Replies to post #354543 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[big-yank]

History says you are wrong. Government impropriety and secrecy are a sad legacy of much hidden stuff that went on through history. Oppression of minorities and women, McCarthyism, secret CIA wars, Johnson funding the VietNam war by taking funds including from Fannie Mae, the IRS being used for political persecution under Hoover, impeachment proceedings against Clinton for purely political purposes, Watergate, Iran/Contra. Then there are banking and Wall Street fiascos including shareholder suits against both GSEs long before 2008, Bernie Kornfeld, Michael Millken, Bernard Ebbers, Enron... ad nauseum... and notorious bank fiascos like Barings and so, so many others.

So let's just be factual. There are SYSTEMIC issues such as those being cited in Fanniegate that have been around forever. The sweep is no more unusual or startling a claim as Teapot Dome, JFK's ties to the mafia or the CIA funded Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

There is no historical precedent for gazillions of documents being demanded in a civil jury case that drags copious amounts of the government's archives through a media campaign being waged by a seemingly orchestrated legal campaign whose primary goal is not to secure evidence for a claim pending, but rather an attempt to embarrass and shame the government with threats to release sensitive and condemning behaviors that have no relevance to any case. They are a de facto form of blackmail to acquire huge amounts of money and concessions to enhance share value. How many documents were released in any of the foregoing scandals I referenced as precedent? Not many. Lots were requested, especially under FOIA, but only a very few like the Daniel Ellsburg saga ever gained any real content traction. Do you think releasing all those dirty details would enhance the U.S. reputation and status as a world leader? I don't. There is a reason for privilege. I respect it. So should everybody using discovery in an ambulance-chasing witch hunt for enhanced wealth at the expense of the government. Selective discovery is legal, proper and not under dispute from government attorneys, as I sense it. But someone has to draw a line on excess driven by ulterior motives.

JMHO.