Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, boomer.

Ty’s Neighbor on Next Door: I need someone who can help me rewire a home built in 2008. Anyone?

Ty: I can probably help. I worked in regulating consolidation of energy sector companies in that time frame for DOJ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Ty’s Next Door Neighbor: I need someone who can help me rewire a home built in 2008. Anyone?

Ty: I can probably help. I worked in regulating consolidation of energy sector companies in that time frame for DOJ.

When you turn this into a story that wins third place in The Moth in Dayton, I expect you to buy me a beer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Ty’s Next Door Neighbor: I need someone who can help me rewire a home built in 2008. Anyone?

Ty: I can probably help. I worked in regulating consolidation of energy sector companies in that time frame for DOJ.

This discussion thread started with your assertion that a lawyer who worked in lending was most qualified to state what happened in 2008 re MBS. (You raised it as a question, but you were assuming that answer.)

And that answer is not wrong, usually. A person working closely with industry participants does know more than a regulator or someone suing people in the industry. Usually.

But the question that started this all was whether the banks were engaged more in fraud than mere victims of a bubble bursting. (This is a strange choice, as these aren't mutually exclusive and can run together, but forget that for now.)

If you accept the industry argument that the banks were more victims of a bubble than people engaged in wilful ignorance and fraud, you necessarily assert that a lot of people in the industry were incompetent or negligent. If a lot of people in the industry really didn't understand the products with which they were working, or the cash flows and credit risks underpinning them, might this be an exception to the rule that people within the industry know best what occurred in 2008? Might this be a situation where, if you believe the industry was caught as flat footed as it asserts it was, knowing what it knew about the housing market and securities derived from it at the time isn't really worth much?

Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a book about 2008 called TBTF. He interviewed and culled quotes from largely industry insiders, and unsurprisingly, the book carries water for the industry and asserts the banks were more victims than fuckups or practitioners of IBGYBG. Numerous other books, too many to list, take a broader look (incorporating sources inside and outside Wall Street) at the housing market and MBS, and offer different a different verdict. They see a mixed bag of fraud, incompetence, and mania.

I'm not sure Wall Street is the best or exclusive source from which to judge what occurred in 2008 re MBS. It's one of many needed to ascertain what took place. So Ty might in fact be as good a source as any other on this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm looking for the "crawl back under their rocks" option. That's what I'm hoping for. That some of these reptiles just get back under the rocks.

If he loses in an election, I see that happening. If he were taken out via impeachment, the possibilities become fascinating.

I think one thing is certain. We are going to have way more impeachments in the future.

And if Joe wins, Hunter has to move far, far away. They have to hide the dude in a cave in Madagascar.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Adder during those years at work he had to only be reading blogs about why W needed to be impeached and posting them here. He had a new theory every day. There is no way he had time to have any significant role in a real matter. The only termination he worked on there was when he left.

I was on the phone with a guy yesterday regarding a land use issue. Conversation was regarding p/e investors in a project who'd no clue about how the physical and infrastructure pieces came together. This was the term he used: "chart readers."

I think you get a lot of that these days. My best friend who covered an industry well enough to retire a few years back doesn't know much about how the industry actually works at ground level. But why would he? He just bet on helicopter level data about it all of which was created by analysts in cubicles, based on occasional field reports from sources most of whom they'd never met.

People write investing newsletters from their homes based on shit they read on Bloomberg terminals.

I don't see how gambling remains illegal anywhere. These "chart readers" are effectively just gambling on projects as you might gamble on a football game. I guess one can say this is technically capitalism because they are allocating money to productive endeavors. But to call these people experts on these fields is a bit rich. They are experts on how investments in these fields perform and the value of investment products based on activities in these field fluctuate and trade in relation to helicopter level data fed to the market for such investments. Two different things.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think one thing is certain. We are going to have way more impeachments in the future.

This is interesting. A Republican friend of mine (wait, what??) brought this up. Apparently the belief that this is completely political and a way for Democrats to overturn an election is being swallowed completely by so many on the right that even an otherwise intelligent person eats it up.

When asked why an impeachment over a lie about a blowjob didn't create a string of ridiculous, political impeachment hearings, but this will, the response is: "Well, that was actually a crime." Like, motherfucker are you being serious right now?

One side of this debate, 40% of this country, and 90% of the right is completely fucking lost. Gone. If they didn't have a built-in electoral advantage, they would be written off completely. There is no working with them on anything--and that's from their leadership down to their ignorant, stupid fucking entitled base.

This country is over. We are so structurally unsound that we cannot fix the problems we know we have.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This discussion thread started with your assertion that a lawyer who worked in lending was most qualified to state what happened in 2008 re MBS. (You raised it as a question, but you were assuming that answer.)

