Replies to post #727930 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Hvp123]

Wow, not even close to good faith & fair deal, bring it, unpaid dividend for last 9 yrs, go Hamish Hume

[Clark6290]

Yeah common knowledge regarding email string from 2008
I already know it was ruled the FHFA could do as it wants.

Regardless, I sent to Hamish as an attachment.

Hammy,

See attached email from 2008. We got em now big Dawgs.

Jackwagon. MBA, MAOL,

[Donotunderstand]

March 2008

As the Crisis was brewing

[Robert from yahoo bd]

The decision by UNELECTED federal government agency officials to Nationalize 2 of the worlds largest privately owned financial intermediaries may also violate the Major Questions Doctrine as articulated by Gorsuch last month in West Virginia v EPA:

"First, this Court has indicated that the doctrine applies
when an agency claims the power to resolve a matter of
great “political significance,” NFIB v. OSHA,"

"Second, this Court has said that an agency must point to
clear congressional authorization when it seeks to regulate
“‘a significant portion of the American economy,’” ante, at
18 (quoting Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324), or require “bil-
lions of dollars in spending” by private persons or entities,
King v. Burwell, 576 U. S. 473, 485 (2015)."

"Third, this Court has said that the major questions doc-
trine may apply when an agency seeks to “intrud[e] into an
area that is the particular domain of state law.” Ibid. Of
course, another longstanding clear-statement rule—the
federalism canon—also applies in these situations. To pre-
serve the “proper balance between the States and the Fed-
eral Government” and enforce limits on Congress’s Com-
merce Clause power, courts must “‘be certain of Congress’s
intent’” before finding that it “legislate[d] in areas tradi-
tionally regulated by the States.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501
U. S. 452, 459–460 (1991). But unsurprisingly, the major
questions doctrine and the federalism canon often travel to-
gether. When an agency claims the power to regulate vast
swaths of American life, it not only risks intruding on Con-
gress’s power, it also risks intruding on powers reserved to
the States. See SWANC, 531 U. S., at 162, 174

While this list of triggers may not be exclusive, each of
the signs the Court has found significant in the past is pre-
sent here, making this a relatively easy case for the doc-
trine’s application."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

[Wise Man]

That's it? An email between two WH advisors talking about nationalizing FnF, when the legal status is Conservatorship and also FnF are subject to a congressional Charter that bars the United States from using the FnF's assets and securities to make money.
Please, show some respect to the Rule of Law and keep the emails between Govt officials for yourself!
Show me the law and regulations.