She's drilling an insignificant point that Goldman was selling junk. It's legal for Goldman to do that just like it's legal for everyone to sell at top and then short a stock knowing it has topped. The real important issue is why Treasury and FED used taxpayers' money to bail AIG out and pay Goldman's bet 100%. She's not investigating that b/c it was carried out by Obama's Sec of Trea, and she would not risk pissing Obama off over that.
Good point. What do u think of GS case? Will they prove GS fraut eventually? if SEC win, then some chinese airlines and other firms can begin to sue GS/ MS also for their betting lost on 2008 oil.
I think GS was clever enough to structure the security in a way they can not be sued. Democrooks know this as well. They are using GS as a tool to score public support for their phony reform and then put pressure on GOP. The real culprits, Fed and Treasury, are left untouched. Fed will actually gain more power from the reform (and act more lawless than ever). Our airlines are already off the hook, I think. They may not claim their loss back but they already stopped paying any more of that.
【在 c***m 的大作中提到】 : Good point. What do u think of GS case? Will they prove GS fraut eventually? : if SEC win, then some chinese airlines and other firms can begin to sue GS/ : MS also for their betting lost on 2008 oil.
That is what I thought too. "Our airlines are already off the hook, " Are u sure? any link? bottom line: did u bottom fish GS around 150?
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】 : : I think GS was clever enough to structure the security in a way they can : not be sued. Democrooks know this as well. They are using GS as a tool to : score public support for their phony reform and then put pressure on GOP. : The real culprits, Fed and Treasury, are left untouched. Fed will actually : gain more power from the reform (and act more lawless than ever). : Our airlines are already off the hook, I think. They may not claim their : loss back but they already stopped paying any more of that.