Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 3226172 times)

TwoCitiesCapital

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3810 on: July 05, 2016, 11:34:30 AM »
comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision.  whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was his the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point.

now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion.  it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law.  meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break

anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting...

I wondered the same thing. He made it very clear that the State department was grossly negligent, but there was no hard evidence of an intent to commit a crime. I'm surprised that there will be no action brought for gross negligence or that the willful use of the private server and cell phone which had previously been prohibited didn't count as "intent", but I'm not a legal expert....

That being said, I think the case here clearly has more in the way of evidence in regards to "intent" than what I've seen with HRC, so that has to count for something...


onyx1

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3811 on: July 05, 2016, 01:35:31 PM »
comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision.  whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point.

now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion.  it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law.  meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break

anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting...


I'd like to know from Comey what is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence".   

When top officials rewrite law like Comey just did, it provides clearance for other to do the same. 

This is the biggest risk to the GSE investment thesis.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3812 on: July 05, 2016, 03:43:07 PM »
comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision.  whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point.

now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion.  it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law.  meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break

anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting...


I'd like to know from Comey what is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence".   

When top officials rewrite law like Comey just did, it provides clearance for other to do the same. 

This is the biggest risk to the GSE investment thesis.

what i was getting at onyx1.  my only hope re GSE thesis is that we have seen it already with lamberth, and lightening wont strike twice

rros

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3813 on: July 05, 2016, 03:55:55 PM »
now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion.

How about when you read judge Wheeler's compelling argument to have Greenberg get paid in AIG lawsuit yet he did not? Add this one too to the list of compelling arguments that win nothing for plaintiff?

Steve_Berk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3814 on: July 06, 2016, 07:05:29 AM »
Reading through Comey's statement, I think that he's interpreting 'gross negligence' the way that it's usually interpreted--it's typically read to be similar to intentional misconduct or just a hair short of it. Similar to reckless indifference -- in order to reach that level of negligence, the person really has to have almost no regard for the law or their conduct's impact. Comey goes out of his way to say that Clinton didn't engage in intentional misconduct but was extremely careless, which is not a legal term but just a regular description. To me, extremely careless sounds more like negligence but not gross negligence, but that's the thing about terminology that is used colloquially--it's hard to match up with terms that have legal meaning, because different people are going to interpret them in different ways.

I'm not too worried about what this means for the GSE litigation. Prosecutorial discretion is exercised all the time in a way where authorities do not prosecute people who may very well be guilty of illegalities because of a lack of evidence--those people who aren't prosecuted may still be sharply criticized by the police or authorities, but prosecution may still not make sense--here, Comey says there's insufficient evidence for prosecution.

comey's decision not to recommend criminal charges against HRC is not surprising, but what is surprising is that comey's presentation laid out a compelling case to bring charges against HRC based upon the gross negligence statutory provision.  whether or not there was "clean" evidence as to HRC's intent, as comey stated was the basis for his decision not to recommend, was totally beside the point.

now this is all OT re this thread, except i had the same reaction reading comey's transcript that i had reading lamberth's opinion.  it seems that we have all collectively lost the will to enforce the rule of law.  meh, being in govt is hard and so we will cut govtal bad actors a break

anyhow, i said my peace, and may this be a prayer that i am overreacting...


I'd like to know from Comey what is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence".   

When top officials rewrite law like Comey just did, it provides clearance for other to do the same. 

This is the biggest risk to the GSE investment thesis.

what i was getting at onyx1.  my only hope re GSE thesis is that we have seen it already with lamberth, and lightening wont strike twice
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 07:09:05 AM by Steve_Berk »

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3815 on: July 06, 2016, 07:36:46 AM »
"Reading through Comey's statement, I think that he's interpreting 'gross negligence' the way that it's usually interpreted--it's typically read to be similar to intentional misconduct or just a hair short of it. Similar to reckless indifference -- in order to reach that level of negligence, the person really has to have almost no regard for the law or their conduct's impact. Comey goes out of his way to say that Clinton didn't engage in intentional misconduct but was extremely careless, which is not a legal term but just a regular description. To me, extremely careless sounds more like negligence but not gross negligence, but that's the thing about terminology that is used colloquially--it's hard to match up with terms that have legal meaning, because different people are going to interpret them in different ways.

