Eric Schneiderman as a national-level slayer of corporate villains, like Cuomo and Spitzer before him
9:15 am Apr. 23, 2012
The American Prospect magazine recounts Eric Schneiderman's role in investigating the home-foreclosure crisis, framing the risks he now faces and outlining the benchmark for success:
“Eric took the risk of working with the administration,” says an attorney close to him, “because this was the only path that led to the public getting relief from the crisis. This is what you want from a political leader. A ‘pure’ political leader who stands outside the process isn’t very helpful. A political leader who just goes along isn’t helpful either. But to do what Eric did means you have to take an enormous risk. If he fails, if the investigation doesn’t become real, he will have to choose between denouncing the president in an election year or becoming party to something he spent a year denouncing.”
(Reid Pillifant wrote back in January about liberal perceptions of Schneiderman's new role.)
Schneiderman says that the investigation will be successful if it accomplishes three objectives: “We have to get accountability. We have to get substantial relief for homeowners and investors, in the form of principal write-downs and reductions. And we have to get the story told clearly so the right doesn’t rewrite history. If we don’t lay out what actually happened, it will all happen again.”
Related, from the article, there's this, about the National Association of Attorneys General: "Cuomo’s predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, stopped going after he almost punched out a colleague."