The Government is trying to Exclude these statements from Susan McFarland at the Lamberth trial (whose paying Arnold & Porters legal fees, the GSE'S?):
"Specifically, Defendants objected at the first trial to the following speculative deposition
testimony from Ms. McFarland:
• “[W]e didn’t believe that Treasury would be too fond of a significant amount
of capital buildup inside the enterprises.” Tr. of Oral Dep. of Susan McFarland
Dep. at 149:24–150:1 (Class ECF No. 227–1, Fairholme ECF No. 224–1)
(attached as Exhibit A).
1
• “I am giving you sort of my perspective on why [Treasury might] prefer that
not to happen—you know, capital accumulation to happen at that point in
time.” Id. at 150:19–151:2.
• “[T]he question is why would [Treasury] be concerned of us making money
and creating capital inside the enterprise. I think in my own opinion . . . I think
politically it seemed a little—it would seem to me that there would be
individuals bothered that some individuals might profit from the Government’s
support of the enterprises, okay?” Id. at 158:15–23."
"See generally Joint Submission of Objections to Dep. Designations at 5, 8–9 (Class ECF
No. 227, Fairholme ECF No. 224).
The Court sustained Defendants’ objections and excluded this testimony, finding:
[This testimony] goes into detail about why McFarland believed Treasury would
not want a buildup in capital at the GSEs. That could potentially confuse the jury
into thinking that McFarland had personal knowledge of Treasury’s position, which
might lend credence to the idea that FHFA adopted that position. For that reason,
the testimony is likely to be substantially more prejudicial than probative. . . . [It also] amounts to McFarland’s speculation as to what Treasury’s reasoning might
have been.
Trial Tr. 226:24–227:1, 227:10–11;2
see also Ex. A at 225:6–8 (conceding that she “couldn’t get
in the minds of Treasury and what they were thinking”)."
