How We Got Here, and Why We’re Not Getting Out, in One Paragraph
The NYT pretends that the Cuomo/Rattner battle is about personalities, but briefly let’s the mask slip:
Neither side seems willing to budge, each insisting he is the wronged party: the attorney general feels deceived and affronted, and the Wall Street money manager feels persecuted for conduct he views as standard business practice.
“‘Feels’ deceived and affronted” is Newspeak for:
The notes reveal a previously undisclosed 2007 meeting in which Mr. Rattner first provided his account to Mr. Cuomo’s investigators about how his private equity firm, Quadrangle Group, had obtained a $150 million investment from the pension fund. That account, investigators said, was later undercut by Mr. Rattner’s own e-mails, enraging Mr. Cuomo, who had extended Mr. Rattner deference and immunity from criminal prosecution.
Just hurt feelings; nothing to do with reality.
well, standard business practice is ‘whatever you can get away with’ and lying to the regulator is generally expected. the regulator is supposed to know you are lying but lets it go in the interests of the economy.
on the other hand, i deal a lot these days with farmers and builders and they are genuinely angry about regulations. i think their anger is ill founded, but the bureaucrats need to do a lot better job explaining why the regulations are needed, and being as nice, and reasonable, as they can to these guys.
as for the NYT, you have to understand that the news is “what they say” not what the facts are.
Rattner and co-conspirators need to be prosecuted.
Any NYS employee involved in wrongfiully granting immunity was guilty of honest services fraud and should also be prosecuted under federal racketeering laws.
That might include Cuomo.
I think people are reading a bit much into this. While I don’t know much about the case, I do think certain people need to view both sides a little more critically here. I do not think that lying to government officials outside of sworn testimony should be against the law. It’s too easy for prosecutors to crush people when they may have been merely wrong, misguided or mistaken. Does that leave a hole for less than ethical people to drive a truck through? Yes. So what?
Interesting that while the article mentions early on that Cuomo wants to nail perjury charges on this guy, but saves it until near the end to mention that the first interview with Rattner wasn’t under oath. It doesn’t tell us when questioning did happen under oath.
Also, there was apparently cooperation from Rattner and his lawyers with the SEC investigation right from the start. Why would Rattner cooperate with the SEC and not with Cuomo? They both can take pretty big chunks from his backside. Cooperation would be, as is usually the case, beneficial to Rattner. I think Rattner gave Cuomo’s office exactly what they asked for and no more. There’s no law against that. Maybe Cuomo is upset because he got played for a fool. Maybe that’s because he is one.
I’m not defending Rattner. I’d like to see him fried. But I think articles about ongoing investigations need to be taken with more than just one or two grains of salt. Whether the prosecutor is named Cuomo or Starr or whoever, news stories like this often become buckets filled with half truths that investigators use to muscle copperation from the investigated. A little more scepticism is needed.
It’s a disgreace that this guy, even with an investigation like this going on, was still appointed to be our “car czar”. Kind of makes you wonder who’s making personnel decisions in the WH.