debate was responding to michele bachmann's charges over freddie mac. and so, i think she exposed some vulnerabilities there in the frontrunners. you're right, by and large the frontrunners pretty much laid off one another and let the second tier candidates go after them. >> and i want today deal with those questions separately michele bachmann did attack, but did she make the case for herself? >> she needs strategically not to knock din grinch down and move on past iowa, she has to do well in iowa. >> i don't think so, it's been very odd to me that bachmann, santorum and huntsman, the way that they come out debate after debate and disorganizationed in the theme. >> she says she's the only conservative. >> so what? the american people are upset about several things, 9% unemployment, an economy that's dead in the water and whether their taxes are going to be raised or not. none of those subjects really came up in in debate. and so, they're-- santorum and bachmann and huntsman are trying to present other reasons why they should be reported. you have to co

daniel mudd and freddie mac c.e.o. richard syron the collapse of fannie mae and freddie mac is projected to cost taxpayers $124 billion. are fighting the charges, which syron's attorney calls quote, "fatally flawed." >> reporter: s.e.c. lawyers say, around the time the housing bubble peaked, fannie mae and freddie mac executives used misleading definitions of subprime loans to hide the truth from investors. >> as they were driving up their market share, fannie mae, freddie mac and the executives sought to maintain the illusion that the business involved minimal and manageable credit risk. >> reporter: the sec says former fannie mae c.e.o. daniel mudd and former freddie mac c.e.o. richard syron and four other top executives committed securities fraud, hiding risks that eventually brought down the mortgage giants. the case sites freddie mac's june 2008 disclosure showing the company held $6 billion in subprime loans. the s.e.c. claims the figure should have been $244 billion. fannie mae told investors as late as june 200

debate was responding to michele bachmann's charges over freddie mac. and so, i think she exposed some vulnerabilities there in the frontrunners. you're right, by and large the frontrunners pretty much laid off one another and let the second tier candidates go after them. >> and i want today deal with those questions separately michele bachmann did attack, but did she make the case for herself? >> she needs strategically not to knock din grinch down and move on past iowa, she has to do well in iowa. >> i don't think so, it's been very odd to me that bachmann, santorum and huntsman, the way that they come out debate after debate and disorganizationed in the theme. >> she says she's the only conservative. >> so what? the american people are upset about several things, 9% unemployment, an economy that's dead in the water and whether their taxes are going to be raised or not. none of those subjects really came up in in debate. and so, they're-- santorum and bachmann and huntsman are trying to present other reasons why they should be reported. you have to co

remind us before we talk about these charges, what exactly was fannie mae and freddie mac's role during the time of this complaint late 2006 to the middle of 2008 in the housing market? >> fannie and freddie were the biggest players in the secondary market. they controlled a substantial portion. another substantial portion was controlled by private mortgage-backed security issuers. but they had a very large participation in the marketplace and were buying large quantities. >> woodruff: secondary market meaning? >> primary markets the origination. secondary markets is what happens after the loan is originated. >> woodruff: lynn turner, how significant are these fraud charges? >> i think these are very significant. i think they're very positive development for investors in that it shows in this case, the government is willing to go after and hold accountable people at the very top when they don't fully disclose very important information to those who are buying stocks, making investment in this type of company. >> woodruff: but, it has taken several years to bring these charges. what does

as we told you, fannie mae and freddie mac were hot top nicks the fox news debate.ay, the former executive of the mortgage giant are in hot water. jim angle has more. >> the sikh i seek sec is charg- the sec is charging with mortgage fraud. take one of freddie mac annual report. >> they misrepresented to the public that the sub prime holdings were not significant. the company had $141 million of exposure. >> they demonstrated the fraud, tiny sliver represent the sub prime loan disclose and the rest of the pie shows how much actual exposure there was. >> that is 40 to 70 times greater than he told investors. >> today's action only involves charges for misleading investors. one analyst says it helped trigger the housing crisis from which the nation still suffers. >> i think if there had been full disclose sure required by the securities laws, we would not have had a financial crisis, because many people would have bailed from the market before it grew to be so large. >> because the information was withheld, the market was unaware of how many risky loans had been made