I'm not too worried about what this means for the GSE litigation. Prosecutorial discretion is exercised all the time in a way where authorities do not prosecute people who may very well be guilty of illegalities because of a lack of evidence--those people who aren't prosecuted may still be sharply criticized by the police or authorities, but prosecution may still not make sense--here, Comey says there's insufficient evidence for prosecution."

this is a good explanation steve.  i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other.

frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors.  i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy.

as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce.  i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better.   see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency

on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen.  i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens.

muscleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3075
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3816 on: July 06, 2016, 07:55:44 AM »
"Reading through Comey's statement, I think that he's interpreting 'gross negligence' the way that it's usually interpreted--it's typically read to be similar to intentional misconduct or just a hair short of it. Similar to reckless indifference -- in order to reach that level of negligence, the person really has to have almost no regard for the law or their conduct's impact. Comey goes out of his way to say that Clinton didn't engage in intentional misconduct but was extremely careless, which is not a legal term but just a regular description. To me, extremely careless sounds more like negligence but not gross negligence, but that's the thing about terminology that is used colloquially--it's hard to match up with terms that have legal meaning, because different people are going to interpret them in different ways.

I'm not too worried about what this means for the GSE litigation. Prosecutorial discretion is exercised all the time in a way where authorities do not prosecute people who may very well be guilty of illegalities because of a lack of evidence--those people who aren't prosecuted may still be sharply criticized by the police or authorities, but prosecution may still not make sense--here, Comey says there's insufficient evidence for prosecution."

this is a good explanation steve.  i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other.

frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors.  i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy.

as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce.  i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better.   see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency

on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen.  i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens.

I also find it weird that the DE court is making no progress at this moment. Six weeks have passed and the DE court is not doing anything after knowing the MDL decision. I wonder if this is an implication that the judge there is in the deferential camp like Lamberth.
I am muslceman. I have more muscle than brain!

merkhet

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2984
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3817 on: July 06, 2016, 08:23:08 AM »
this is a good explanation steve.  i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other.

frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors.  i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy.

as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce.  i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better.   see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency

on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen.  i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens.

I've met Comey before in person, and I don't think that he made this as a political calculation of any sort. Regardless, I agree w/ steve that extremely careless probably doesn't seem to rise to the level of gross negligence, but I can see why people would think it might.

merkhet

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2984
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3818 on: July 06, 2016, 08:25:19 AM »
I also find it weird that the DE court is making no progress at this moment. Six weeks have passed and the DE court is not doing anything after knowing the MDL decision. I wonder if this is an implication that the judge there is in the deferential camp like Lamberth.

I have made inquiries on this, and it seems like Sleet is slammed on his docket.

I am more wondering about Sweeney's court at the moment. She has had the motion to compel on her desk for a while now. I would love to see some more documents come through.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #3819 on: July 06, 2016, 09:10:11 AM »
this is a good explanation steve.  i have heard the argument that gross negligence is tantamount to intentional, but i happen to think that where you have two statutory provisions, one based on intent and one based on gross negligence, then you dont judge the one with the standard of the other.

frankly, i just believe comey is an establishment republican. and was of no mind to do trump any favors.  i think comey will have plenty of 'splaining to do before congress, but he is a big boy.

as for parallels to GSEs, on one level, there is the notion that the rule of law is no longer "cool" to enforce.  i wont go further because that will get me into a spiel that epstein does better.   see http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency

on another essentially irrational level, it is an omen.  i believe I have just enough faith in the judicial system to reject the portion of my irrational self that attributes meaning to omens.

I've met Comey before in person, and I don't think that he made this as a political calculation of any sort. Regardless, I agree w/ steve that extremely careless probably doesn't seem to rise to the level of gross negligence, but I can see why people would think it might.

last bit on comey/HRC, i promise.  greenwald gets it right re double standard:  https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/