Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Sogo]

Have plaintiffs' lawyers been double agents?

So many cases, and in so many of them, the plaintiffs' lawyers have seemingly chosen to argue their weakest grievances rather than their strongest ones. They seem to have so consistently avoided contesting the bigger questions such as HERA, FHFA constitutionality, the original '08 action (and the board being "under duress" when they made the decision), and even smaller arguments that are also incredibly strong like process violations, that I am starting to think they are maybe being paid by TBTF to ACT like they are working for their clients' best interests when in fact they are deliberately choosing to pursue the less powerful legal angles. If TBTF were evil geniuses (any question they are?), then they would find or create a way to influence or control the plaintiffs via their own council. And they would make sure the plaintiffs' council chose to focus on the weaker arguments. That way, everything appears as if there is a legitimate legal battle going on, when in fact the plaintiffs lawyers are deliberately tanking the cases but making it seem like they are trying hard to win. .