And that answer is not wrong, usually. A person working closely with industry participants does know more than a regulator or someone suing people in the industry. Usually.

But the question that started this all was whether the banks were engaged more in fraud than mere victims of a bubble bursting. (This is a strange choice, as these aren't mutually exclusive and can run together, but forget that for now.)

If you accept the industry argument that the banks were more victims of a bubble than people engaged in wilful ignorance and fraud, you necessarily assert that a lot of people in the industry were incompetent or negligent. If a lot of people in the industry really didn't understand the products with which they were working, or the cash flows and credit risks underpinning them, might this be an exception to the rule that people within the industry know best what occurred in 2008? Might this be a situation where, if you believe the industry was caught as flat footed as it asserts it was, knowing what it knew about the housing market and securities derived from it at the time isn't really worth much?

Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a book about 2008 called TBTF. He interviewed and culled quotes from largely industry insiders, and unsurprisingly, the book carries water for the industry and asserts the banks were more victims than fuckups or practitioners of IBGYBG. Numerous other books, too many to list, take a broader look (incorporating sources inside and outside Wall Street) at the housing market and MBS, and offer different a different verdict. They see a mixed bag of fraud, incompetence, and mania.

I'm not sure Wall Street is the best or exclusive source from which to judge what occurred in 2008 re MBS. It's one of many needed to ascertain what took place. So Ty might in fact be as good a source as any other on this.

One mistake people make when talking about the big banks is to think of them as cohesive institutions operating rationally, rather than as collections of highly paid individuals often acting on their own agenda and against institutional interests. Take a look at the criminal cases against bankers, for things like price fixing, and you see the bankers responsible for institutional risk completely failing to get the banks' employees acting in the best interests of the banks. Over time, the banks make a lot of money. From year to year, the individuals at the banks who make the most money can change quite a lot. There is a strong incentive to make your killing when you can. Hence IBGYBG.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was on the phone with a guy yesterday regarding a land use issue. Conversation was regarding p/e investors in a project who'd no clue about how the physical and infrastructure pieces came together. This was the term he used: "chart readers."

I think you get a lot of that these days. My best friend who covered an industry well enough to retire a few years back doesn't know much about how the industry actually works at ground level. But why would he? He just bet on helicopter level data about it all of which was created by analysts in cubicles, based on occasional field reports from sources most of whom they'd never met.

People write investing newsletters from their homes based on shit they read on Bloomberg terminals.

I don't see how gambling remains illegal anywhere. These "chart readers" are effectively just gambling on projects as you might gamble on a football game. I guess one can say this is technically capitalism because they are allocating money to productive endeavors. But to call these people experts on these fields is a bit rich. They are experts on how investments in these fields perform and the value of investment products based on activities in these field fluctuate and trade in relation to helicopter level data fed to the market for such investments. Two different things.

I was in a board meeting yesterday. At the risk of describing the obvious, you have a back and forth between executives who are buried in the details of the business every day, and directors who check in for a few hours every three months. If you do it right, the directors can add a lot of value. But if it were easy to do right, everyone would do it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is interesting. A Republican friend of mine (wait, what??) brought this up. Apparently the belief that this is completely political and a way for Democrats to overturn an election is being swallowed completely by so many on the right that even an otherwise intelligent person eats it up.

When asked why an impeachment over a lie about a blowjob didn't create a string of ridiculous, political impeachment hearings, but this will, the response is: "Well, that was actually a crime." Like, motherfucker are you being serious right now?

One side of this debate, 40% of this country, and 90% of the right is completely fucking lost. Gone. If they didn't have a built-in electoral advantage, they would be written off completely. There is no working with them on anything--and that's from their leadership down to their ignorant, stupid fucking entitled base.

This country is over. We are so structurally unsound that we cannot fix the problems we know we have.

TM

The Clinton Impeachment was the beginning of the end. That was the moment where politics became total war.

Trump is impeachable for what he did, while I don’t think Clinton was, but I think between Trump and Clinton, Bush II’s lying us into Iraq was also impeachable. (And I’d have liked to see that because it would have flayed the media that got behind those lies.)

The Trump Impeachment is, like any other, partly political. Schiff’s tears yesterday are ludicrous theatre. They’ve wanted to nail this ass from the start, and he’s dumb enough to have given them ammo to do so.

I do not believe more than a handful of people behind this impeachment really give a shit about “the Constitution” as they claim. They care about power, and removing a threat to the way they like to administer the Constitution.

The GOP is going to see this as an invite to impeach the next D President. Particularly if it’s Biden, who’ll be investigated endlessly.