in another report, we found for 2009 and 2010, freddie mac -- fannie mae and freddie mac had their top six executives over $35 million in salaries and benefits over those two years. tranter reviewed and approved the statements based upon recommendations made by fannie mae and freddie mac. the fhfa did not test or validate the recommendations. given the amounts involved, we concluded that fhfa should've done more. for instance, by including a wider range of salaries for a comparison purposes in a review of performance metrics used to judge the executive compensation levels. but we now turn to the second emerging trade. fhfa's research allocations may have affected its ability to oversee the gse's and support directives. we agree and four report situations in which fhfa was not proactive in oversight and enforcement and adequate resource allocations may explain these feelings. here are two illustrations. first i'll discuss a report involving fhfa server-side and foreclosure. news reports about foreclosure abuses on the foreclosure process by law firms the nations began to surface in a bi

we just had six executives of fannie mae and freddie mac who were just indicted... but a civil lawsuit, fraud suit was filed against them for misinforming people about this. did you at the time suspect that there was something wrong here? >> i think that civil suit tells you what was going on and why it was wrong. nobody is walking in and telling me, "look, this is how dumb we're being. this is the size of the risk we're engaged in." do i think that there's a purpose to try and help poor people get into housing? yes. i started out i think in 1994 with habitat for humanity. we actually got one of the companies to help try to get every member of congress to build one habitat house. my motto was to help the poor earn their housing, not to try to give them housing they couldn't afford. and i kept trying to find a way to use conservative principles to help poor people acquire housing, which i think is still a worthy goal. >> schieffer: let's talk about another big issue in the campaign. that is immigration. mitt romney has taken such a hard line, it seems to me, on immig

next up, former fannie mae and freddie mac executives accused of fraud.ho, where they grow america's favorite potoes. everyone knows idaho potatoes taste great. but did you know they'reood for you too? they're high in vitamins and potassium. and idaho potatoes are now certified to carry the heart checkmark from the american heart assoction for foods low in saturated fat and cholesterol. so they're good for my family, and for yours. heart smart idaho potatoes. always look for the grown in idaho seal. >>> today the sec charged sention former top executives of fannie and freddie with violation of the federal security laws. in its annual report for 2006, we allege that freddie mac misrepresented to the public that the sub prime holdings were not significant. the actual exposure was between $141 billion and $244 bel. that is about 40 to 70 times greater than what it told investors and the investing public. >> the security and exchange commission. the sec charging six former top executives of fannie mae and freddie mac of securities fraud accusing them of telli

former lee of goldman sachs he was telling them that in fact the plan was to take fannie mae and freddie mac. into government conservative ship so at the time shares for fannie mae were trading at fourteen dollars and thirteen cents a share of freddie mac. were at eight dollars and seventy five cents so this is a perfect opportunity gave them the information which we allowed them to short the company and make huge profits that's right they were gifted. millions hundreds of millions billions of dollars as a gift and that money of course came from the public trough which we are now experiencing in the form of austerity measures so the people who are suffering austerity measures around the world because all these banks are connected people in the u.k. people in america around the world greece ireland they are doing so to pay for the gift that paulson gave his cronies by violating the law by manipulating markets by threatening this bazooka analogy and if he if a paulson a private banker gets to threaten the public with a bazooka. it's actually got his own drones that he's operating financial dro

i said do not help freddie mac and fannie mae. this is not something you should do. i was supporting john boehner in his opposition to a bailout bill for fannie and freddie. the actual record is much closer to what the wall street journal wants. i favor breaking both of them up. they should each be four or five companies and they should be weaned off the government endorsements because it has given them both inappropriate advantages and because we now know from the history of how they evolved that they abused that kind of responsibility. >> schieffer: did you, while all this was going on, know that there was something going on? we just had six executives of fannie mae and freddie mac who were just indicted but a civil lawsuit, fraud suit was filed against them for misinforming people about this. did you at the time suspect that there was something wrong here? >> i think that civil suit tells you what was going on and why it was wrong. nobody is walking in and telling me, look, this is how dumb we're being. this is the size of the risk we're engaged in. do i think tha

