Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

The argument you're responding to is made in bad faith, though. It is pure cherry-picking.

Here is what the Collins plaintiffs have to say in their Supplemental Brief to the Fifth Circuit en banc panel (page 29):

Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy would only require accounting entries on the books of Treasury and the Companies; it could be accomplished without any money changing hands. Furthermore, even after this remedy, Treasury would still hold warrants to purchase 79.9% of the Companies’ common stock at a nominal price—warrants that Treasury acquired as part of the original PSPAs.

And on page 28 of the Collins plaintiffs' Supreme Court brief:

with the lion’s share going to Treasury had it exercised its common stock warrants. But Treasury was
not content with 80% of Fannie’s and Freddie’s common equity, it wanted it all.

There is even another tweet by the same plaintiff answering why they didn't go after anything other than the NWS:

Look at how often everyone lost before this suit.
It is different for a reason, unfortunately. We even lost 100% in our first court appearance.

This was the most likely to be won.

When a plaintiff makes one statement on Twitter and a contradictory one in multiple court briefs, guess which ones matter.

Anti-warrant sentiment is great for bringing out the cheerleaders but useless in practical terms.