Credit the entire shit show to these two assholes who set it all in motion: Richard Mellon Scaife and Newt Gingrich. Executive Producer credit to Ken Starr.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Trump Impeachment is, like any other, partly political. Schiff’s tears yesterday are ludicrous theatre. They’ve wanted to nail this ass from the start, and he’s dumb enough to have given them ammo to do so.

I wish smart people (and against all odds, I think of you as smart), would stop parroting this bullshit. You have it back asswards. Trump was a dirty, corrupt, idiot whose actions from the very start were illegal, unethical, and terrible for this country. That's what triggered everything from "wanting to nail" him from the start to the many (successful) criminal investigations he's had to endure. The fact that his policies, demeanor, politics, racism, sexism, xenophobia, whatever are all abhorrent is not what is driving anyone to impeach him. It is only political in that that is the mechanism to hold him accountable. So stop with the "Schiff is acting." He is actually taking his duty as a public official seriously while every single Republican in office is engaging in a vast, coordinated theatrical fucking lie. Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do not believe more than a handful of people behind this impeachment really give a shit about “the Constitution” as they claim. They care about power, and removing a threat to the way they like to administer the Constitution.

I don't really give a shit what you believe.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The GOP is going to see this as an invite to impeach the next D President. Particularly if it’s Biden, who’ll be investigated endlessly.

Right. Because they've acted so reasonably up until this point. Hillary wasn't investigated over bullshit constantly.

The shit you say is so fucking ridiculous.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Credit the entire shit show to these two assholes who set it all in motion: Richard Mellon Scaife and Newt Gingrich. Executive Producer credit to Ken Starr.

I almost want to agree with you. But if you think that Trump's impeachment is in any way the product of what Gingrich and Starr did, you're insane and/or stupid.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I wish smart people (and against all odds, I think of you as smart), would stop parroting this bullshit. You have it back asswards. Trump was a dirty, corrupt, idiot whose actions from the very start were illegal, unethical, and terrible for this country. That's what triggered everything from "wanting to nail" him from the start to the many (successful) criminal investigations he's had to endure.

Trump's people were coordinating with Russia long before he took office. Perhaps we have all forgotten that Jarod Kushner asked the Russian ambassador about using Russian embassy channels to communicate with Moscow before the inauguration. Trump's campaign was run by Manafort. Roger Stone is a criminal. Trump's National Security Advisor lied to the FBI, which is what really got Comey and Mueller going.

I almost want to agree with you. But if you think that Trump's impeachment is in any way the product of what Gingrich and Starr did, you're insane and/or stupid.

All three are the product of what the conservative movement and the Republican Party have become, fueled by demographic changes in the country, the end of the Cold War and technological changes in media. Gingrich was the avatar, though.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump's people were coordinating with Russia long before he took office. Perhaps we have all forgotten that Jarod Kushner asked the Russian ambassador about using Russian embassy channels to communicate with Moscow before the inauguration. Trump's campaign was run by Manafort. Roger Stone is a criminal. Trump's National Security Advisor lied to the FBI, which is what really got Comey and Mueller going.

Agree. The fact that anyone with half a brain gives fuel to the "Trump derangement" theme is an absolute travesty. People just don't like him so they are acting irrationally when it comes to him? GTFOH. Everything he's done (and Less' ridiculous carveouts should be completely ignored) has been an outright lie, self-serving, corrupt, objectively stupid, criminal, racist, sexist, irrationally xenophobic, spiteful, lazy, and/or completely ignorant.

Everyone he's come into contact with in his campaign and Administration either leaves in frustration, is in jail, criticizes or laughs at him, or gets fired for not swearing fealty. When I point all of this out--none of which is the slightest bit controversial--I'm deranged? FOH.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

All three are the product of what the conservative movement and the Republican Party have become, fueled by demographic changes in the country, the end of the Cold War and technological changes in media. Gingrich was the avatar, though.

I am not arguing about who is first to be the asshole. I'm stating that this impeachment is not the product of some lower standard set by Gingrich. If ever there were an impeachment that was righteous, this is it.

And even if it weren't--even if Trump were being subjected to an impeachment over how he chews gum--that would not be the impetus for Republicans acting like complete fucking trash and investigating bullshit and pretending to investigate made up bullshit going forward. That's who they are no matter what is happening right now.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Trump is impeachable for what he did, while I don’t think Clinton was, but I think between Trump and Clinton, Bush II’s lying us into Iraq was also impeachable. (And I’d have liked to see that because it would have flayed the media that got behind those lies.)

The Trump Impeachment is, like any other, partly political.

They are all political. It is a political process. Which is why your judgment of what's "impeachable" doesn't matter, and why W wasn't impeached. Congress can't hold someone accountable for what it was complicit in.