>> we filed actions against six former officers and directors of 15 may and freddie mac. our complaint alleges that each of them, including the former ceos of fannie mae and freddie mac caused their companies to mislead the public regarding their holdings in subprime mortgage securities. in addition, subprime mortgages, as well as for fannie mae in -- [ indiscernible ] motor gaps. >> for years, they were calling to shut fannie and freddie down. what do you expect to gape from this lawsuit? do you want them shut down? >> that is not the aim of the lawsuit. the lawsuit is focus on the conduct of the executives regarding the disclosures of their subprime mortgages. from the time period from late 2006-tate taand this is an -- to 2008 and this is an important time leading to the financial crisis. our allegations are at a time when investorsior focused on subprime and mortgages. these people were causing the company's to understate the amount of subprime and loans. >> and isn't it true, i guess, there are testimonies in front of congress, congressional lawmakers, they claim tha

of freddie mac and daniel mudd former chief of fannie mae committed fraud, misleading investors on the risks they were taking in subprime mortgages and down playing the hundreds of billions put at risk, all of it backed by taxpayer guarantees. robert khuzami is the chief of enforcements at the s.e.c.. >> fanny, freddie and their executives sought to maintain the illusion that the business involved minimal and manageable credit risk. >> reporter: for example, in 2007 with fanny aggressively buying subprime loans and with congress concerned about taxpayer losses, the s.e.c. says mudd gave the house a low ball figure he knew was fault. >> as a result, our exposure was minimal, less than 2.5% of our book. >> reporter: s.e.c. documents say fannie's exposure was higher by tens of billions and closer to 5%. one year later in 2008 the s.e.c. says the hidden risk was enormous, that freddie held almost $250 billion in subprime but disclosed six billion. fannie held around $110 billion in subprime but disclosed eight. both former c.e.o.s said in statements they never misled congress or investors.

sponsored enterprise, like freddie mac model.homeownership more affordable is a policy goal that i believe conservatives should embrace." now in an earlier debate, recent debate you said politicians like barney frank, who in your words profited from the environment that led to the financial meltdown should go to jail. now that it turns out that you were on the freddie mac payroll to the tune of more than $1.6 million, how do you answer critics who say you are being hypocritical? >> i think pretty straightforward. barney frank was in public office, with direct power over freddie mac. he exploited that power, just as chris dodd was in public office when he got special bargains from countrywide, a firm which went broke. they were using power. i was a private citizen engaged in a business like any other business. now, if you read the whole thing that they posted i said they need more regulations, and i want to go back to my point about helping people buy houses. it work for years with habitat for humanity. it is a good conservative p

sponsored enterprise, like freddie mac model.homeownership more affordable is a policy goal that i believe conservatives should embrace." now in an earlier debate, recent debate you said politicians like barney frank, who in your words profited from the environment that led to the financial meltdown should go to jail. now that it turns out that you were on the freddie mac payroll to the tune of more than $1.6 million, how do you answer critics who say you are being hypocritical? >> i think pretty straightforward. barney frank was in public office, with direct power over freddie mac. he exploited that power, just as chris dodd was in public office when he got special bargains from countrywide, a firm which went broke. they were using power. i was a private citizen engaged in a business like any other business. now, if you read the whole thing that they posted i said they need more regulations, and i want to go back to my point about helping people buy houses. it work for years with habitat for humanity. it is a good conservative p

freddie mac and fannie mae in the earlier part of the debate. he was refuting everything you said saying you didn't have your facts right saying there is a 98.5% voting record saying he's in the a lobbiest what is your answer to his rebuttal? >> well, it was insulting for him to say that. my facts aren't wrong, we have facts and put it out in the media. the fact is that in 1998 the republican national committee wanted to pass a resolution saying they weren't going give money or funding to any republican candidate if they support partial birth abortion. newt gingrich boldly strolled in and said i am going to campaign and i am going to support any republican candidate if they support the procedure of partial birth abortion that. is what he did z you heard newt gingrich tonight admit as much. he said i wasn't going to stand for a purge. he didn't say that, but he did make the admission and did make that remark. that is remarkable. >> sean: the difference between his position and whether or not the republican party will have a litnus test on whether

