part of the global settlement, cake was already baked by the time we got it to make a decision whether we were going to sign on or not. I wasn’t part of that.” (KRNV, Catherine Cortez Masto Interview, February 18, 2012, 4:48 Remaining Mark)
- And she could not answer why negotiators signed off on the settlement because she was not part of the process. Q: “So why did everybody sign off on this [settlement]? Masto: “I can’t answer that. I was not part of the negotiating team.” (Nevada Newsmakers, April 4, 2012, 4:40 Mark)
The mortgage settlement Cortez Masto is now touting was panned by Nevada media – and Cortez Masto herself.
- Las Vegas Business Press editors: “A drop in the proverbial bucket,” “not a great deal for Nevada and Nevada homeowners.” So Nevadans who have been harmed by foreclosure abuse such as “robo-signing” can expect checks of $1,500 to $2,000. And Nevada underwater borrowers, which constitute a majority, are going to split $42 million? Does this now seem like a drop in the proverbial bucket? Well, yes. Will it conclude the foreclosure crisis and soothe all wounds? Well, no. Will someone who was robo-signed into a home now worth less than what they paid for it be mollified with a check for $2,000? Nope. And if 400,000 homeowners statewide who are underwater statewide split $42 million – $105 each – will they now feel better about their housing situation? Not a chance. . . .But now the deal is done. Homeowners, the officeholders who negotiated the deal and the politicians who proudly proclaimed it, need to accept it. It is not a great deal for Nevada and Nevada homeowners. But it’s time to move on. (Las Vegas Business Press, Editorial, February 20, 2012)
- More from the Las Vegas Business Press: “Good for the banks.” So why is this deal good for banks? It puts the issue behind them. And it shields the financial institutions involved – Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citibank and Ally Financial – from some lawsuits that are the result of the mortgage meltdown. It also benefits banks by soothing investor anxiety and putting a final number on penalties they’ll have to pay to the federal government and 49 states. (Las Vegas Business Press, February 20, 2012)
- Las Vegas Review-Journal editors argued the settlement did nothing to advance economic recovery or the housing market, threatened to make mortgages more costly, and failed to address sub-prime lending. Does the $25 billion agreement hit the banks where it hurts? Absolutely. Will it do anything to speed an economic recovery, strengthen the housing market and put Americans back to work? No, no and no. If anything, it might prolong our misery by making mortgages more expensive and further dragging out an already interminable foreclosure process. The settlement, which would be the largest shakedown of a single industry since tobacco companies emptied their bank accounts 14 years ago, is purportedly for deceptive foreclosure practices that forced people from their homes. [The fact that they had stopped paying their mortgages apparently had nothing to do with those evictions]. But the deal has very little nexus between wrongdoing and remedy. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, Editorial, January 25, 2012)
- Cortez Masto conceded the settlement was not worth much to struggling Nevada homeowners. Q: “So, for homeowners who have been through the ringer on this whole foreclosure crisis, is this settlement worth it?” Masto: “If you look at it from that perspective, no. And keep in mind, when this settlement came to Nevada – for a lack of a better word – the cake was already baked. I mean all the terms were already set into it.” (KRNV, Catherine Cortez Masto Interview, February 17, 2012, 8:30 Remaining Mark)
With a thin record outside of being Harry Reid’s handpicked successor – and an endorsement from Hillary Clinton that she clumsily refused to reciprocate – Catherine Cortez Masto has resorted to pulling accomplishments out of thin air. Nevadans are looking for a Senator who will fight for them in Washington, not one who will carry on the Reid-Obama legacy and brag about a record that hardly stacks up to reality.