Which, incidentally, is part of the Senate's problem right now.

Schiff’s tears yesterday are ludicrous theatre. They’ve wanted to nail this ass from the start, and he’s dumb enough to have given them ammo to do so.

I do not believe more than a handful of people behind this impeachment really give a shit about “the Constitution” as they claim. They care about power, and removing a threat to the way they like to administer the Constitution.

This is why you're among those that Thurgreed describes as "gone." You're completely unable to see anything as right or wrong. It's all just a power game. You're just like the GOP.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

They are all political. It is a political process. Which is why your judgment of what's "impeachable" doesn't matter, and why W wasn't impeached. Congress can't hold someone accountable for what it was complicit in.

Which, incidentally, is part of the Senate's problem right now.



This is why you're among those that Thurgreed describes as "gone." You're completely unable to see anything as right or wrong. It's all just a power game. You're just like the GOP.

I do think it’s mostly a power game. But I’m not saying I support that notion. You’re confusing a dark view with a belief corruption is okay.

I don’t think corruption is okay. But I’ve been directly in politics and seen that the political and the official blur together all the time. I think it’s a reality that “corruption” is and has been rampant in politics forever. Trump takes it to a new level, but that’s not because of quantity so much as stupidity, transparency, and audacity.

What he did in Ukraine (used a foreign country for political gain) has been done before. He is simply so stupid he didn’t know how to roll out a pretext and do it thru channels that would always allow for plausible deniability.

Shit, most of the things politicians do are partly pretextual and involve political motives. SCOTUS is taking up the validity of that very argument as a defense in the Bridgegate case.

Trump does have autocratic leanings, so I do think enhanced resistance to his politicization of the office is prudent. And if he’s going to be as brazen about it as he is, well, that level of dumb perhaps leaves those who are charged with oversight little choice but to impeach.

Politics and government will always be intertwined and officials will always be engaged in technically corrupt acts. To the extent any politician decides to do anything based on political considerations, he or she has spent taxpayer money (his salary) and donor money for his own benefit. The system is inherently flawed in this regard and designed to accommodate a power game where the only real crime is being dumb enough to get caught.

I don’t like it, but calling out any single instance of “corruption” as uniquely lurid or offensive in DC is in most cases pointing out that which was done stupidly while ignoring the thousands of technically corrupt acts done smartly and thus unnoticed or unprovable every day.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump's people were coordinating with Russia long before he took office. Perhaps we have all forgotten that Jarod Kushner asked the Russian ambassador about using Russian embassy channels to communicate with Moscow before the inauguration. Trump's campaign was run by Manafort. Roger Stone is a criminal. Trump's National Security Advisor lied to the FBI, which is what really got Comey and Mueller going.



All three are the product of what the conservative movement and the Republican Party have become, fueled by demographic changes in the country, the end of the Cold War and technological changes in media. Gingrich was the avatar, though.

Except it has not been proven that Trump’s people were coordinating regarding election interference with Russia. You can say it was suspected and this why Comey and Schiff put him under enhanced scrutiny. But you cannot say what you said in that first sentence above in regard to meddling in the 2016 election, because it’s still just an allegation.

To answer another post here, I think the issue with Schiff comes down to the fact that, as an ex-prosecutor, he’s a hammer ever in search of a nail. Trump is a shitball, so he takes it upon himself to chase everything, with an admitted intent to take Trump down. That is exhausting. It also has a huge stink of opportunism about it (the guy is on TV talk shows more than some hosts). So Schiff is clearly, partly, political. NTTAWWT. But it puts him in the box with other political people who’ve sought to take out presidents, like Gingrich, Scaife, Starr.

He has a much better case than Starr and Gingrich, of course. But even he knows, censure of Trump followed by his loss in an election is a more likely successful approach. But again, he’s a hammer, and he’s a lawyer, so He Knows Best.

Maybe Schiff has no choice. But he looks a lot more like Ahab than Robert Welch at the moment. Whether a man is guilty or not is not the sole decision in whether to prosecute. The feds don’t indict the terminally ill. A censure, which would rob Trump of the right to say he’s been acquitted and vindicated, may render him effectively terminally ill in terms of re-election. Maybe it’s better to just wait the ten months for his disease to take him out?*

But Schiff always knows best. He is a trial lawyer, a TV darling, and like Gingrich and Starr, he believes this president must be removed, and this is his big moment. In which he risks, and may succeed, in getting Trump re-elected.
___
* The argument he needs to be impeached to avoid him stealing the next election is facile. Trump is in a reverse panopticon. If people are concerned about that, they should be impeaching Zuckerberg.