"The DOJ must have had some law in mind when they advised Treasury on the (il)legality of writing off the seniors during Treasury's negotiations with FHFA in late 2020. Your idea that since Calabria didn't mention a specific law means that law doesn't exist is just plain faulty logic"
Good gravy... Dead horse beating alert. What is faulty logic is your assumption that the DOJ "must have had some law in mind" when the reality is that neither DOJ nor the Treasury ever mentioned anything about write downs. If there is actual evidence to the contrary, then please provide it! Calabria doesn't need to mention a law because he's just recollecting a conversation. To think that every word in a remembered conversation is fact with legal backing is ludicrous.
"You need to stop calling the NWS an illegal contract. The jury verdict did NOT say that the NWS is illegal. Your opinion as to its legality carries no weight in any court or agency decisions."
I didn't say the jury said it. I can say it. A clause that has been legally deemed a breach of good faith and fair dealing is a moot clause in contract. Or at the very least opens itself to be nullified lest there be future damages by continuing the bad-faith practice. The damages are independent of the breach itself, yes. I am not limited to only saying things that are proven in court. Again, I'm not sure you understand what a conversation is.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