and the bidding was to keep this grandiose scam of freddie mac going.is something that our nominee can't stand for. we have to shut down these government enterprises and we to end them. i think that is shocking that he is saying that. >> can i say two things. >> speaker gingrich, quickly. >> i want to say two things. first, my policy is to break up both fannie mae and freddie mac is not like anything she just described. second, i want to state for any person watching tonight i have never once changed my positions because of any kind of payment because the truth is i was a national figure who was doing just fine doing a whole variety of things including writing best selling books, making speeches and the fact is i only chose to work with people whose values i shared and having people have a chance to buy a house is a value i believe still is important in america. >> now, to neil cavuto with questions about the economy. >>> speaker gingrich, not to make you a target, but you -- >> it goes with being right here. >> you just responded this morning, sir,, tw

two former ceos of mortgage giants fannie mae and freddie mac were hit with accusations of fraud, by the s.e.c. fannie and freddie collapsed during the financial meltdown back in '08, leaving taxpayers with a staggering bill that grows larger by the day. nbc news senior investigative correspondent lisa myers has our report. >> reporter: three years ago the former ceos of fannie mae and freddie mac infuriated a congressional committee by denying any blame for the financial crisis. >> we thought we made the right decision at the time. >> you have exhibited no sense of accountability for your actions here, none. >> reporter: but today both former ceos, daniel mudd of fannie mae and richard syron of freddie mac were accused of civil fraud. the securities and exchange commission, or e.s.c., alleged that they and four other executives made false and misleading statements to conceal the extent of risky sub prime mortgages. >> today's action is about holding individuals accountable for their role in misleading the public. >> reporter: who got hurt here? a lot of hard-working americans saving

>> well, it is the fact that we know that he cashed paychecks from freddie mac. have. over $1.6 million. and frankly, i'm shocked, listening to the former speaker of the house, because he's defending the continuing practice of freddie mac and fannie mae. there is a big difference between a credit union and freddie mac and fannie mae and they were the epicenter of the mortgage financial meltdown. i was trying to see these two entities put into bankruptcy because they, frankly, need to go away. when the speaker had his hand out and he was taking $1.6 million to influence senior republicans to keep the scam going in washington, d.c. that's absolutely wrong. we can't have as our nominee for the republican party someone who continues to stand for freddie mac and fannie mae. they need to be shut down, not built up. >> speaker gingrich? >> well, easiest answer is that's just not true. what she just say is factually not true. i never lobbied under any circumstance. i never went in and suggested in any way that we do this. in fact, i tried to help defeat the housing act w

freddie mac paid newt $30,000 an hour. $1.6 million. gingrich not only teamed one nancy pelosi on global warming but together they co-sponsored a bill that gave $60 million a year to a u.n. program supporting china's brutal one child policy. as speaker, gingrich even supported taxpayer funding of some abortions. and newt is the only speaker in history to be reprimanded. he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations by a republic congress. >> laura: today the "the washington post" fact checker gave that ad four pinocchios. on multiple fronts it distorts the former speaker's record. on his part romney says he doesn't personally coordinate any super pac activities to which gingrich replies. >> his comments today are palpably misleading. clearly false, and politics in its worse form. >> laura: also on my radio show today gingrich accused rom any of, quote, defending the right to lie. now, while newt's frustration may be justified and as much as people say they don't like negative ards. let's face it, they work. check this out. in a rasmussen

>>shepard: michele bachmann jumped at the top of the freddie mac scale there on gingrich.ow did he handle it? >>guest: she we asked pointed questions but all out were neuter newt and he stood his ground and i don't think he faltered in his questions. and romney did very well. so, the others were just window dressing for the two frontrunners. >>shepard: sometimes what you really want to do is not just see how people react but get facts out in front of the people who will be voting. how was that successful on the part of michele bachmann? >>guest: she helped but did not help enough for her to be taken seriously in the iowa caucus or beyond that. romney actually did the best on the economy. he explained himself very well with regard to the businesses that he ran. and i think he probably helped himself more than any others on the stage. >>shepard: really? it is my sense that the vast majority of the folks out there either don't remember all the newt stuff or have not been tuned into the newt stuff and it seems like from looking at the polls the more they hear the more the numb